Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

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.

amazing.

m.r.m.

This thread reads like the modern political debate. The same few posters obsessively spam their ideology without new facts. Wonder why the more nuanced people even bother. :roll:

redvision

M.R.M. wrote:

This thread reads like the modern political debate. The same few posters obsessively spam their ideology without new facts. Wonder why the more nuanced people even bother. :roll:

The only fact which matters though is that Chris Froome exceeded the salbutamol limit.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

This thread reads like the modern political debate. The same few posters obsessively spam their ideology without new facts. Wonder why the more nuanced people even bother. :roll:

The only fact which matters though is that Chris Froome exceeded the salbutamol limit.

Other facts that matter are:

Froome is free to ride

Any results he gets will stand

awavey

larkim wrote:

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Isn't that simply because he was only the doc up to 2012 and therefore being 5 years out of date with Froome wouldn't actually know?

the Doc is talking about two different medications though, which would be the standard/default way to treat asthma, prevent & relieve, but no-ones ever confirmed what Froome is really taking for his asthma other than we know he has a salbutamol reliever inhaler, so you can really only imagine or assume that he is on that standard treatment.

But if his asthma is mostly under control and just flares up badly when he has a respitory infection, it maybe totally manageable without a daily corticosteroid treatment, especially if you can call on a much wider and stronger range of treatments if absolutely needed than most people would have available and they have that 0 days lost to colds/flu in GTs protocol thing, so theres no reason to believe he necessarily is being prescribed the standard asthma medicines as per these international medical guidelines the doc refers to

redvision

awavey wrote:

But if his asthma is mostly under control and just flares up badly when he has a respitory infection, it maybe totally manageable without a daily corticosteroid treatment, especially if you can call on a much wider and stronger range of treatments if absolutely needed than most people would have available and they have that 0 days lost to colds/flu in GTs protocol thing, so theres no reason to believe he necessarily is being prescribed the standard asthma medicines as per these international medical guidelines the doc refers to

With the level of salbutamol in his urine he must have used his inhaler over and over again. The salbutamol inhaler is an instant reliever and the only time an asthmatic will use it in quick succession is during the panic of an attack (i speak from experience). If he did have an asthma attack he should not have continued the race.

RichN95 wrote:

Other facts that matter are:

Froome is free to ride

Any results he gets will stand

Which is why he and team sky are making a mockery of and undermining the sport.

surrey_commuter

Just popped in and it is nice to see that Froome is now the victim.

Should we organise a march? I would suggest a social media campaign but everybody in cycling tweeting "me too" might not be such a good idea.

dabber

yeah, yeah.... salbutamol, puff puff, inhaler, asthma, urine, etc, etc.....
But when will someone (anyone) set a date and call Froome to a hearing to present his case on why he shouldn't be sanctioned.

larkim

redvision wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

This thread reads like the modern political debate. The same few posters obsessively spam their ideology without new facts. Wonder why the more nuanced people even bother. :roll:

The only fact which matters though is that Chris Froome exceeded the salbutamol limit.

But that's not a fact.

The only fact is that Froome's urine test exceeded the threshold value.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

This thread reads like the modern political debate. The same few posters obsessively spam their ideology without new facts. Wonder why the more nuanced people even bother. :roll:

The only fact which matters though is that Chris Froome exceeded the salbutamol limit.

Other facts that matter are:

Froome is free to ride

Any results he gets will stand

A perfect example LOLOL its like fake news if you repeat it often enough it becomes real

DeVlaeminck

larkim wrote:

redvision wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

This thread reads like the modern political debate. The same few posters obsessively spam their ideology without new facts. Wonder why the more nuanced people even bother. :roll:

The only fact which matters though is that Chris Froome exceeded the salbutamol limit.

But that's not a fact.

The only fact is that Froome's urine test exceeded the threshold value.

Which is considered sufficient evidence that he exceeded the salbutamol limit unless Froome can provide evidence that it shouldn't. In other words, as I think Rick pointed out, the onus is now on Froome to prove himself innocent.

It seems reasonable to me that after a period of time if Froome has been unable to present convincing evidence that the presumption of guilt should lead to a provisional suspension - what that period of time should be is debatable but for many it's reached or is reaching that point.

If it going to take longer, especially if it is going to run over grand tours then why can't the public be informed why. In the absence of all the information the logical thing to do is to make a reasonable assumption and at double the salbutamol urine concentration limit the reasonable assumption is that Froome has exceeded the limit whether by accident or design and that means a ban, not being allowed to race the Giro and Tour. If they don't want speculation then tell us what the state of play is.

larkim

I'm not so sure the onus is on him to prove his innocence. It might be a subtle difference, but the onus is, I think, on him to prove his lack of guilt. Proof of innocence is a higher standard.

Angels dancing on the head of a pin of course - what he needs to do in practice is provide sufficient information and evidence that convinces an assembled panel that they cannot reasonably determine that he has exceeded the consumed amounts. One factor heavily persuading the panel will be the urine test, so clearly in the absence of any other information provided they would reasonably conclude excess was consumed.

As for a ban on the basis of the urine test alone - that's not an unreasonable position to take, but as I've pointed out before the UCI rules are quite explicit about this not being the case, and on the basis that the rules should be applied I don't see any reason why Froome's case shouldn't be handled in exactly the same way. Of course, this is out in public when it shouldn't be, but the old adage of two wrongs not making a right comes heavily into play.

Change the rules, by all means - but I assume they were written the way they were written for specific reasons, one of which may be that they don't have much faith in the urine test thresholds for salbutamol?

rick_chasey

larkim wrote:

I'm not so sure the onus is on him to prove his innocence. It might be a subtle difference, but the onus is, I think, on him to prove his lack of guilt. Proof of innocence is a higher standard.

If there is no proof for either, he gets banned.

It sounds like semantics to me. No difference in reality or outcome.

It's simple.

The temptation is to say the longer it drags on, the less likely it looks like he will get out of a ban. After all, if sufficient proof has been provided, then it's case closed.

salsiccia1

dish_dash

Salsiccia1 wrote:

puurfect summary

smithy21

Into the nervous nineties now.

Start of the Ruta del Sol should get us to the ton.

RichN95.

smithy21 wrote:

Into the nervous nineties now.

Start of the Ruta del Sol should get us to the ton.

This is the Steve Smith of threads. It'll be looking for 200.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

larkim wrote:

I'm not so sure the onus is on him to prove his innocence. It might be a subtle difference, but the onus is, I think, on him to prove his lack of guilt. Proof of innocence is a higher standard.

If there is no proof for either, he gets banned.

It sounds like semantics to me. No difference in reality or outcome.

It's simple.

The temptation is to say the longer it drags on, the less likely it looks like he will get out of a ban. After all, if sufficient proof has been provided, then it's case closed.

he may be banned at the end of it, but say he wins the giro and/or Tour then thats another two GTs won by someone under a doping review.

Doesn't really say much for the sport.

redvision

Possible development
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-f ... -tribunal/

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

Possible development
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-f ... -tribunal/

Would that be the same possible development that the same source was claiming 2 weeks ago?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-f ... a-verdict/

The biggest question I have about this affair atm, is can Cyclingnews go cold turkey for one day and not post a Froome case article?

Vino'sGhost

He's Kenyan, hes a performance athlete, hes won the tour De France. And they got him for having a few too many puffs on an inhaler?

ademort

I wonder what kind of reception Froome will get tomorrow. Will we see protest banners or thousands of people hanging over railings and shouting abuse. I,m very curious.

RichN95.

ademort wrote:

Will we see protest banners or people hanging over railings and shouting abuse.

Probably. But away from the media area I think it will no different than usual.

darkhairedlord

RichN95 wrote:

ademort wrote:

Will we see protest banners or people hanging over railings and shouting abuse.

Probably. But away from the media area I think it will no different than usual.

Daily mail reporter handing out euros to kids so they'll throw piss at him.

Richmond Racer 2

Herbie Skeete in excoriating form

https://soigneur.nl/stories-en/arrivede ... o/?lang=en

Richmond Racer 2

RichN95 wrote:

ademort wrote:

Will we see protest banners or people hanging over railings and shouting abuse.

Probably. But away from the media area I think it will no different than usual.

hehehe

awavey

redvision wrote:

awavey wrote:

But if his asthma is mostly under control and just flares up badly when he has a respitory infection, it maybe totally manageable without a daily corticosteroid treatment, especially if you can call on a much wider and stronger range of treatments if absolutely needed than most people would have available and they have that 0 days lost to colds/flu in GTs protocol thing, so theres no reason to believe he necessarily is being prescribed the standard asthma medicines as per these international medical guidelines the doc refers to

With the level of salbutamol in his urine he must have used his inhaler over and over again. The salbutamol inhaler is an instant reliever and the only time an asthmatic will use it in quick succession is during the panic of an attack (i speak from experience). If he did have an asthma attack he should not have continued the race.

yep absolutely, as do I, but it will as weve discussed somewhere in these 93+ pages of pure speculation Im sure, not amount to the stated adverse finding levels. Its question 1 of your yearly asthma NHS check, how often do you use your inhaler, if you answer I take it multiple times and have frequent asthma attacks, they dont say well carry on using your salbutamol inhaler because thats clearly working well for you.

ocdupalais

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Herbie Skeete in excoriating form

https://soigneur.nl/stories-en/arrivede ... o/?lang=en

Keep up RR2! We done this in the Lampre thread bump. Your predecessor Richmond Racer even makes an appearance...

redvision

awavey wrote:

yep absolutely, as do I, but it will as weve discussed somewhere in these 93+ pages of pure speculation Im sure, not amount to the stated adverse finding levels. Its question 1 of your yearly asthma NHS check, how often do you use your inhaler, if you answer I take it multiple times and have frequent asthma attacks, they dont say well carry on using your salbutamol inhaler because thats clearly working well for you.

Indeed. But likewise if you have an attack which makes you take your salbutamol inhaler numerous times in quick succession, they will say seek urgent medical assistance. Following which you will be told not to exercise for the following days, until completely clear of symptoms.

As i keep saying, if he required his inhaler so much it is medical neglect by the team and team doctor to allow him to continue racing.

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

ademort wrote:

Will we see protest banners or people hanging over railings and shouting abuse.

Probably. But away from the media area I think it will no different than usual.

Missed this one earlier. Hat.