Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

salsiccia1

RichN95.

^^^^ You're showing your lack of cricket etiquette there, Salsiccia

Helmet on and a twist of the wrist to raise the bat = 50
Helmet off and bat raised high = 100

salsiccia1

I know, but I'm in work and have only got so much time to look for pictures of Kenyan cricketers before getting my arse kicked

redvision

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racin ... est-373963

bobmcstuff

redvision wrote:

This is interesting:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racin ... est-373963

Is that common sense from Lappartient??

“[Provisionally suspending a rider] for salbutamol has never been done, and we have to respect the rights of Chris Froome. It’s not possible to have a specific treatment for him,” Lappartient said.

“No other international federation has taken this decision for salbutamol. So if we were the only international federation to do this – and just for one rider – I think we would be in the wrong and could badly lose [any potential legal case].”

shipley

It’s a warning shot to hurry up the stupidly long process. It’s like the Shoreham air crash, ridiculous delays.

Everyone is so scared of bloody lawyers nowadays.

Get on with it FFS is what this is saying.

iainf72

Bless ASO - They've failed every previous attempt at something like this but they try to talk tough.

No_Ta_Doctor

Have ASO actually said anything, or is this just another of those "it's being reported" stories, like the kidney failure thing, and the case to be heard next week thing?

sloppyschleckonds

Shipley wrote:

It’s a warning shot to hurry up the stupidly long process. It’s like the Shoreham air crash, ridiculous delays.

Everyone is so scared of bloody lawyers nowadays.

Get on with it FFS is what this is saying.

Its nothing like the Shoreham air crash

surrey_commuter

To combine two theories in one the FA have been criticised for spending £50k on diagnosing their squad as asthmatics. Seems their clubs think it unthinkable that they would not have been diagnosed.

So in conclusion if you believe paying a medical expert to declare you an asthmatic is cheating then English football has a problem.

Or you think salbutamol is not performance enhancing in which case their is nothing to see here.

RichN95.

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So in conclusion if you believe paying a medical expert to declare you an asthmatic is cheating then English football has a problem.

Or you think salbutamol is not performance enhancing in which case their is nothing to see here.

Anyone is free to take salbutamol. You don't have to have been diagnosed with asthma. It does sod all for people without it though.

larkim

Surrey Commuter wrote:

To combine two theories in one the FA have been criticised for spending £50k on diagnosing their squad as asthmatics. Seems their clubs think it unthinkable that they would not have been diagnosed.

So in conclusion if you believe paying a medical expert to declare you an asthmatic is cheating then English football has a problem.

Or you think salbutamol is not performance enhancing in which case their is nothing to see here.

Criticsed by Matt Lawton alone it seems. And with an article that just makes stuff up as it feels like (e.g. cost "could be as much as" etc etc). Sounds like a sensible precaution if the air quality in the world cup venues is going to be significantly different to their experience at home. And as pointed out, if they do need inhalers, they are allowed them irrespective of their asthma status as it's a non-TUE substance (subject to the puff limit).

Pross

Hang on, are you suggesting Lawton may not have a clue about anti-doping rules? That can't be right, a group of MPs appear to have considered him a world expert on the subject!

larkim

My favourite phrase in the article was this one:-
"But the move could leave the national team open to accusations that they have entered 'a grey area' even if such testing is fairly commonplace in elite sport." Yes, open to accusations by badly informed journalists, despite the overwhelming evidence from those in elite sport that looking at respiratory issues is a good idea!!

surrey_commuter

RichN95 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So in conclusion if you believe paying a medical expert to declare you an asthmatic is cheating then English football has a problem.

Or you think salbutamol is not performance enhancing in which case their is nothing to see here.

Anyone is free to take salbutamol. You don't have to have been diagnosed with asthma. It does sod all for people without it though.

I thought it was prescription only - as a user could you point me in the direction of where I can re-up without darkening the door of my doctors surgery.

it is strange that so many athletes and coaches think it is performance enhancing and that the authorities have limits on it's use

Mad_Malx

I think it is available over the counter in a lot of countries, including some in EU

RichN95.

Surrey Commuter wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So in conclusion if you believe paying a medical expert to declare you an asthmatic is cheating then English football has a problem.

Or you think salbutamol is not performance enhancing in which case their is nothing to see here.

Anyone is free to take salbutamol. You don't have to have been diagnosed with asthma. It does sod all for people without it though.

I thought it was prescription only - as a user could you point me in the direction of where I can re-up without darkening the door of my doctors surgery.

it is strange that so many athletes and coaches think it is performance enhancing and that the authorities have limits on it's use

I was just talking about it with respect to the anti-doping rules rather than general medical rules.

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So in conclusion if you believe paying a medical expert to declare you an asthmatic is cheating then English football has a problem.

Or you think salbutamol is not performance enhancing in which case their is nothing to see here.

Anyone is free to take salbutamol. You don't have to have been diagnosed with asthma. It does sod all for people without it though.

I thought it was prescription only - as a user could you point me in the direction of where I can re-up without darkening the door of my doctors surgery.

it is strange that so many athletes and coaches think it is performance enhancing and that the authorities have limits on it's use

I was just talking about it with respect to the anti-doping rules rather than general medical rules.

You could get it OTC at one point, but it is prescription only. You can get it from pharmacies pretty easily without seeing a doctor face to face. E.g., at Lloyds you just fill in an online form which is reviewed by a clinician and can order it for delivery afterwards https://onlinedoctor.lloydspharmacy.com ... salbutamol . So if you wanted some, it would be very easy to get.

I had asthma in my youth, but now only get it very occasionally (mostly house dust). I would prefer it if they just sold it OTC as it's so infrequent that I need it (maybe once or twice a year) I can never find the things when I do.

larkim

Surrey Commuter wrote:

it is strange that so many athletes and coaches think it is performance enhancing and that the authorities have limits on it's use

I agree this is odd. But I suspect it is explained away by (and I hestitate to use this analogy) the aggregation of marginal gains thing.

If you are a long time chronic asthma sufferer who has attacks in their day to day life, an inhaler is probably saving your life.

If you are an elite sportsperson you may find that your exercise induced asthma is kept at bay by using an inhaler, and in an outlying scenario may actually help to save your life.

But perhaps some elite athletes have such a small asthma component when really pushed that whilst you don't need it to save your life, a few extra %ages of air getting into your lungs may make enough of a difference to let you max out your abilities. Whereas other elite athletes have zero asthma components to their physiology so truly don't need it (and wouldn't benefit from it) at all.

I don't know how that stacks up with evidence, but I can see how inhaler use for the very mild asthma group would be both useful and legitimate, despite not being life saving treatment. I suppose akin to the decongestant route that Wiggins (and I'm sure others) used to keep the airways in tip top condition when a mild reaction or infection is causing some potential issues.

davidof

Surrey Commuter wrote:

as a user could you point me in the direction of where I can re-up without darkening the door of my doctors surgery.

I buy mine over the counter in Italy, no questions asked. I'm about as asthmatic as your average pro cyclist.

Vino'sGhost

davidof wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

as a user could you point me in the direction of where I can re-up without darkening the door of my doctors surgery.

I buy mine over the counter in Italy, no questions asked. I'm about as asthmatic as your average pro cyclist.

surrey_commuter

larkim wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

it is strange that so many athletes and coaches think it is performance enhancing and that the authorities have limits on it's use

I agree this is odd. But I suspect it is explained away by (and I hestitate to use this analogy) the aggregation of marginal gains thing.

If you are a long time chronic asthma sufferer who has attacks in their day to day life, an inhaler is probably saving your life.

If you are an elite sportsperson you may find that your exercise induced asthma is kept at bay by using an inhaler, and in an outlying scenario may actually help to save your life.

But perhaps some elite athletes have such a small asthma component when really pushed that whilst you don't need it to save your life, a few extra %ages of air getting into your lungs may make enough of a difference to let you max out your abilities. Whereas other elite athletes have zero asthma components to their physiology so truly don't need it (and wouldn't benefit from it) at all.

I don't know how that stacks up with evidence, but I can see how inhaler use for the very mild asthma group would be both useful and legitimate, despite not being life saving treatment. I suppose akin to the decongestant route that Wiggins (and I'm sure others) used to keep the airways in tip top condition when a mild reaction or infection is causing some potential issues.

with no medical knowledge but with a working experience of Salbutamol, including mates without asthma taking a blast, I would say that if you are suffering from some sort of chest infection then it helps with the breathing.

Bob - thanks for the Lloyds tip. I will check that out for the preventative stuff as well

bobmcstuff

Surrey Commuter wrote:

larkim wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

it is strange that so many athletes and coaches think it is performance enhancing and that the authorities have limits on it's use

I agree this is odd. But I suspect it is explained away by (and I hestitate to use this analogy) the aggregation of marginal gains thing.

If you are a long time chronic asthma sufferer who has attacks in their day to day life, an inhaler is probably saving your life.

If you are an elite sportsperson you may find that your exercise induced asthma is kept at bay by using an inhaler, and in an outlying scenario may actually help to save your life.

But perhaps some elite athletes have such a small asthma component when really pushed that whilst you don't need it to save your life, a few extra %ages of air getting into your lungs may make enough of a difference to let you max out your abilities. Whereas other elite athletes have zero asthma components to their physiology so truly don't need it (and wouldn't benefit from it) at all.

I don't know how that stacks up with evidence, but I can see how inhaler use for the very mild asthma group would be both useful and legitimate, despite not being life saving treatment. I suppose akin to the decongestant route that Wiggins (and I'm sure others) used to keep the airways in tip top condition when a mild reaction or infection is causing some potential issues.

with no medical knowledge but with a working experience of Salbutamol, including mates without asthma taking a blast, I would say that if you are suffering from some sort of chest infection then it helps with the breathing.

Bob - thanks for the Lloyds tip. I will check that out for the preventative stuff as well

No problem.

There's a psychosomatic/placebo element to it as well I think. Given the prevalence of other placebo-y things like nasal stents, and other sportspeople using those balance bands and other snake oil products, it's obvious many athletes would use any "legal" method which they even suspected of giving an advantage, even with no evidence.

Mad_Malx

bobmcstuff wrote:

There's a psychosomatic/placebo element to it as well I think. Given the prevalence of other placebo-y things like nasal stents, and other sportspeople using those balance bands and other snake oil products, it's obvious many athletes would use any "legal" method which they even suspected of giving an advantage, even with no evidence.

I think this is a substantial part of it. Also, there are many people who occasionally get a mild wheeze depending on atmospheric conditions, dust, high pollen etc. If they don't have to worry about this, even if it is unlikely to occur on a given day, they are going to take a puff as their comfort blanket.

larkim

Think the last two posts have summarised it nicely and give a credible explanation of the prevalence of inhaler use in elite sports-people. If it's legal and does you no harm, why not?

bobmcstuff

larkim wrote:

Think the last two posts have summarised it nicely and give a credible explanation of the prevalence of inhaler use in elite sports-people. If it's legal and does you no harm, why not?

I mean, it might also be part of some nefarious doping plan, I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of the tinfoil hat brigade. Seems that many athletes will take any advantage of anything they think might help that they can get away with. Does seem like the heavy duty EPO and blood bags is more difficult to get away with than it used to be though.

surrey_commuter

larkim wrote:

Think the last two posts have summarised it nicely and give a credible explanation of the prevalence of inhaler use in elite sports-people. If it's legal and does you no harm, why not?

I really don't want to start another circular argument but going to great lengths to get yourself declared an asthmatic is stretching the definition of legal.

larkim

Who is going to great lengths to get yourself declared asthmatic? Doctors can and do prescribe asthma inhalers (especially on private prescriptions where cost isn't an issue) based on patients describing symptoms alone and do so legitimately. If sports bodies are investigating whether there really is any trace of asthma so that they can target resolutions of that issue effectively, that doesn't strike me as "going to great lengths". Remember, you can (if you want) walk into a chemist on the continent and buy a salbutamol inhaler - it won't be illegal, and you won't need a TUE. Hoops don't need to be jumped through, if they are doing testing it is more likely for sound reasons than trying to bend any rules.

surrey_commuter

larkim wrote:

Who is going to great lengths to get yourself declared asthmatic? Doctors can and do prescribe asthma inhalers (especially on private prescriptions where cost isn't an issue) based on patients describing symptoms alone and do so legitimately. If sports bodies are investigating whether there really is any trace of asthma so that they can target resolutions of that issue effectively, that doesn't strike me as "going to great lengths". Remember, you can (if you want) walk into a chemist on the continent and buy a salbutamol inhaler - it won't be illegal, and you won't need a TUE. Hoops don't need to be jumped through, if they are doing testing it is more likely for sound reasons than trying to bend any rules.

That special test the FA did for the soccerists was estimated to cost £50k

bobmcstuff

Surrey Commuter wrote:

larkim wrote:

Think the last two posts have summarised it nicely and give a credible explanation of the prevalence of inhaler use in elite sports-people. If it's legal and does you no harm, why not?

I really don't want to start another circular argument but going to great lengths to get yourself declared an asthmatic is stretching the definition of legal.

Nothing to stop any athlete from Googling asthma symptoms, going on that Lloyd's pharmacy link and getting themselves a bunch of inhalers.

I mean it's intention to cheat, for sure, but it's hardly great lengths. I'd put it on a par with an ECA stack in terms of dodginess, which is quite popular for amateurs, and salbutamol is almost certainly less harmful to the individual.

If you injected salbutamol to help with weight loss (apparently popular among bodybuilders to cut fat, in high doses - seems the most legit doping use for salbutamol), and had the asthma diagnosis to help cover up any residual salbutamol, that would be a different case. That seems like it would be fairly easy to get away with (not relevant to the Froome case though.