Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem
Comments
-
I’ve just voted for the dawg.0
-
DeVlaeminck wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:inseine wrote:What if SKY assume that (for the sake of argument) 8 puffs gets you to the limit but Froome normally only takes 4 and unknown to him that already takes him close to the threshold because of his metabolism (or any number of other outside forces). The testers just say he's ok, and don't tell him he's close. Then on this day he does the full 8, plus he's dehydrated etc and bingo he's popped.
Why should they tell him he’s close. That’s not their job.
Interesting point, does anyone know if the detail is fed back to the teams?
If you were Sky's medical staff would you not ask for the results?
Given riders have received bans for excess salbutamol and claimed their levels came from legal inhaler use would you not expect Sky to at least be interested in the results? The entire team is built around one athlete you'd think a team like Sky would be on top of this. In fact if the problem was anything like as bad as needing multiple puffs would they not have him on medication to prevent inflammation of the airways in the first place?
It just seems not for the first time we are being asked to believe Sky are are bunch of incompetents when that narrative suits them.
well yeah but thats the narrative we were fed for the jiffy bag,so what do you believe, youd have thought a well funded team like them did their own testing anyway to get the optimum out of their riders as a marginal gain, but clearly not.
Im guessing the issue about them using preventer medication,rather than solely rely on the reliever, is then you are in the world of corticosteroids and other steroids which people get abit twitchy about using around cycling, and then they bring with them their own problems, as its constant use medication, its not stuff youd be alright just taking in the off season and stop during a GT, your symptoms return pretty promptly if you dont use them and then you are back in the reliever again.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:inseine wrote:Lowest ever vote for Froome on SPOTY? The Telegraph mention his current drug issues in their overview of the contenders. I think Johnny Peacock will take it
Joshua, surely.
Bit sad really, Hamilton wasnt questioned about his tax affairs, perhaps Froome should have pulled out? difficult one.
i voted for Bianca, anyone who says "i go out to kick their heads in" has personality by the spade
0 -
Always read the label.0
-
-
I think that was the only sentence that didn`t include "like"mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:inseine wrote:Lowest ever vote for Froome on SPOTY? The Telegraph mention his current drug issues in their overview of the contenders. I think Johnny Peacock will take it
Joshua, surely.
Bit sad really, Hamilton wasnt questioned about his tax affairs, perhaps Froome should have pulled out? difficult one.
i voted for Bianca, anyone who says "i go out to kick their heads in" has personality by the spade0 -
Hussain Farah won that not Mo."Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0
-
Apparently not. And Peacock 3rd (I was close)Joelsim wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:inseine wrote:Lowest ever vote for Froome on SPOTY? The Telegraph mention his current drug issues in their overview of the contenders. I think Johnny Peacock will take it
Joshua, surely.
Yep. A shoe-in.0 -
-
the SPOTY interview with him was a bit stilted...0
-
philbar72 wrote:the SPOTY interview with him was a bit stilted...
Wow, he was on stilts too! That’s even more amazing!0 -
philbar72 wrote:the SPOTY interview with him was a bit stilted...
That’s probably mostly down to the fact he’s not exactly the most charismatic of people.....Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Well that was less interesting, informed or enlightening than most of the comments on here. He doesn't trust Froome anymore, so what?Bakunin wrote:0 -
inseine wrote:
Well that was less interesting, informed or enlightening than most of the comments on here. He doesn't trust Froome anymore, so what?Bakunin wrote:
So it got his name back in the cycling news."Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
joe2008 wrote:
Maybe your comments. I know for a fact that people have joined BR just to read my prose.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Trivial poursuivant wrote:philbar72 wrote:the SPOTY interview with him was a bit stilted...
Wow, he was on stilts too! That’s even more amazing!
That's the drugs.
Slowmart wrote:Kin Elle Dave, I'm seeing a dancing dolphin, are you sure whatever you gave me is covered by a TUE?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
RichN95 wrote:
I suggest you look up what Public Interest means in a legal sense. It doesn't mean 'of interest to some of the public'. It relates to welfare and well-being of the public as a general whole and this is not threatened by the results of a bike race.Vino'sGhost wrote:RichN95 wrote:
No I sound like someone who actually has to deal with legal matters and confidentiality and take them seriously.Lookyhere wrote:
You sound like a LA fan from a few years ago like i was!
Confidentiality is one thing but he is a high profile cyclist who has taken a moral stance on doping, he has a returned a suspect sample and has had 2 months to dispel concerns over this, so far he has not, he s been allowed to compete and win a bronze at the Worlds.
I think we ve a right to know about this and for it not to be swept under the carpet.
Laws are written to protect the interests of the innocent (and everyone is innocent until found guilty by due process). Laws are not written to satisfy your nosiness.
More crap from Rich. Public interest?
Spouting off like an expert doesn’t make you one Rich. Even on the internet.
Well, like I said earlier, spouting off as if you're an authority does not make Rich one. As you've adequately demonstrated.0 -
I don't have to be an authority, I just have to be more informed than you. And that's really quite easy.Vino'sGhost wrote:
Well, like I said earlier, spouting off as if you're an authority does not make Rich one. As you've adequately demonstrated.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:RichN95 wrote:
I suggest you look up what Public Interest means in a legal sense. It doesn't mean 'of interest to some of the public'. It relates to welfare and well-being of the public as a general whole and this is not threatened by the results of a bike race.Vino'sGhost wrote:RichN95 wrote:
No I sound like someone who actually has to deal with legal matters and confidentiality and take them seriously.Lookyhere wrote:
You sound like a LA fan from a few years ago like i was!
Confidentiality is one thing but he is a high profile cyclist who has taken a moral stance on doping, he has a returned a suspect sample and has had 2 months to dispel concerns over this, so far he has not, he s been allowed to compete and win a bronze at the Worlds.
I think we ve a right to know about this and for it not to be swept under the carpet.
Laws are written to protect the interests of the innocent (and everyone is innocent until found guilty by due process). Laws are not written to satisfy your nosiness.
More crap from Rich. Public interest?
Spouting off like an expert doesn’t make you one Rich. Even on the internet.
Well, like I said earlier, spouting off as if you're an authority does not make Rich one. As you've adequately demonstrated.
Why? Why do we haver the right to know?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
of course we have a right to know. Public money is spent on BC to win medals one of those medals has been won by someone with a cloud hanging over his head.
If that were the only thing it might justify keeping it private. BUT its not, the whole jiffy bag, bullying debacle, questionable TUEs and misdelivered drugs whiffs. OK some people like the smell but that there is a smell is undeniable by anyone other than the deluded or dim.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
I don't have to be an authority, I just have to be more informed than you. And that's really quite easy.Vino'sGhost wrote:
Well, like I said earlier, spouting off as if you're an authority does not make Rich one. As you've adequately demonstrated.
I shan't argue with an idiot, there's not much point0 -
You should try. You might have a half a chance of getting the better of him.Vino'sGhost wrote:I shan't argue with an idiot, there's not much pointTwitter: @RichN950 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:of course we have a right to know. Public money is spent on BC to win medals one of those medals has been won by someone with a cloud hanging over his head.
If that were the only thing it might justify keeping it private. BUT its not, the whole jiffy bag, bullying debacle, questionable TUEs and misdelivered drugs whiffs. OK some people like the smell but that there is a smell is undeniable by anyone other than the deluded or dim.
If you understood the process you would understand that at this stage the public don't have the right to know.
Should you have been informed after the A sample?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:of course we have a right to know. Public money is spent on BC to win medals one of those medals has been won by someone with a cloud hanging over his head.
If that were the only thing it might justify keeping it private. BUT its not, the whole jiffy bag, bullying debacle, questionable TUEs and misdelivered drugs whiffs. OK some people like the smell but that there is a smell is undeniable by anyone other than the deluded or dim.
If you understood the process you would understand that at this stage the public don't have the right to know.
Should you have been informed after the A sample?
I understand the process. The question was around public interest.0 -
...“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
-
-
Have a read about what 'Public Interest' actually means (a couple of articles amongst many):Vino'sGhost wrote:I understand the process. The question was around public interest.
https://inforrm.org/2011/10/08/is-there ... -cathcart/
https://labourlist.org/2011/05/public-i ... teresting/Twitter: @RichN950
