Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

cld531c

larkim wrote:

or there is a transient physiological reason for this having happened. For all we know, this could have happened to Froome several times already in his career, and been resolved due to medical evidence, for example.

If that were would he need to keep proving the same thing or is it not more likely this would have been opened and closed almost immediately, the evidence that he processes ligitmate amounts differently having already been proven?

Matthewfalle

NorvernRob wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

it ends at people sticking to the rules with no random jiffy bags, dodgy dealings or any of the such like.

unfortubately in this case none of the above was adhered to.

Where were the random Jiffy bags and dodgy dealings in this case? Are you just blending every Sky story/non-story together to come to the conclusion that Froome is a cheat, because he may or may not have taken too much asthma medication (and if he had, it would 100% result in an adverse reading).

It’s like people have been so desperately searching and waiting for a Sky ‘smoking gun’ that they’ll make up their own details and cling to anything whatsoever.

Do you not think it would be incredibly idiotic for a race leader, who is 100% going to get tested, to take so much medication that he’s definitely going to flag up a reading?

That’s the part nobody shouting ‘cheat’ seems to be able to provide a reasonable explanation for.

Err - no. Its just a holistic view of why people are so tired if all the cheating and don't trust anyone any more. Why is the jiffy nag a non story? If anything its a major story to show how bloody disorganised they are and either massively incompetent that they don't know what's being delivered around in their name or massively dishonest.

No one seriously believes that SKY and those associated with SKY/BC are 100% clean and the fact they keep on cropping up again and again with dodgy stuff going down just fuels the fire.

Yes its going to be stupid for a race leader to push it but how many have in the past and been busted.

Its still frankly amazing how people are still believing this is so clear cut because its SKY/Froome.

Pross

Did I miss something in that test quoted above giving the details of the amount used? There are several mentions of 'large quantities' and whilst it says what the maximum levels are I couldn't see anything suggesting the tests were based on that level. Also, why do some hold it to have more credence than the other tests and papers that suggest there is no benefit?

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The problem is that none of the explanations - from any perspective - make much sense.

You don't buy the Illegal use of the nebuliser theory?

It's one of the more credible ones.

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

Err - no. Its just a holistic view of why people are so tired if all the cheating and don't trust anyone any more. Why is the jiffy nag a non story? If anything its a major story to show how bloody disorganised they are and either massively incompetent that they don't know what's being delivered around in their name or massively dishonest.

No one seriously believes that SKY and those associated with SKY/BC are 100% clean and the fact they keep on cropping up again and again with dodgy stuff going down just fuels the fire.

Yes its going to be stupid for a race leader to push it but how many have in the past and been busted.

Its still frankly amazing how people are still believing this is so clear cut because its SKY/Froome.

We're only judging the matter at hand - the salbutamol test. You are trying to drag various other things in, which have nothing to with Froome, to bolster the case.

In the past few years we have had many confessionals from old dopers - several books full of them, the CIRC report, loads of old dopers keen to give interviews, shopping lists of drugs taken. And despite all this not one single person has ever claimed to have used salbutamol as part of a doping program.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Err - no. Its just a holistic view of why people are so tired if all the cheating and don't trust anyone any more. Why is the jiffy nag a non story? If anything its a major story to show how bloody disorganised they are and either massively incompetent that they don't know what's being delivered around in their name or massively dishonest.

No one seriously believes that SKY and those associated with SKY/BC are 100% clean and the fact they keep on cropping up again and again with dodgy stuff going down just fuels the fire.

Yes its going to be stupid for a race leader to push it but how many have in the past and been busted.

Its still frankly amazing how people are still believing this is so clear cut because its SKY/Froome.

We're only judging the matter at hand - the salbutamol test. You are trying to drag various other things in, which have nothing to with Froome, to bolster the case.

In the past few years we have had many confessionals from old dopers - several books full of them, the CIRC report, loads of old dopers keen to give interviews, shopping lists of drugs taken. And despite all this not one single person has ever claimed to have used salbutamol as part of a doping program.

Froome is part of SKY under SKY's management, training, medical, etc.

Its not trying to dr4ag other things in to bolster any case - its looking at the whole picture.

If its to do with SKY its to do with him and vice versa. He's their star man so like any star man in any sport/industry he'll be involved in strategic level meetings and will get tailor made for him.

It just seems that this bit of tailoring has unravelled.....
.

despite all this not one single person has ever claimed to have used salbutamol as part of a doping program.

Things develop and change over the years otherwise everyone would still be getting battered on amphetamines and brandy.

larkim

Matthewfalle wrote:

No one seriously believes that SKY and those associated with SKY/BC are 100% clean and the fact they keep on cropping up again and again with dodgy stuff going down just fuels the fire.

Er, I do! I don't believe they are as competent as they like to make out, and I don't believe they don't engage in legal grey area opportunities sometimes, but I do actually believe Sky / BC are 100% clean*. I may be in a naive minority, but I do genuinely believe that.

*And by "clean" I mean do not intentionally break anti-doping laws. It may yet turn out that Froome did take too high a dose of Salbutamol, but it would be my expectation that if that did turn out to be the case that it was unintentional. Just shows how naive my outlook is!

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

.

despite all this not one single person has ever claimed to have used salbutamol as part of a doping program.

Things develop and change over the years otherwise everyone would still be getting battered on amphetamines and brandy.

It's a drug everyone knows about and many have been using. If it was a good performance enhancer someone would have noticed by now.

smithy21

The ‘not performance enhancing so he wouldn’t have done it on purpose because he was guaranteed to be tested’ point may be correct but it doesn’t change anything. It’s an adverse finding which they are going to struggle to replicate.

Ulissi took a ban which may have been due to a similar set of circumstances. Froome has raced under these same rules for years and never made this ‘mistake’ until now. That’s what I find difficult to explain as I am sure he has been ill, dehydrated etc within that period also.

He would have been better off to take what is likely to be a small ban and get this out of the way.

larkim

Matthewfalle wrote:

It just seems that this bit of tailoring has unravelled.....
.

despite all this not one single person has ever claimed to have used salbutamol as part of a doping program.

Things develop and change over the years otherwise everyone would still be getting battered on amphetamines and brandy.

It just stretches credibility too far to suggest that a drug which is well established that he actually needs to use for a chronic treatable condition is also some sort of potent doping program which is so effective at making him the best GC rider in the world at the moment that absolutely no-one ever used it before, despite the drug's wide availability and long established use.

If there's doping in the modern peleton, it is sophisticated, very difficult to detect, and most likely utilised during training periods. In competition intentional use of a simple, detectable and questionably effective drug by a rider with the highest focus being paid to him is just so unlikely as to be laughable.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

.

despite all this not one single person has ever claimed to have used salbutamol as part of a doping program.

Things develop and change over the years otherwise everyone would still be getting battered on amphetamines and brandy.

It's a drug everyone knows about and many have been using. If it was a good performance enhancer someone would have noticed by now.

But they do and people have been busted for it before.

This is the problem I have with the whole debate - other people get busted and they are cheats, they deserve it, etc. Froome gets busted and suddenly you have the Seven Nation Army up in arms defending him.

Busted like the others, do the time, get over it.

So, say he gets banned and stripped of the Vuelta - what then? The defenders raise a campaign to get him the Vuelta back? They say its a fix? They say that ok, he got busted, he may have cheated, may not, but was very much breaking the rules so fair play, banned and stripped is ok?

Intrigued.

blazing_saddles

So, from that study, unless one subscribes to the view that Salbutamol is just a minor component of a complex and otherwise unknown cocktail that makes up Froome and Sky's doping programme, we are left the theory of the one off, "big hit", benefit?
In other words, given the ease of detection, take a massive gamble over a theoretical and potentially small gain?
Marginally retarded, I'd say.

larkim

smithy21 wrote:

The ‘not performance enhancing so he wouldn’t have done it on purpose because he was guaranteed to be tested’ point may be correct but it doesn’t change anything. It’s an adverse finding which they are going to struggle to replicate.

This part may well be true. Though its conjecture that they are going to struggle to replicate it - it might actually be very trivial to replicate in Froome.

I 100% agree with a position which would say any rider who takes >1600mg in 24 hours has broken the doping code and should face the punishment. It's a hard and fast rule, its in the WADA Code, it's a doping violation, whether it was down to stupidity, carelessness or done deliberately.

But until we have any judgement on that (from a tribunal which, on the balance of probabilities or a higher test decides that the most likely statement of facts is that the proscribed dose was exceeded) all we have is a high urine concentration and an explicit process which says that high concentrations do not themselves represent a finding of fact that the proscribed levels were consumed - yes, of course they are an indicator, but it is a rebuttable position.

And in terms of the way that Froome is currently handling himself, it seems to me that he is confident that that rebuttal is easily made.

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

But they do and people have been busted for it before.

This is the problem I have with the whole debate - other people get busted and they are cheats, they deserve it, etc. Froome gets busted and suddenly you have the Seven Nation Army up in arms defending him.

Busted like the others, do the time, get over it.

So, say he gets banned and stripped of the Vuelta - what then? The defenders raise a campaign to get him the Vuelta back? They say its a fix? They say that ok, he got busted, he may have cheated, may not, but was very much breaking the rules so fair play, banned and stripped is ok?

Intrigued.

There's a difference between acknowledging that someone has transgressed the rules (and may be penalised) and thinking that it is 'cheating'. You seem unable to draw that distinction.

Matthewfalle

Errr - no.

Transgressed the rules is apologist for cheating. Sorry.

And remember, we're talking the Vuelta here being raced by the biggest teams in the sport with massive amounts of money, ego and whatever flying around. Rules just aren't "transgressed" at that level. They knew exactly what he was doing when he was doing it.

mamba80

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

So it suggests that it may have a effect for sprinters if taken in large amounts over a long period of time. A one-off dose is going do sod all for Froome except maybe help his cough.

Well it does say sprint ability, peak power, that's not just applicable to sprinters, and by acute dose I take it to mean a single dose not loaded over a number of days or weeks.

It's saying it's not EPO but there is some benefit from the dose they tested even as a one off.

So if Froome took a huge one off dose then it might have had an effect if he had to do sprint, but probably wouldn't, maybe saving him as much a second or two. And would certainly create a positive test if he was to be tested, which as race leader was certain.

As a doping strategy it's hopelessly inept. Akin to trying to lose weight by just eating chocolate.

The prob is you are then left with how come he had so much of the drug in his urine? and why so few inc him ever exceed the permitted dose.... must admit until i read the Swedish paper, i d given him the benefit of the doubt.

Its not about saving a few seconds on the line, its about being able to hold a wheel, lose one and it could be minutes lost, he was desperate to win the Vuelta and that may have been enough for him to take more than needed just to treat his asthma and rely on getting under the max dose or even bluff it out if caught, this scenario is dependent of course on sal being a PED.....

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

Errr - no.

Transgressed the rules is apologist for cheating. Sorry.

If a footballer is caught in an offside position he has transgressed the rules and a free kick is awarded. Is he a cheat?

No_Ta_Doctor

Blazing Saddles wrote:

So, from that study, unless one subscribes to the view that Salbutamol is just a minor component of a complex and otherwise unknown cocktail that makes up Froome and Sky's doping programme, we are left the theory of the one off, "big hit", benefit?
In other words, given the ease of detection, take a massive gamble over a theoretical and potentially small gain?
Marginally retarded, I'd say.

I couldn't find the study referred to on the Swedish site, which seemed to be presented as being new research. Vibecke Backer's page at Copenhagen University doesn't list anything later than 2016 re Salbutamol as a PED

http://research.ku.dk/search/?pure=en%2 ... 21659a1827)%2Fpublications.html

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Errr - no.

Transgressed the rules is apologist for cheating. Sorry.

If a footballer is caught in an offside position he has transgressed the rules and a free kick is awarded. Is he a cheat?

Yes. He has broken the rules.

Footballerist knocks the ball with his hand into the onion bag. Trangression of rules. Same same.

cycleclinic

As several people have been done before it is now difficult to argue the test be replaced. Also as these drugs bans do not go through the courts it is even harder to anything about it.

Part of the problem and this happened alot before is that courts are not used. Therefore hearings are to a different evidence standard. If this got to court the outcome could be different as it stands though froome is guilty even though he is not.

If doping was a criminal offence then courts would have to be involved and the tests would have to be water tight. Much of the doping system may fall apart under that scrutiny as it full of holes.

Maybe we also need to accept the fact people take things enhance performance all the time whether it has an effect or not. No one knows what froome motives where but it is not his motives that matter. It is whether there is a advantage in taking the substance and the evidence is weak at best and not conclusive in a court of law that would not be enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt and that should hold in doping cases with the various bodies but it does not.

RichN95.

mamba80 wrote:

Its not about saving a few seconds on the line, its about being able to hold a wheel, lose one and it could be minutes lost, he was desperate to win the Vuelta and that may have been enough for him to take more than needed just to treat his asthma and rely on getting under the max dose or even bluff it out if caught, this scenario is dependent of course on sal being a PED.....

Have you even watched Froome in the Vuelta - any of the past four Vueltas? He's never been bothered by holding other riders' wheels when they attack. Not following them is almost his trademark style.

Matthewfalle

mamba80 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

So it suggests that it may have a effect for sprinters if taken in large amounts over a long period of time. A one-off dose is going do sod all for Froome except maybe help his cough.

Well it does say sprint ability, peak power, that's not just applicable to sprinters, and by acute dose I take it to mean a single dose not loaded over a number of days or weeks.

It's saying it's not EPO but there is some benefit from the dose they tested even as a one off.

So if Froome took a huge one off dose then it might have had an effect if he had to do sprint, but probably wouldn't, maybe saving him as much a second or two. And would certainly create a positive test if he was to be tested, which as race leader was certain.

As a doping strategy it's hopelessly inept. Akin to trying to lose weight by just eating chocolate.

The prob is you are then left with how come he had so much of the drug in his urine? and why so few inc him ever exceed the permitted dose.... must admit until i read the Swedish paper, i d given him the benefit of the doubt.

Its not about saving a few seconds on the line, its about being able to hold a wheel, lose one and it could be minutes lost, he was desperate to win the Vuelta and that may have been enough for him to take more than needed just to treat his asthma and rely on getting under the max dose or even bluff it out if caught, this scenario is dependent of course on sal being a PED.....

Same principle as when Landis was busted - soooo desperate to win,. pro sportsman's mentality, down in the dumps from a bad day - who cares, just do it. Not thinking straight, team pressure to win the Vuelta (or whatever), stuff going on behind the scenes.......

We've all done stuff when down in the dumps that in hindsight was very silly.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Its not about saving a few seconds on the line, its about being able to hold a wheel, lose one and it could be minutes lost, he was desperate to win the Vuelta and that may have been enough for him to take more than needed just to treat his asthma and rely on getting under the max dose or even bluff it out if caught, this scenario is dependent of course on sal being a PED.....

Have you even watched Froome in the Vuelta - any of the past four Vueltas? He's never been bothered by holding other riders' wheels when they attack. Not following them is almost his trademark style.

However, this time being so desperate to win he changed his style, found he was lacking, needed an oomph and ........boom. Busted.

Matthewfalle

Another quick aside- is anyone on this thread actually a respiratory specialist or work in a clinical setting in ENT?

larkim

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Errr - no.

Transgressed the rules is apologist for cheating. Sorry.

If a footballer is caught in an offside position he has transgressed the rules and a free kick is awarded. Is he a cheat?

Yes. He has broken the rules.

Footballerist knocks the ball with his hand into the onion bag. Trangression of rules. Same same.

Offside a bad example as it can be intentional or not intentional - sometimes a player is deliberately offside (attempting to cheat) and sometimes they are caught offside through skill by the opposition, or lack of skill by the player / team (not cheating).

The word "cheat" implies some sort of intention and dishonesty. In terms of anti-doping violations, there is no requirement to prove intention - in general it is strict liability, so barring a completely ludicrous situation (e.g. spiked drink) where it can proven there athlete is utterly without fault, whether you take a drug to cheat or not is irrelevant.

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

Errr - no.

Transgressed the rules is apologist for cheating. Sorry.

And remember, we're talking the Vuelta here being raced by the biggest teams in the sport with massive amounts of money, ego and whatever flying around. Rules just aren't "transgressed" at that level. They knew exactly what he was doing when he was doing it.

So accordingly, they also must have known he was going to "glow" if he was tested and they knew he was going to be tested......

No_Ta_Doctor

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Errr - no.

Transgressed the rules is apologist for cheating. Sorry.

If a footballer is caught in an offside position he has transgressed the rules and a free kick is awarded. Is he a cheat?

Yes. He has broken the rules.

Footballerist knocks the ball with his hand into the onion bag. Trangression of rules. Same same.

Did you manage to keep a straight face when you typed that?

cld531c

Matthewfalle wrote:

Another quick aside- is anyone on this thread actually a respiratory specialist or work in a clinical setting in ENT?

No, but we can all pretend :-)

timothyw

This gear is all a waste of time anyway. Anyone else remember this entirely compelling research?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... sts-claim/

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

Same principle as when Landis was busted - soooo desperate to win,. pro sportsman's mentality, down in the dumps from a bad day - who cares, just do it. Not thinking straight, team pressure to win the Vuelta (or whatever), stuff going on behind the scenes.......

We've all done stuff when down in the dumps that in hindsight was very silly.

Landis had lost 8 minutes, the lead and was trailing by eight minutes. He was also chock full of drugs anyway. And he opted for the doping staple testosterone.

Froome lost 42 seconds and still lead by 1.16. He could afford another day just like that one. And he, according to you, opted for a hitherto unheralded asthma drug to boost his performance (rather than using it to try to treat the illness everyone could see he had)

If I'm down in the dumps I get a little drunk. I use vodka or wine to do this, I don't do it by eating tiramisu.