Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

Matthewfalle

darkhairedlord wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

nah. he pops down the chemist. of course he does.

they are cyclists for pete's sake, not the sacred cows of Mumbai.

He's not going to carry his own drugs when he's got a domestique to hold them for him.

domestique won't carry them - they'll be in the spare wheel well of the press managers car along with alm the others ....

Matthewfalle

darkhairedlord wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

nah. he pops down the chemist. of course he does.

they are cyclists for pete's sake, not the sacred cows of Mumbai.

He's not going to carry his own drugs when he's got a domestique to hold them for him.

domestique won't carry them - they'll be in the spare wheel well of the press managers car along with alm the others ....

Matthewfalle

...

indyp

What's going on with Cyclingnews agenda towards Team Sky? They've put up an article from a former doctor which basically says nothing but its headlines suggest something new and shocking. They seem to be trying to stir up as much crap as they can and go looking for people who may have something to bash them with. Perhaps they're frustrated by the fact DB refused to talk them again recently in Colombia. They're like the Daily Mail/The Sun of cycling.

kleinstroker

Just read the Bartalucci article, for some it will the final proof they have been looking for that Sky are in fact cheats of the first order, others like me might find it interesting to hear about Brailsfords silverback persona. Other than that though pretty meh!

redvision

indyP wrote:

What's going on with Cyclingnews agenda towards Team Sky? They've put up an article from a former doctor which basically says nothing but its headlines suggest something new and shocking. They seem to be trying to stir up as much crap as they can and go looking for people who may have something to bash them with. Perhaps they're frustrated by the fact DB refused to talk them again recently in Colombia. They're like the Daily Mail/The Sun of cycling.

It's definitely worth reading as it provides the view of a former sky doctor, who is familiar with their systems and protocol.

In regards to Froome, his comments just echo what has been argued by pretty much everyone apart from the sky fans;

The international medical guidelines for treating asthma suggest the use of short-acting ß2 agonists such as salbutamol via an inhaler. I'd imagine that Froome also needs to use a corticoid spray on a daily basis. However, it's surprising that an athlete like Froome, who is so meticulous about everything he does, can end up with such a high level of salbutamol in his urine sample.

"It's equally as surprising that the team doctor suggested increasing his dose of salbutamol as Froome has claimed. If he was suffering more and more with asthma during the Vuelta it would have made a lot more sense to perhaps use Triamcinolone via a TUE request so that he could have had proper treatment.

blazing_saddles

kleinstroker wrote:

Just read the Bartalucci article, for some it will the final proof they have been looking for that Sky are in fact cheats of the first order, others like me might find it interesting to hear about Brailsfords silverback persona. Other than that though pretty meh!

Edit, I see now it's not about his past.
No comment in that case.

Richmond Racer 2

sorry, but I have to say this EXPOSE STOP THE PRESSES seems to be be...well... a bit meh

having said that, yeah, Brailsford's utter arrogance has helped massively to get them into the situation they're in now

fwiw I think he started out trying to do one thing in 2010, but I reckon the humiliation of the team's first season changed something in his mind

gsk82

redvision wrote:

indyP wrote:

What's going on with Cyclingnews agenda towards Team Sky? They've put up an article from a former doctor which basically says nothing but its headlines suggest something new and shocking. They seem to be trying to stir up as much crap as they can and go looking for people who may have something to bash them with. Perhaps they're frustrated by the fact DB refused to talk them again recently in Colombia. They're like the Daily Mail/The Sun of cycling.

It's definitely worth reading as it provides the view of a former sky doctor, who is familiar with their systems and protocol.

In regards to Froome, his comments just echo what has been argued by pretty much everyone apart from the sky fans;

The international medical guidelines for treating asthma suggest the use of short-acting ß2 agonists such as salbutamol via an inhaler. I'd imagine that Froome also needs to use a corticoid spray on a daily basis. However, it's surprising that an athlete like Froome, who is so meticulous about everything he does, can end up with such a high level of salbutamol in his urine sample.

"It's equally as surprising that the team doctor suggested increasing his dose of salbutamol as Froome has claimed. If he was suffering more and more with asthma during the Vuelta it would have made a lot more sense to perhaps use Triamcinolone via a TUE request so that he could have had proper treatment.

Maybe it would have made sense. But did anyone really think Froome was going to apply for a tue? Never mind a TUE for the same drug that's causing so much grief for Wiggins.

Mad_Malx

Tue for an inhaled steroid might have been a much better option tho.

redvision

gsk82 wrote:

Maybe it would have made sense. But did anyone really think Froome was going to apply for a tue? Never mind a TUE for the same drug that's causing so much grief for Wiggins.

Actually yes, because by not applying for a TUE would mean breaking doping rules (if the drug was used).

blazing_saddles

Mad_Malx wrote:

Tue for an inhaled steroid might have been a much better option tho.

No doubt that the hyper-fracas following the Fancy Bear's leaks are in no small part to blame for them not going down this route.
So, score one for the inmates, when he goes down.

As for that vacuous article, it's worth noting the comments underneath.
Even many of CN's clientele are getting fed up and calling it for what it is: a vendetta.

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

fwiw I think he started out trying to do one thing in 2010, but I reckon the humiliation of the team's first season changed something in his mind

He and others basically say that in Richard Moore's book about Sky's first year - that they were a bit naive about the true medical demands of road cycling and needed doctors who understood those demands and how to meet them (legally).

Anyone who claims Sky have 'always claimed to be white than white' really should read that book.

Pross

redvision wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Maybe it would have made sense. But did anyone really think Froome was going to apply for a tue? Never mind a TUE for the same drug that's causing so much grief for Wiggins.

Actually yes, because by not applying for a TUE would mean breaking doping rules (if the drug was used).

But as I've said before, Froome backed himself into a corner by taking his holier than thou stance against Wiggins' TUE and it has come back to haunt him. There would have been no issue if he had just taken the medication he is entitled to with a relevant TUE but he presumably couldn't cope with being called out as a hypocrite.

Also, how comes the doctor says 'I'd imagine' in relation to how Froome would take his medication? Surely, as an ex-doctor to the team he would know what he does. Is this his way of trying to avoid any patient / doctor confidentiality issues?

Richmond Racer 2

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

fwiw I think he started out trying to do one thing in 2010, but I reckon the humiliation of the team's first season changed something in his mind

He and others basically say that in Richard Moore's book about Sky's first year - that they were a bit naive about the true medical demands of road cycling and needed doctors who understood those demands and how to meet them (legally).

Anyone who claims Sky have 'always claimed to be white than white' really should read that book.

And its at that point that I think Brailsford high minded platform went out of the window

(yes, I know you'll go to the grave protesting that their innocence)

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

(yes, I know you'll go to the grave protesting that their innocence)

Innocence of what? I've yet to see anything to suggest that they have broken any rules (and this extends to most teams). I'm not someone who has a problem with they 'grey areas' which are really white areas.

No idealism, whoever well meaning, ever survives reality.

inseine

Talking about Jiffygate....
"It's difficult for me to say because I was not involved but I can't believe that the package contained anything important," Bartalucci suggests.

It's funny they didn't use this as the title of the piece......

larkim

Pross wrote:

Also, how comes the doctor says 'I'd imagine' in relation to how Froome would take his medication? Surely, as an ex-doctor to the team he would know what he does. Is this his way of trying to avoid any patient / doctor confidentiality issues?

Isn't that simply because he was only the doc up to 2012 and therefore being 5 years out of date with Froome wouldn't actually know?

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

(yes, I know you'll go to the grave protesting that their innocence)

Innocence of what? I've yet to see anything to suggest that they have broken any rules (and this extends to most teams). I'm not someone who has a problem with they 'grey areas' which are really white areas.

No idealism, whoever well meaning, ever survives reality.

Over the salbutamol amount = guilty of breaking the rulez until proven innocent, no?

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

(yes, I know you'll go to the grave protesting that their innocence)

Innocence of what? I've yet to see anything to suggest that they have broken any rules (and this extends to most teams). I'm not someone who has a problem with they 'grey areas' which are really white areas.

No idealism, whoever well meaning, ever survives reality.

Over the salbutamol amount = guilty of breaking the rulez until proven innocent, no?

Well no, guilt has to be established by a hearing. And even then it may rule that it was due to negligence rather than malice (I'm won't say Sky/Froome/Anyone have never screwed up)

rick_chasey

Onus is on him to prove and if no proof is presented he’s found to have broken the rulez no?

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Onus is on him to prove and if no proof is presented he’s found to have broken the rulez no?

Yeah, probably. I'll rephrase my original comment to "I've yet to see anything to suggest that they have deliberately broken any rules"

dabber

So who has the responsibility to drive this to a conclusion... UCI, WADA..... anyone? Or can this ridiculous state of affairs just drag on indefinitely?

smithy21

Drag it on for a few years until Froome retires and then say “Sorry, bit of a mistake, I’ll self suspend now”

blazing_saddles

smithy21 wrote:

Drag it on for a few years until Froome retires and then say “Sorry, bit of a mistake, I’ll self suspend now”

So, the notion of self suspending now, would be nuts, no?

smithy21

Probably but if you are someone who has to go above and beyond and set a good example both ethically and morally then maybe it would still be worth considering.

indyp

Not if he's done nothing wrong. To reach the top in sport you have to be strong willed and I think Froome has that, plus he's worked hard in leading cycling into a new era so why throw it all away. He also seems to love his job so why take time away from it if you are totally confident in finding the answer to the anomaly in one from a number of tests he gave in Spain.

About CN article....I agree, with what had gone on with Wiggins it is no surprise Sky would have wanted to go without applying for a TUE and let Froome continue to control his asthma as he had done successfully for many years even if he was struggling at the time.

CuthbertC

indyP wrote:

Not if he's done nothing wrong. To reach the top in sport you have to be strong willed and I think Froome has that, plus he's worked hard in leading cycling into a new era so why throw it all away. He also seems to love his job so why take time away from it if you are totally confident in finding the answer to the anomaly in one from a number of tests he gave in Spain.

About CN article....I agree, with what had gone on with Wiggins it is no surprise Sky would have wanted to go without applying for a TUE and let Froome continue to control his asthma as he had done successfully for many years even if he was struggling at the time.

andyp

indyP wrote:

What's going on with Cyclingnews agenda towards Team Sky? They've put up an article from a former doctor which basically says nothing but its headlines suggest something new and shocking. They seem to be trying to stir up as much crap as they can and go looking for people who may have something to bash them with. Perhaps they're frustrated by the fact DB refused to talk them again recently in Colombia. They're like the Daily Mail/The Sun of cycling.

Clickbait, to drive up revenue. Welcome to the internet.

Matthewfalle

indyP wrote:

Not if he's done nothing wrong. To reach the top in sport you have to be strong willed and I think Froome has that, plus he's worked hard in leading cycling into a new era so why throw it all away. He also seems to love his job so why take time away from it if you are totally confident in finding the answer to the anomaly in one from a number of tests he gave in Spain.

About CN article....I agree, with what had gone on with Wiggins it is no surprise Sky would have wanted to go without applying for a TUE and let Froome continue to control his asthma as he had done successfully for many years even if he was struggling at the time.

brilliant. absoloutely brilliant.