Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

RichN95.

TimothyW wrote:

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/

People (not you, I know) always like to quote a single report as though it is somehow proof. We always bear in mind the chart below which shows a summary of studies into whether various foods cause or prevent cancer



Science comes from concensus, never from single studies.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

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.

Still doesn’t make him any less culpable for being a heat in the eyes of the rules. Perhaps he felt that he couldn’t afford another day like that?

Still very very fishy in the eyes of the holistic viewpoint re SKY and everything that they have touched recently.

larkim

It would be cheating, undoubtedly, if he did what you suggest - ingest more than the allowable dose, intentionally with a view to improving (or preventing a fall in) performance.

The problem is we don't know anything other than that he had a higher concentration in his urine than a threshold amount which either a) can be "fessed up to" as an intentional or unintentional violation or b) can be proven (to the satisfaction of the UCI's panel) to have arisen from circumstances which are not a rules violation.

Beyond that we know nothing.

Matthewfalle

We know that to have a higher amount than is allowable is breaking the rules and is therefore cheating.

And that is what he did - cheated.

Seems to be a lot of people on here protesting in his favour and saying that it doesn’t matter that he broke the rules and cheated as its Froome.

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

We know that to have a higher amount than is allowable is breaking the rules and is therefore cheating.

And that is what he did - cheated.

Seems to be a lot of people on here protesting in his favour and saying that it doesn’t matter that he broke the rules and cheated as its Froome.

He accidentally cheated. How's that?

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

Still doesn’t make him any less culpable for being a heat in the eyes of the rules. Perhaps he felt that he couldn’t afford another day like that?

Still very very fishy in the eyes of the holistic viewpoint re SKY and everything that they have touched recently.

I wasn't illustrating his diminished culpability, I was demonstrating the lack of credibility in the theory that he used it as a performance enhancer and the invalidity of the comparison to Landis

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Still doesn’t make him any less culpable for being a heat in the eyes of the rules. Perhaps he felt that he couldn’t afford another day like that?

Still very very fishy in the eyes of the holistic viewpoint re SKY and everything that they have touched recently.

I wasn't illustrating his diminished culpability, I was demonstrating the lack of credibility in the theory that he used it as a performance enhancer and the invalidity of the comparison to Landis

But you agree that he broke the rules?

cld531c

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Still doesn’t make him any less culpable for being a heat in the eyes of the rules. Perhaps he felt that he couldn’t afford another day like that?

Still very very fishy in the eyes of the holistic viewpoint re SKY and everything that they have touched recently.

I wasn't illustrating his diminished culpability, I was demonstrating the lack of credibility in the theory that he used it as a performance enhancer and the invalidity of the comparison to Landis

But you agree that he broke the rules?

We don't know (but I suspect yes)! If he cant replicate 2x the urine limit with the allowable dose yes, if he can, possibly not!

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Still doesn’t make him any less culpable for being a heat in the eyes of the rules. Perhaps he felt that he couldn’t afford another day like that?

Still very very fishy in the eyes of the holistic viewpoint re SKY and everything that they have touched recently.

I wasn't illustrating his diminished culpability, I was demonstrating the lack of credibility in the theory that he used it as a performance enhancer and the invalidity of the comparison to Landis

But you agree that he broke the rules?

Possibly. People better qualified than me will decide that in the coming months.

However, breaking the rules is not cheating unless it is done with intent (and I would argue premeditation)

Matthewfalle

But you agree he broke he rules in having more than x thingies in his system?

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

But you agree he broke he rules in having more than x thingies in his system?

No. The rule is taking too much salbutamol, which he may have done. Breaching the threshold is not an offence in itself.

Matthewfalle

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

We know that to have a higher amount than is allowable is breaking the rules and is therefore cheating.

And that is what he did - cheated.

Seems to be a lot of people on here protesting in his favour and saying that it doesn’t matter that he broke the rules and cheated as its Froome.

He accidentally cheated. How's that?

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But you agree he broke he rules in having more than x thingies in his system?

No. The rule is taking too much salbutamol, which he may have done. Breaching the threshold is not an offence in itself.

Well he did take too much Sally which is why he broke the threshold - Sally doesn't multiply by itself.

So you agree that he cheated then?

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But you agree he broke he rules in having more than x thingies in his system?

No. The rule is taking too much salbutamol, which he may have done. Breaching the threshold is not an offence in itself.

Well he did take too much Sally which is why he broke the threshold - Sally doesn't multiply by itself.

So you agree that he cheated then?

Still no.

Pross

It's getting like Groundhog Day on here. I'm hoping a decision gets made soon if just to put an end to things (not that it will as the 'losing' side will assume the decision was fixed).

tim000

just got in from work to see 4 new pages today . OMG whats the big news on froome ? nothing ! :roll:

ademort

My biggest fear is that Froome produces the evidence needed to be aquitted of any wrong doing. Meaning no ban and business as usual for the SKY team.Other riders have been banned for to high salbutamol readings and of course once again teams and riders are going to say one rule for us and one rule for team SKY. We all know SKY are not at all popular on the continent and especially in France. I just hope that the peleton and fans don,t turn against them.

blazing_saddles

ademort wrote:

My biggest fear is that Froome produces the evidence needed to be aquitted of any wrong doing. Meaning no ban and business as usual for the SKY team.Other riders have been banned for to high salbutamol readings and of course once again teams and riders are going to say one rule for us and one rule for team SKY. We all know SKY are not at all popular on the continent and especially in France. I just hope that the peloton and fans don,t turn against them.

Really? I see it as a no win situation.
One the one hand you get a few riders gobbing off and a few French just gobbing. However, apart from the usual suspects, a far better response from the mainstream media.
On the other, a hammering from the mainstream media and the sport's reputation returning to the depths of the post Armstrong admission, after half a decade of repair.
For me, option one is surely the better outcome.
Besides, I'd quite like the giggle of seeing an inhaler attached to a fishing rod.

mamba80

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.

its my fav race, the one i always look fwd too, but when CF targets a race, a borefest ensues, imho.

yeah sure he paces the climbs better than most, but he always seems pretty good at sticking to his team mates wheels..... i'm pretty sure dropping back without them isnt his trade mark style? and at the sharp end of a race, getting dropped is a rarity.

as i ve said, this reading is very high, its a one off, as he hasnt been busted before, so why last year?
even if a hi dose gives even a marginal performance gain, it might be considered worth the risk when having an off day and with such a small margin over his rivals.

Who knows? i m certainly not as sure as MF is but i think its possible he cheated for gain rather than a simple rule breach.

tim000

ademort wrote:

My biggest fear is that Froome produces the evidence needed to be aquitted of any wrong doing. Meaning no ban and business as usual for the SKY team.Other riders have been banned for to high salbutamol readings and of course once again teams and riders are going to say one rule for us and one rule for team SKY. We all know SKY are not at all popular on the continent and especially in France. I just hope that the peloton and fans don,t turn against them.

but how many have recorded high levels and been cleared ? we don't know as these investigations are normally done behind closed doors . the problem with froomes case is that it was leaked

RichN95.

mamba80 wrote:

as i ve said, this reading is very high, its a one off, as he hasnt been busted before, so why last year?
even if a hi dose gives even a marginal performance gain, it might be considered worth the risk when having an off day and with such a small margin over his rivals.

Who knows? i m certainly not as sure as MF is but i think its possible he cheated for gain rather than a simple rule breach.

So a rider who is leading a race by over a minute is so desperate that he takes a large amount of a drug that has no record of performance enhancing in a single dose, that he's never used before in this quantity, knowing that would be sure to be tested and sure to test positive on the off chance that there may be some small margin to be gained.

Not likely is it? Why not just apply for a TUE instead?

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

So a rider who is leading a race by over a minute is so desperate that he takes a large amount of a drug that has no record of performance enhancing in a single dose, that he's never used before in this quantity, knowing that would be sure to be tested and sure to test positive on the off chance that there may be some small margin to be gained.

Not likely is it? Why not just apply for a TUE instead?

That is exactly as I see it. Does not compute.
And frankly it shouldn't compute for those who believe Sky are running a sophisticated doping programme, for those exact same reasons.

smithy21

Blazing Saddles wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

So a rider who is leading a race by over a minute is so desperate that he takes a large amount of a drug that has no record of performance enhancing in a single dose, that he's never used before in this quantity, knowing that would be sure to be tested and sure to test positive on the off chance that there may be some small margin to be gained.

Not likely is it? Why not just apply for a TUE instead?

That is exactly as I see it. Does not compute.
And frankly it shouldn't compute for those who believe Sky are running a sophisticated doping programme, for those exact same reasons.

It’s pretty far from sophisticated if the shambles of jiffygate is anything to go by.

timothyw

We have no basis to think that this was the only occasion on which Froome took salbutamol, so this 'single dose' thing is a complete red herring. This was the only occasion on which he was caught.

As I've repeatedly banged on about in this thread, salbutamol does not hang around in the body. A high test result could indicate a large number of puffs in the past hour or two - or it could indicate a huge amount taken orally or by injection that morning.

Mistakes are made. Lance didn't think he'd test positive for EPO at the tour of switzerland, but he did. Tyler Hamilton didn't think Fuentes would mix up the blood bags. Sooner or later, everyone gets popped.

Again, we don't know Froome is on a program. This isn't a smoking gun - more like a whiff of gun smoke. Again, if Salbutamol is completely ineffective as a PED, why are they testing for it? Why did Ulissi get that suspension? Why is Froome having to explain himself?

I don't think it's a vendetta against the asthmatic. I think if they had that they'd just ban it.

iainf72

Haven't we already established they'd be able to tell if it was oral or injection rather than puffer.

Could it be dodgy? Yes it could, Could it just be his body doing something weird? Yes it could. Completely anecdotal, so evidence of nothing, but in the last year I had a test which caused GP to ring me to ask me if I feel ok, and then send me for another test. In the space of 2 days it went from "yikes" to normal.

The test they use isn't a black and white thing hence the complications.

RichN95.

TimothyW wrote:

We have no basis to think that this was the only occasion on which Froome took salbutamol, so this 'single dose' thing is a complete red herring. This was the only occasion on which he was caught.

As I've repeatedly banged on about in this thread, salbutamol does not hang around in the body. A high test result could indicate a large number of puffs in the past hour or two - or it could indicate a huge amount taken orally or by injection that morning.

Again, we don't know Froome is on a program. This isn't a smoking gun - more like a whiff of gun smoke. Again, if Salbutamol is completely ineffective as a PED, why are they testing for it? Why did Ulissi get that suspension? Why is Froome having to explain himself?

I don't think it's a vendetta against the asthmatic. I think if they had that they'd just ban it.

So now your theory is that a rider who has won five Grand Tours and been second in another four departs from his tried and tested doping program which he has never been caught for (with a drug no-one else has ever used to dope with) and goes two times over the limit.

They test for it because it might have a small effect if taken in large amounts over a long period for certain sports. It might be of use for 100m but it useless for endurance sports. And the WADA code doesn't distinguish between sports. And it may be over zealous. The Ulissi ruling acknowledged there was no intention to cheat and that it was just a mistake

I realise how disappointing it must be for you that it's not EPO or testosterone, but let's not make big claims about the PED effects of salbutamol to compensate.


If I may quote Tom Boonen (whose comments strangely didn't make for a Cycling News story like everyone else):
"The salbutamol case is actually something stupid. It didn't make Froome wins or lose the TDF or Vuelta"

dabber

We should rename this thread "Groundhog Day".

timothyw

iainf72 wrote:

Haven't we already established they'd be able to tell if it was oral or injection rather than puffer.

No, because if they had, I'd shut up about it - have I missed something? Something other than hearsay?

Could it be dodgy? Yes it could, Could it just be his body doing something weird? Yes it could.

My point of view exactly.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

as i ve said, this reading is very high, its a one off, as he hasnt been busted before, so why last year?
even if a hi dose gives even a marginal performance gain, it might be considered worth the risk when having an off day and with such a small margin over his rivals.

Who knows? i m certainly not as sure as MF is but i think its possible he cheated for gain rather than a simple rule breach.

So a rider who is leading a race by over a minute is so desperate that he takes a large amount of a drug that has no record of performance enhancing in a single dose, that he's never used before in this quantity, knowing that would be sure to be tested and sure to test positive on the off chance that there may be some small margin to be gained.

Not likely is it? Why not just apply for a TUE instead?

Because the TUE advantage was no longer en vogue in Team sky following their own doctors concerns about its possible misuse. See earlier threads re Wiggins.

tailwindhome

Dabber wrote:

We should rename this thread "Groundhog Day".

Ironically I think someone already has...