Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

gsk82

If he self suspended would that have been made public at the time?

Jez mon

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

this is just an asthma inhaler

Thats laughable to believe that.

So what is it then? Is there some fanciful theory where froome is using it as an anabolic steroid during the off season, then micro dosing with contaminated blood during the grand tours, and has run foul...

Or does the world's biggest cycling team think that taking salbutamol might offer a marginal gain...

bobmcstuff

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

this is just an asthma inhaler

Thats laughable to believe that.

Can you please enlighten me as to what I'm supposed to be believing.

Thanks.

DeVlaeminck

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'm assuming any ban will be backdated to the offence. If he is found guilty then he's lost the Vuelta anyway and right now even a 6 month ban would probably wipe out the Tour, that's not in Froome or the UCIs interests and for what will be presented as a probably accidental offence would be a bit draconian.

A six months ban from the date of the offence would expire on 7 March. He could ride Tirreno-Adratico (which starts that day).

Except a 6 month ban didn't start on the date of the offence. He was still racing at the worlds.

Backdated so he'd lose the Worlds medal, happened before in cycling.

DeVlaeminck

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

this is just an asthma inhaler

Thats laughable to believe that.

Bit strong. I take it you believe it was taken orally? The question then would be is being popped for that amount mid Vuelta really a likely explanation ?

gsk82

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'm assuming any ban will be backdated to the offence. If he is found guilty then he's lost the Vuelta anyway and right now even a 6 month ban would probably wipe out the Tour, that's not in Froome or the UCIs interests and for what will be presented as a probably accidental offence would be a bit draconian.

A six months ban from the date of the offence would expire on 7 March. He could ride Tirreno-Adratico (which starts that day).

Except a 6 month ban didn't start on the date of the offence. He was still racing at the worlds.

Backdated so he'd lose the Worlds medal, happened before in cycling.

I've seen it mentioned somewhere that only the vuelta result would be forfeited. The ban wouldn't be backdated, hence the reason he should have self suspended

smithy21

Ulissi’s was backdated wasn’t it. Did he not get an effective 3 month ban although it was nominally 9?

sloppyschleckonds

DeVlaeminck wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

this is just an asthma inhaler

Thats laughable to believe that.

Bit strong. I take it you believe it was taken orally? The question then would be is being popped for that amount mid Vuelta really a likely explanation ?

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

iainf72

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

But you're speculating. There is an indication that more than the allowed amount of salbutamol may have been inhaled.

Other than that, there isn't anymore.

Pross

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

this is just an asthma inhaler

Thats laughable to believe that.

Bit strong. I take it you believe it was taken orally? The question then would be is being popped for that amount mid Vuelta really a likely explanation ?

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

Show some courage of your convictions. If you think it wasn't just an asthma inhaler you must believe it was something else so share your theory or are you just trying to sound outspoken?

Pross

Reading that UCI summary it stated that sanction starts at a reprimand. Does that ever get used? Even in the cases where there seems to be near universal acceptance that rules were not deliberately broken I can only recall there being bans given out.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Reading that UCI summary it stated that sanction starts at a reprimand. Does that ever get used? Even in the cases where there seems to be near universal acceptance that rules were not deliberately broken I can only recall there being bans given out.

In football: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36404943

(although it's probably a moot point as that report notes he had a seriously broken leg - and still hasn't returned to first team football a year and half later)

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Reading that UCI summary it stated that sanction starts at a reprimand. Does that ever get used? Even in the cases where there seems to be near universal acceptance that rules were not deliberately broken I can only recall there being bans given out.

In football: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36404943

Was lower than froomes level though.

Plus in his hearing the player stated he may have taken 20-25 puffs of his inhaler in the 24hrs prior to the test.

Yet he still had a 20% lower salbutamol level than Froome.

pinno

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

this is just an asthma inhaler

Thats laughable to believe that.

Bit strong. I take it you believe it was taken orally? The question then would be is being popped for that amount mid Vuelta really a likely explanation ?

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

Then prove that any other form of Salbutamol i'e intravenously and/or pill form has a performance enhancing effect in the face of medical evidence (referred to in previous posts) that it has very little improvement in performance.
Than also prove that the exceeded dose given some other way, would have given him some benefit.

tailwindhome

Pinno wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

this is just an asthma inhaler

Thats laughable to believe that.

Bit strong. I take it you believe it was taken orally? The question then would be is being popped for that amount mid Vuelta really a likely explanation ?

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

Then prove that any other form of Salbutamol i'e intravenously and/or pill form has a performance enhancing effect in the face of medical evidence (referred to in previous posts) that it has very little improvement in performance.
Than also prove that the exceeded dose given some other way, would have given him some benefit.

That's irrelevant.

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

But you're speculating. There is an indication that more than the allowed amount of salbutamol may have been inhaled.

Other than that, there isn't anymore.

Twice the allowed limit seems to be a lot

Why it's very nearly a armful

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

Plus in his hearing the player stated he may have taken 20-25 puffs of his inhaler in the 24hrs prior to the test.

He said it was probably a lot less though.

But that wasn't the question Pross asked was it. He asked if anyone had just been reprimanded.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I'd still like to see clarification on the time scales of the process.

If the rider elects to delay submitting a defence and keep riding, what happens?

You won't get to see anything.

If I was in charge of the whole thing, this is what would do.

At the time of the B sample CADF agree with Sky a date by which Sky have to make submissions before further CADF take action (let's say 1 March - it will be before any major race Froome plans to enter)

Froome quietly informs the UCI that he is self-suspending himself until that date (he's not racing anyway and it gets time in the bank). Self-suspensions do not require public disclosure.

On 1 March CADF decide if Sky's evidence is sufficient to drop the case, consultating with WADA. If it is they do so. If not they set a date for a hearing (in maybe a month or two) and formally suspend Froome.

If Sky/Froome want longer they can keep postponing but Froome can't ride. If the CADF more time to make a decision past 1 March, then fine but Froome can ride without fear of losing any result.


This would motivate both parties to get on with it, which is both of their interests. To save more time they could agree to take the initial hearing directly to CAS, which would prevent appeals. There's really no reason that this shouldn't be sorted out before the Giro.

That seems sensible enough
But we're agreed that the bit I've bolded doesn't exist in the current process and as it stands a stalemate is a possibility

pinno

TailWindHome wrote:

Pinno wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

this is just an asthma inhaler

Thats laughable to believe that.

Bit strong. I take it you believe it was taken orally? The question then would be is being popped for that amount mid Vuelta really a likely explanation ?

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

Then prove that any other form of Salbutamol i'e intravenously and/or pill form has a performance enhancing effect in the face of medical evidence (referred to in previous posts) that it has very little improvement in performance.
Than also prove that the exceeded dose given some other way, would have given him some benefit.

That's irrelevant.

Probably but the cynics have to back up their implications with fact.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

But you're speculating. There is an indication that more than the allowed amount of salbutamol may have been inhaled.

Other than that, there isn't anymore.

Twice the allowed limit seems to be a lot

Why it's very nearly a armful

It is. But there are clearly other factors which influence the detected amount. Notably when the does were taken and the hydrated state of the athlete.

It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to speculate that a dehydrated athlete having a few puffs on an inhaler while, at about the same time, rehydrating with the liquid that will make up a urine test less than an hour later may give off some abnormal results. Particularly if some of the spray is swallowed rather than inhaled. How abnormal though?

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

Plus in his hearing the player stated he may have taken 20-25 puffs of his inhaler in the 24hrs prior to the test.

He said it was probably a lot less though.

But he would wouldn't he?? He was trying to avoid a ban.

It is more alarming that even if he had taken half of that, say 12 puffs, he still had less in his blood than Froome.

I was in full defence of Froome but if he did have to take the salbutamol inhaler that many times he should have been in hospital. To me this is starting to smell a bit iffy...

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

But we're agreed that the bit I've bolded doesn't exist in the current process and as it stands a stalemate is a possibility

In theory. But I can't see a situation where CADF don't give Froome a deadline to come up with something to avoid a charge. After that they can charge him and provisionally suspend him

john1967

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

Plus in his hearing the player stated he may have taken 20-25 puffs of his inhaler in the 24hrs prior to the test.

He said it was probably a lot less though.

But he would wouldn't he?? He was trying to avoid a ban.

It is more alarming that even if he had taken half of that, say 12 puffs, he still had less in his blood than Froome.

I was in full defence of Froome but if he did have to take the salbutamol inhaler that many times he should have been in hospital. To me this is starting to smell a bit iffy...

Just out of interest, what do you mean by smelling iffy.

redvision

john1967 wrote:

Just out of interest, what do you mean by smelling iffy.

That there may be more to this than a simple overuse of an inhaler to treat asthma symptoms after that stage.

I hope not but something doesn't add up.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Just out of interest, what do you mean by smelling iffy.

That there may be more to this than a simple overuse of an inhaler to treat asthma symptoms after that stage.

I hope not but something doesn't add up.

The problem is none of the scenarios, good or bad, that people have suggested make sense.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Just out of interest, what do you mean by smelling iffy.

That there may be more to this than a simple overuse of an inhaler to treat asthma symptoms after that stage.

I hope not but something doesn't add up.

The problem is none of the scenarios, good or bad, that people have suggested make sense.

That's true.
One thing I think is certain is that despite his claims, this will tarnish his legacy.
If he is cleared doubters will claim cover up.
If he's banned then assumptions will be made over his tour victories.

smithy21

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

I dont believe it was "just an asthma inhaler". Others can speculate.

But you're speculating. There is an indication that more than the allowed amount of salbutamol may have been inhaled.

Other than that, there isn't anymore.

Twice the allowed limit seems to be a lot

Why it's very nearly a armful

It is. But there are clearly other factors which influence the detected amount. Notably when the does were taken and the hydrated state of the athlete.

It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to speculate that a dehydrated athlete having a few puffs on an inhaler while, at about the same time, rehydrating with the liquid that will make up a urine test less than an hour later may give off some abnormal results. Particularly if some of the spray is swallowed rather than inhaled. How abnormal though?

I would disagree with you there. Froome has been using his inhaler for years. He has finished some stages completely knackered, ill and probably dehydrated yet hasn’t triggered the threshold. Something doesn’t add up but I don’t think the dehydration argument makes sense. If it’s an accident there had to be something unique about that stage or circumstances to cause it.

RichN95.

smithy21 wrote:

I would disagree with you there. Froome has been using his inhaler for years. He has finished some stages completely knackered, ill and probably dehydrated yet hasn’t triggered the threshold. Something doesn’t add up but I don’t think the dehydration argument makes sense. If it’s an accident there had to be something unique about that stage or circumstances to cause it.

But he took more than usual. Three puffs after the stage. Who knows what earlier in the day. Does he usually have a puff between the stage end and testing?

phreak

Why would Froome ride the Giro if he had the Vuelta taken from him? The effect it would have on his Tour is only really sensible if he's going for holding all three. Without the Vuelta that becomes irrelevant so I'd imagine he would skip it and go straight for 5 tour wins.

smithy21

RichN95 wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

I would disagree with you there. Froome has been using his inhaler for years. He has finished some stages completely knackered, ill and probably dehydrated yet hasn’t triggered the threshold. Something doesn’t add up but I don’t think the dehydration argument makes sense. If it’s an accident there had to be something unique about that stage or circumstances to cause it.

But he took more than usual. Three puffs after the stage. Who knows what earlier in the day. Does he usually have a puff between the stage end and testing?

I don’t know but if it was as simple as three puffs post stage then I would have thought that would be pretty easy to replicate in a test. Just makes me think there is more to it than that.

Just throw the doctor under the bus, take a short backdated ban and get back to racing again.