Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

rick_chasey

Anyone any closer to working out if a ban will happen?

Matthewfalle

As an aside, does anyone think that at sometime or other Brailsford that Aussie bloke turned around to each other and said “errr, Froome and that inhaler - any chance of getting a marginal gain out of it”?

iainf72

I think it would be interesting to examine how many elite endurance athletes suffer from asthma. I bet it's way higher than the population as a whole.

And I suspect if there is probably a physiological reason why people with who have the physical attributes to perform at top level are more prone to asthma. I've mentioned before reading an article in a magazine in 89 or 90 about pro-cyclists as asthma.

inseine

iainf72 wrote:

I think it would be interesting to examine how many elite endurance athletes suffer from asthma. I bet it's way higher than the population as a whole.

And I suspect if there is probably a physiological reason why people with who have the physical attributes to perform at top level are more prone to asthma. I've mentioned before reading an article in a magazine in 89 or 90 about pro-cyclists as asthma.

I heard somewhere that 9% of the population have asthma, but 21% of athletes (can't remember if it was specifically cyclists). The point is that they have sports induced asthma, they are not good because that have asthma. It's the extreme cardio activity that stimulates it.

tim000

I would think more than 9% would have asthma if they did some exercise .

No_Ta_Doctor

inseine wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I think it would be interesting to examine how many elite endurance athletes suffer from asthma. I bet it's way higher than the population as a whole.

And I suspect if there is probably a physiological reason why people with who have the physical attributes to perform at top level are more prone to asthma. I've mentioned before reading an article in a magazine in 89 or 90 about pro-cyclists as asthma.

I heard somewhere that 9% of the population have asthma, but 21% of athletes (can't remember if it was specifically cyclists). The point is that they have sports induced asthma, they are not good because that have asthma. It's the extreme cardio activity that stimulates it.

While I can't remember the numbers, I think the general gist was that cyclists and swimmers were particularly susceptible to exercise induced asthma. They have to satisfy extreme aerobic requirements in sub-optimal atmospheres (chlorine smelling pools on the one hand, car exhaust and cold air on the other).

redvision

No tA Doctor wrote:

While I can't remember the numbers, I think the general gist was that cyclists and swimmers were particularly susceptible to exercise induced asthma. They have to satisfy extreme aerobic requirements in sub-optimal atmospheres (chlorine smelling pools on the one hand, car exhaust and cold air on the other).

Actually, according to Sustrans and British Cycling, research shows that more exhaust fumes are actually inhaled inside a car than outside. That's one of the arguments for encouraging more children to cycle/walk to school.

sloppyschleckonds

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

While I can't remember the numbers, I think the general gist was that cyclists and swimmers were particularly susceptible to exercise induced asthma. They have to satisfy extreme aerobic requirements in sub-optimal atmospheres (chlorine smelling pools on the one hand, car exhaust and cold air on the other).

Actually, according to Sustrans and British Cycling, research shows that more exhaust fumes are actually inhaled inside a car than outside. That's one of the arguments for encouraging more children to cycle/walk to school.

Don't let facts cloud an opinion.

Lanterne_Rogue

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

While I can't remember the numbers, I think the general gist was that cyclists and swimmers were particularly susceptible to exercise induced asthma. They have to satisfy extreme aerobic requirements in sub-optimal atmospheres (chlorine smelling pools on the one hand, car exhaust and cold air on the other).

Actually, according to Sustrans and British Cycling, research shows that more exhaust fumes are actually inhaled inside a car than outside. That's one of the arguments for encouraging more children to cycle/walk to school.

Hard to see what you could be doing inside a car that would result in extreme aerobic requirements though.

At least in traffic...

redvision

underlayunderlay wrote:

Hard to see what you could be doing inside a car that would result in extreme aerobic requirements though.

At least in traffic...

Not really when you think about it. Fumes dissipate outdoors whereas in a car they just recirculate.

Pross

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

While I can't remember the numbers, I think the general gist was that cyclists and swimmers were particularly susceptible to exercise induced asthma. They have to satisfy extreme aerobic requirements in sub-optimal atmospheres (chlorine smelling pools on the one hand, car exhaust and cold air on the other).

Actually, according to Sustrans and British Cycling, research shows that more exhaust fumes are actually inhaled inside a car than outside. That's one of the arguments for encouraging more children to cycle/walk to school.

Don't let facts cloud an opinion.

Weird statement considering your assertions up thread

bobmcstuff

Apparently Ulissi's lawyer reckons Froome could be in for a longer ban because he's trying to argue he didn't take over the limit, whereas Ulissi basically owned up to accidentally taking too much inhaler and got a short ban. http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/ul ... an_453938/

Also says they did the pharmcokinetic study but couldn't recreate the levels, be interesting to see if Froome does any better on that. Guessing Sky have more cash to throw at it.

Mad_Malx

bobmcstuff wrote:

Apparently Ulissi's lawyer reckons Froome could be in for a longer ban because he's trying to argue he didn't take over the limit, whereas Ulissi basically owned up to accidentally taking too much inhaler and got a short ban. http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/ul ... an_453938/

Also says they did the pharmcokinetic study but couldn't recreate the levels, be interesting to see if Froome does any better on that. Guessing Sky have more cash to throw at it.

That’s interesting. So Ulissi started off in the same place, but once they realised they couldn’t produce the PK evidence he put his hands up. I’m not convinced by the article’s claim that Sky are using a different defence. They are either still trying to do the PK (but will go for the ‘honest mistake’ defence if they fail) or have reproduced it and are just awaiting the judgement - hence the Giro announcement.

DeVlaeminck

Thought occurred to me earlier that the Giro announcement might have been a way of preempting people saying a 9 month ban backdated wouldn't take any key races he planned to do anyway - probably way too cynical.

No_Ta_Doctor

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

While I can't remember the numbers, I think the general gist was that cyclists and swimmers were particularly susceptible to exercise induced asthma. They have to satisfy extreme aerobic requirements in sub-optimal atmospheres (chlorine smelling pools on the one hand, car exhaust and cold air on the other).

Actually, according to Sustrans and British Cycling, research shows that more exhaust fumes are actually inhaled inside a car than outside. That's one of the arguments for encouraging more children to cycle/walk to school.

Interesting. Though I think the stuff about massive aerobic exertion probably plays a part in this context ;-)

ademort

Surely from Team SKY and Froomes point of view it,s in there best interest to get this sorted and put behind them sooner rather than later.Leaving it till the start of next season will only cast more doubt on SKY and there explaination as to the abnormal values supplied by Froome.

RichN95.

ademort wrote:

Surely from Team SKY and Froomes point of view it,s in there best interest to get this sorted and put behind them sooner rather than later.Leaving it till the start of next season will only cast more doubt on SKY and there explaination as to the abnormal values supplied by Froome.

Whatever they are doing, it will be done quietly and they will want absolutely nothing in the public domain. The next we will hear will be the case either being dropped or referred to a formal hearing.

ben@31

underlayunderlay wrote:

redvision wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

While I can't remember the numbers, I think the general gist was that cyclists and swimmers were particularly susceptible to exercise induced asthma. They have to satisfy extreme aerobic requirements in sub-optimal atmospheres (chlorine smelling pools on the one hand, car exhaust and cold air on the other).

Actually, according to Sustrans and British Cycling, research shows that more exhaust fumes are actually inhaled inside a car than outside. That's one of the arguments for encouraging more children to cycle/walk to school.

Hard to see what you could be doing inside a car that would result in extreme aerobic requirements though.

At least in traffic...

In my worthless opinion. I can imagine a sedate Joe Public spends a lot of their time stuck in rush hour traffic breathing in the fumes, as he's stuck in a traffic jam every single day, inches from the car in front. But I can't imagine a professional cyclist spending much time sat in traffic, in your quote "sub-optimal atmosphere", when these competitive cyclists get the opportunity to train in some of the best cycling locations in the World, far removed from urban environments and free from traffic.
I get the increased respiratory rate, but I don't buy into the air pollution excuse.

Bo Duke

I reckon UCI don't want anything in public either! Sky have taken cycling to the next level of professionalism, performance and have returned cycling to a high profile global sport, the last thing they want is to shit on their own doorstep and proclaim its all been a fraud!

Matthewfalle

Bo Duke wrote:

I reckon UCI don't want anything in public either! Sky have taken cycling to the next level of professionalism, performance and have returned cycling to a high profile global sport, the last thing they want is to shoot on their own doorstep and proclaim its all been a fraud!

I reckon you are right to a pretty large extent.....

mamba80

Bo Duke wrote:

I reckon UCI don't want anything in public either! Sky have taken cycling to the next level of professionalism, performance and have returned cycling to a high profile global sport, the last thing they want is to shoot on their own doorstep and proclaim its all been a fraud!

Froome hasnt been found with a case full of EPO and HGH.... assume he hasnt found some secret performance gain or masking agent in Salbutomol, then all he/SKY is guilty of is a simple (but costly) mistake.

redvision

Bo Duke wrote:

I reckon UCI don't want anything in public either! Sky have taken cycling to the next level of professionalism, performance and have returned cycling to a high profile global sport, the last thing they want is to shoot on their own doorstep and proclaim its all been a fraud!

Perhaps. But if there is more to this than Froome being so unwell he had to take the high volume of salbutamol, imagine what an image boost it would be for Lappartient - at the start of his tenure.

Politics will inevitably play a part. I just hope the outcome is fully transparent.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

I reckon UCI don't want anything in public either! Sky have taken cycling to the next level of professionalism, performance and have returned cycling to a high profile global sport, the last thing they want is to shoot on their own doorstep and proclaim its all been a fraud!

Perhaps. But if there is more to this than Froome being so unwell he had to take the high volume of salbutamol, imagine what an image boost it would be for Lappartient - at the start of his tenure.

Politics will inevitably play a part. I just hope the outcome is fully transparent.

And imagine him getting the UCI involved in a long drawn out expensive legal battle. Especially as anti-doping is supposed to be independent of the UCI.
If there’s one thing we know about Lappartient it’s that he doesn’t get involved unless he’s near certain of winning.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

If there’s one thing we know about Lappartient it’s that he doesn’t get involved unless he’s near certain of winning.

Well if this is true his public comments on mechanical doping must mean the rumours of the top teams using motors must be accurate... :?

Matthewfalle

mamba80 wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

I reckon UCI don't want anything in public either! Sky have taken cycling to the next level of professionalism, performance and have returned cycling to a high profile global sport, the last thing they want is to shoot on their own doorstep and proclaim its all been a fraud!

Froome hasnt been found with a case full of EPO and HGH.... assume he hasnt found some secret performance gain or masking agent in Salbutomol, then all he/SKY is guilty of is a simple (but costly) mistake.

Or perhaps that’s what they want you to believe....

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

If there’s one thing we know about Lappartient it’s that he doesn’t get involved unless he’s near certain of winning.

Well if this is true his public comments on mechanical doping must mean the rumours of the top teams using motors must be accurate... :?

Not at all. It's easy to win a fight against the scourge of motors if there aren't any motors. It's about as easy win as me pledging to rid Cardiff of wild bears. Fixing an imaginary problem is the easiest win a politician can get.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

Not at all. It's easy to win a fight against the scourge of motors if there aren't any motors. It's about as easy win as me pledging to rid Cardiff of wild bears. Fixing an imaginary problem is the easiest win a politician can get.

You know for certain the rumours of mechanical doping are an imaginary problem????
Anyway there is a thread for that so back on Froome, it's no secret that outside of the UK there is much resentment and suspicion about team sky and their practices. Just imagine the pr he would get if they were found to be exploiting the doping regs during his tenure as UCI president.

As I said in an earlier post, I fear if his salbutamol level was an accident Froome will suffer as a result of the suspicions around the team, and receive a ban.

bobmcstuff

redvision wrote:

As I said in an earlier post, I fear if his salbutamol level was an accident Froome will suffer as a result of the suspicions around the team, and receive a ban.

If he has taken too much salbutamol by accident then he should receive a ban regardless of the suspicion around the team.

Them's the rules. And that's what has been applied in other cases.

Mad_Malx

redvision wrote:

As I said in an earlier post, I fear if his salbutamol level was an accident Froome will suffer as a result of the suspicions around the team, and receive a ban.

If it's a result of an accident then he is looking at a ban regardless of what anyone thinks about Sky.

redvision

bobmcstuff wrote:

If he has taken too much salbutamol by accident then he should receive a ban regardless of the suspicion around the team.

Them's the rules. And that's what has been applied in other cases.

True. But the length should determined on the individual case whereas I wouldn't be surprised if he received a longer ban (if that is what he gets) because he rides for team sky.