Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

"It had rained during those day in Spain and so it seems difficult that he suffered with asthma. I’ve got the same problem but when it rains the pollen doesn’t cause any problems and you don’t even need to take one puff of Ventolin,” Nibali said, according to Tuttobici.

Froome's asthma is completely unrelated to pollen though.

Yes but this is Nibali and he is a kn0b.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

"It had rained during those day in Spain and so it seems difficult that he suffered with asthma. I’ve got the same problem but when it rains the pollen doesn’t cause any problems and you don’t even need to take one puff of Ventolin,” Nibali said, according to Tuttobici.

Froome's asthma is completely unrelated to pollen though.

Well, it's made up so it could be related to anything really.....

sherer

was reading Big Mig got caught for this and let off and Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano was only banned by the French not the UCI. Although these cases do go back years.

Seems like this case will drag on like the Contador affair did

ddraver

Gweeds wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

Groan, Froome you knob.

Does anyone else just not have the energy for this.

Me. I just can't even with all the crappola from all the sides. A positive poonami if you will.

This, basically.

I just like watching road racing. But I'm *this* close to turning my back on the whole shower.

Testify

RichN95.

sherer wrote:

Seems like this case will drag on like the Contador affair did

And due to Salbutamol being a 'specified substance' Froome is free to compete until it is.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

sherer wrote:

Seems like this case will drag on like the Contador affair did

And due to Salbutamol being a 'specified substance' Froome is free to compete until it is.

Better off taking the 9 months back dated from the Vuelta so he can crack on with the Tour?

Pain in the arse if he races and then gets banned.

Do the results count, don't they, will riders want him there, blah blah.

joelsim

Anyone think Froome and Sky know they will get a ban, probably 9 months so are now going to try to drag it out until after the Tour, then accept the ban?

mididoctors

RichN95 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I wonder if cyclists with inhalers are told if they have got close to the limit on tests as a warning or not. You could be flirting with the limit due to a different inhaler, bad technique etc and not even know it.

i think its very likely but the rules be the rules.

I'm not arguing that he should get off scott free - and I doubt he will. Just that this is very likely an error rather wrong doing

same page

his best course of action is to go...i made a mistake I accept the suspension.

mididoctors

he has won the dam thing 4 times and has little to prove in that regard...i think sky should just put their hands up and go our mistake....

no one is above the regs.

tailwindhome

There must be some sort of study they could not publish

RichN95.

mididoctors wrote:

he has won the dam thing 4 times and has little to prove in that regard...i think sky should just put their hands up and go our mistake....

no one is above the regs.

He's not disputing that he took the drug, or indeed that he took more than usual. There's no mother-in-law, dog or missing twin.

But it's worth looking into the threshold and the usage guidelines and checking if they are fit for purpose. They probably are and then it will be time to say 'I thought I was OK, but got it wrong in a bit of a panic. I'll know better for next time"

joelsim

TailWindHome wrote:

There must be some sort of study they could not publish

Ha ha ha.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

he has won the dam thing 4 times and has little to prove in that regard...i think sky should just put their hands up and go our mistake....

no one is above the regs.

He's not disputing that he took the drug, or indeed that he took more than usual. There's no mother-in-law, dog or missing twin.

But it's worth looking into the threshold and the usage guidelines and checking if they are fit for purpose

You are partisan Rich. Somewhat.

rick_chasey

Aye no one was complaining when Ulissi got done

argyllflyer

Joelsim wrote:

He's over the limit, therefore he should get a ban similar to Ulissi's.

Those are the rules, no amount of mitigating circumstances or any explanations matter a jot.

From the UCI statement:

"The analysis of the B sample has confirmed the results of the rider’s A sample and the proceedings are being conducted in line with the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

As a matter of principle, and whilst not required by the World Anti-Doping Code, the UCI systematically reports potential anti-doping rule violations via its website when a mandatory provisional suspension applies. Pursuant to Article 7.9.1. of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the presence of a Specified Substance such as Salbutamol in a sample does not result in the imposition of such mandatory provisional suspension against the rider."

At this stage of the procedure, the UCI will not comment any further on this matter.

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-sta ... er-froome/

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aye no one was complaining when Ulissi got done

People said more or less the same things then - that he'd overdone his asthma meds and it was negligence rather than cheating

I don't think anyone here is saying that Froome should go unpunished.

joelsim

argyllflyer wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

He's over the limit, therefore he should get a ban similar to Ulissi's.

Those are the rules, no amount of mitigating circumstances or any explanations matter a jot.

From the UCI statement:

"The analysis of the B sample has confirmed the results of the rider’s A sample and the proceedings are being conducted in line with the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

As a matter of principle, and whilst not required by the World Anti-Doping Code, the UCI systematically reports potential anti-doping rule violations via its website when a mandatory provisional suspension applies. Pursuant to Article 7.9.1. of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the presence of a Specified Substance such as Salbutamol in a sample does not result in the imposition of such mandatory provisional suspension against the rider."

At this stage of the procedure, the UCI will not comment any further on this matter.

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-sta ... er-froome/

The precedent.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... ues-136700

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aye no one was complaining when Ulissi got done

People said more or less the same things then - that he'd overdone his asthma meds and it was negligence rather than cheating

I don't think anyone here is saying that Froome should go unpunished.

Well...

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12973708&hilit=ulissi+salbutamol

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

The precedent.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... ues-136700

That was under the old WADA code. It was changed in 2015 and introduced the distinction between specified and non-specified substances. (Specified are ones where the infringement may have been by accident)

pollys_bott

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It's worth noting that, according to people who know more about this than us, Salbutamol has not been shown to have performance enhancing properties at all, even in high doses

Probably does help a bit if you have asthma.

Of course. But not beyond that. To use Shane Sutton's terminology it will return a 95% to 100%, but there's nothing to show that it can take anyone to 101%

At the risk of sounding like a complete fool, please may I be educated on why there is then an upper limit on the use of salbutamol if there is no PED effect? Am sure the answer will come from the Sybil Fawlty school of the bl33din' obvious but it's not currently registering in my brain... :?

Richmond Racer 2

That tool of a Daniel Benson is revelling in the news, but he is right in pointing out that Sky' in their press release seem to be going out of its way to stress Froome the individual rather than Sky the team

Fee fi fo fum, I sense the limbering of arms to be ready for some under-the-bus chuckage


For all the shoot heading Sky's way - and who knows, maybe Murdoch will end the team - I cant help but linger on this thang: everyone can take this with a pinch of salt but a fun fact is that Brailsford has been described to me for a long time by people who would know, as 'absolutely detesting' Mr and Mrs F

secretsam

Looks like Geraint Thomas will get a shot at being team leader in a Grand Tour, then

DeVlaeminck

I think there are studies which suggest oral salbutamol has performance enhancing effects in non asthmatic athletes.

OK so there is a suggestion that concentrations in the urine are not always directly related to the amount inhaled, but Froome is way over the limit here and it was a good day for him. There is no suggestion that he was struggling to breathe and was taking puffs on his inhaler in a panic.

It just seems very odd, we know there are large numbers of asthmatics in the peloton so Froome's result must be a massive outlier if it really is due to inhaling legal quantities of this drug. In short they need to come up a reason why he not only had more salbutamol in his urine than was allowed but why he had 100% more.

RichN95.

Pollys Bott wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It's worth noting that, according to people who know more about this than us, Salbutamol has not been shown to have performance enhancing properties at all, even in high doses

Probably does help a bit if you have asthma.

Of course. But not beyond that. To use Shane Sutton's terminology it will return a 95% to 100%, but there's nothing to show that it can take anyone to 101%

At the risk of sounding like a complete fool, please may I be educated on why there is then an upper limit on the use of salbutamol if there is no PED effect? Am sure the answer will come from the Sybil Fawlty school of the bl33din' obvious but it's not currently registering in my brain... :?

I think it's more a case of 'we haven't found that it does anything, but we can't be sure that it doesn't'. The banned list is full of drugs like that.
Some think it may have some muscle building properties when injected, in amounts far larger than Froome registered (like 100s of time more).

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

That tool of a Daniel Benson is revelling in the news, but he is right in pointing out that Sky' in their press release seem to be going out of its way to stress Froome the individual rather than Sky the team

Surely that's because it's entirely up to Froome how many tokes he has on his inhaler. He does it all himself. It's not like a doctor handing out pills as needed.

FocusZing

There was this kid at school who used to run like forest (proper nuts like). He was always puffing on an inhaler... Cheeky fecker!

joelsim

INRNG's take.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

bigmat

HaydenM wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

If I was taking my blue inhaler that much in 24 hours I would need a nebuliser, (or this amazing new one I've got, if anyone is having trouble with asthma I highly recommend Fostair)

Do explain to the non-asthmatics.

If your symptoms were that bad that you were not responding to repeated doses of salbutamol through an inhaler you would be struggling to walk up stairs or lie down. A nebuliser is pumping the drug and oxygen into you. Bear in mind that if you are this bad you could be admitted to hospital and it could kill the old the sick and the weak

Sorry Rick, I should have been more clear, SC has it. Basically the only times I've ever needed to take my blue inhaler a lot to be able to breathe (without exercise) I've either had a full asthma attack (twice in my life) or I'm trying to deal with dust from doing DIY or something, either way I'd certainly be nowhere near the level required for racing, especially with the dust as I get loads of mucus even if I'm not tight.

I should probably say, thinking about it, when doing exercise with a bit of asthma I probably do take it 8 times or so but you really aren't meant to. Recently I have been taking it a lot and at my review last week the doctor panicked when I told her I took it 8 times in a day and they completely changed my prescription that I've had as long as I can remember. As it has been said, there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between inhaled and urine amounts though but either way, if he has the best doctors in the world he shouldn't really be taking that much as far as I can see, he would be on different medication. I have no experience of managing asthma and racing with any sort of anti doping though so maybe they thought it was the best way to deal with it as each person can react differently to different things.

It's a bit different to me taking a load of ventolin because I want to go out on my bike and I'm feeling a bit tight, he should be on the right drugs. It is personal though

Froome's on record as no wanting to rely on TUEs that he could get on valid medical grounds. I wonder whether his refusal to obtain TUEs to take the right kind of drugs has resuted in an over-reliance on ventolin, which is permitted without a TUE (subject to prescribed limits)?

Lanterne_Rogue

Is anyone else reading about this and wondering whether a load of Contador fans are smugly thinking that Bertie's magic cow had far more panache than boring Sky doping, which is simply a case of going to the front and inhaling faster than anyone else?

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

That tool of a Daniel Benson is revelling in the news, but he is right in pointing out that Sky' in their press release seem to be going out of its way to stress Froome the individual rather than Sky the team

Surely that's because it's entirely up to Froome how many tokes he has on his inhaler. He does it all himself. It's not like a doctor handing out pills as needed.

Exactly. He put it in himself - he can only be told about the rules, they can't have someone run after him and snatch the inhaler out of his hand.

Big boy's rules, innit.