Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

joelsim

TheBigBean wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Meanwhile contador gets found guilty of an infintesimally small trace and hes the devil. TWICE OVER THE LIMIT BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA

Contador's trouble was that he had infinite multiples of the accepted amount in his system.

Clenbuterol and traces of plasticiser are somewhat different than salbutamol, according to the letter of the law anyway.

joelsim

the article don wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

INRNG's take.

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

That is a beautifully written piece

Agree. Always a sensible, measured viewpoint.

TheBigBean

Joelsim wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Meanwhile contador gets found guilty of an infintesimally small trace and hes the devil. TWICE OVER THE LIMIT BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA

Contador's trouble was that he had infinite multiples of the accepted amount in his system.

Clenbuterol and traces of plasticiser are somewhat different than salbutamol, according to the letter of the law anyway.

Traces of plasticisers has been found to be meaningless. Clenbuterol and Salbutamol are similar drugs if you ask Google. The only difference is that WADA has set the threshold for one at 0 and the other at 1000 something.

joelsim

TheBigBean wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Meanwhile contador gets found guilty of an infintesimally small trace and hes the devil. TWICE OVER THE LIMIT BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA

Contador's trouble was that he had infinite multiples of the accepted amount in his system.

Clenbuterol and traces of plasticiser are somewhat different than salbutamol, according to the letter of the law anyway.

Traces of plasticisers has been found to be meaningless. Clenbuterol and Salbutamol are similar drugs if you ask Google. The only difference is that WADA has set the threshold for one at 0 and the other at 1000 something.

Yes, but that doesn’t matter TBB. It’s the rules, whether those rules are wrong or right.

argyllflyer

Joelsim wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Innocent until the mob declares him guilty.

IMO it doesn’t really matter whether he’s guilty or innocent. He’s over the permitted limit.

That it doesn't generate an automatic ban for a B sample being positive would suggest innocence / guilt is yet to be proven. This kind of case doesn't generate an automatic ban and stays anonymous for that reason. This was leaked before guilt was decided.

Mad_Malx

BigMat wrote:

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)?

I think this is spot on. Salbutamol alone should only be used for very mild asthma. In asthma the airways are inflamed, and the inflammation needs to be addressed by steroids like fluticasone or budesonide. If you don't treat the inflammation salbutamol can only offer limited benefit. If he'd taken a combination prep (which requires the TUE) he wouldn't be taking more and more salbutamol.

As for the PED activity - as others note, high dose beta agonists increase lean muscle - hence the use of clenbuterol, which is taken orally to achieve high plasma concentration. Normal inhaled doses don't achieve high plasma concentration. There is little if any data to support short-term benefits. As with all drugs the limits are there in part to protect riders.

I'm not a Sky fan, but I'm massively p****d off about the way all this has really taken the shine off what had been overall a great year's racing.

Mad_Malx

Joelsim wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Meanwhile contador gets found guilty of an infintesimally small trace and hes the devil. TWICE OVER THE LIMIT BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA

Contador's trouble was that he had infinite multiples of the accepted amount in his system.

Clenbuterol and traces of plasticiser are somewhat different than salbutamol, according to the letter of the law anyway.

Clenbuterol isn't licensed in Europe or USA.

joelsim

argyllflyer wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Innocent until the mob declares him guilty.

IMO it doesn’t really matter whether he’s guilty or innocent. He’s over the permitted limit.

That it doesn't generate an automatic ban for a B sample being positive would suggest innocence / guilt is yet to be proven. This kind of case doesn't generate an automatic ban and stays anonymous for that reason. This was leaked before guilt was decided.

It’s a bit of a case of guilty unless you can prove your innocence rather than the other way round.

t5nel

powerbookboy wrote:

As a former Ventolin user who has been utterly terrified as I gasped like a landed fish, I can tell you those '2 short puffs' quickly become 4 or 5 as you desperately try to get enough nubulised drug deep into your lungs rather than coating the inside of your mouth.

Exactly this. I only get attacks occasionally but my Dr said don't worry about overdoing it so I have taken > 5 many times. You would need to do 20/25 puffs to be in the nebuliser range IIRC

blazing_saddles

Joelsim wrote:

argyllflyer wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Innocent until the mob declares him guilty.

IMO it doesn’t really matter whether he’s guilty or innocent. He’s over the permitted limit.

That it doesn't generate an automatic ban for a B sample being positive would suggest innocence / guilt is yet to be proven. This kind of case doesn't generate an automatic ban and stays anonymous for that reason. This was leaked before guilt was decided.

It’s a bit of a case of guilty unless you can prove your innocence rather than the other way round.

Be interesting to know what all his other Vuelta readings were since they have pretty much the full set.
I wonder whether they would work for or against him?

Vino'sGhost

He's over the limit. He doesn't deny it. Its the hooked wriggling fish time

joe2008

SKY. Believe in buta.

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

Traces of plasticisers has been found to be meaningless. Clenbuterol and Salbutamol are similar drugs if you ask Google. The only difference is that WADA has set the threshold for one at 0 and the other at 1000 something.

The other difference is that there is a legitimate everyday medical use for salbutamol. People you know take it frequently. There isn't for clenbuterol.

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

He's over the limit. He doesn't deny it. Its the hooked wriggling fish time

That inrng article says it best. It's a positive test, he needs to prove that it isn't a result of a legal dose. Only if he can prove it, can he be not guilty.

I can't get over what a stupid thing it would be to be popped for, but that doesn't mean he isn't guilty.

redvision

Couldn't have come at a worse time for him. I can't see any other outcome other than a ban, regardless of his defence, because of the suspicion around team sky and the whole Wiggins jiffy bag thing.

thegreatdivide

Mad_Malx wrote:

BigMat wrote:

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)?

I think this is spot on. Salbutamol alone should only be used for very mild asthma. In asthma the airways are inflamed, and the inflammation needs to be addressed by steroids like fluticasone or budesonide. If you don't treat the inflammation salbutamol can only offer limited benefit. If he'd taken a combination prep (which requires the TUE) he wouldn't be taking more and more salbutamol.

As for the PED activity - as others note, high dose beta agonists increase lean muscle - hence the use of clenbuterol, which is taken orally to achieve high plasma concentration. Normal inhaled doses don't achieve high plasma concentration. There is little if any data to support short-term benefits. As with all drugs the limits are there in part to protect riders.

I'm not a Sky fan, but I'm massively p****d off about the way all this has really taken the shine off what had been overall a great year's racing.

Froome took Prednisolone via a TUE before the 2014 Romandie which he went on to win. So he’s talking out of his ar$e.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

Couldn't have come at a worse time for him. I can't see any other outcome other than a ban, regardless of his defence, because of the suspicion around team sky and the whole Wiggins jiffy bag thing.

That's not how justice works.

RichN95.

thegreatdivide wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

BigMat wrote:

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)?

I think this is spot on. Salbutamol alone should only be used for very mild asthma. In asthma the airways are inflamed, and the inflammation needs to be addressed by steroids like fluticasone or budesonide. If you don't treat the inflammation salbutamol can only offer limited benefit. If he'd taken a combination prep (which requires the TUE) he wouldn't be taking more and more salbutamol.

As for the PED activity - as others note, high dose beta agonists increase lean muscle - hence the use of clenbuterol, which is taken orally to achieve high plasma concentration. Normal inhaled doses don't achieve high plasma concentration. There is little if any data to support short-term benefits. As with all drugs the limits are there in part to protect riders.

I'm not a Sky fan, but I'm massively p****d off about the way all this has really taken the shine off what had been overall a great year's racing.

Froome took Prednisolone via a TUE before the 2014 Romandie which he went on to win. So he’s talking out of his ar$e.

And after the hysteria about that he stopped using them.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

Couldn't have come at a worse time for him. I can't see any other outcome other than a ban, regardless of his defence, because of the suspicion around team sky and the whole Wiggins jiffy bag thing.

That's not how justice works.

No sh!t. But I suspect it will be in this case.

joelsim

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

He's over the limit. He doesn't deny it. Its the hooked wriggling fish time

That inrng article says it best. It's a positive test, he needs to prove that it isn't a result of a legal dose. Only if he can prove it, can he be not guilty.

I can't get over what a stupid thing it would be to be popped for, but that doesn't mean he isn't guilty.

Clearly a major misjudgement. Nothing more.

But he’s over the limit so will have to pay the price.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

Clearly a major misjudgement. Nothing more.

But he’s over the limit so will have to pay the price.

Yep. That's basically it.

Although having said that there are issues to clarity about the correlation between amount taken and the levels of urine. But I doubt that will clear him.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Clearly a major misjudgement. Nothing more.

But he’s over the limit so will have to pay the price.

Yep. That's basically it.

Yep the limit is the limit. Maybe the limit is the wrong tool, maybe its set at the wrong level, maybe that can be shown and it will mitigate but hes over the limit. The credibility of the uci hangs by a thread again.

It makes my chest tight thinking about it

dabber

If you push these things to the limit they're always likely to come back and bite you.

Regardless of how this plays out Froome's reputation is shot, cycling loses yet again, British cycling loses even more...
I've always liked Froome but he/his doctors/sky or whoever have screwed up big time.

Very sad.

ademort

Whatever happens the Dutch and Belgian press are having a field day with this. Poor Chris has already been hung drawn and quartered, lost his Gc victory and been banned for a zillion years.Cyclings equivalent of Mayweather v McGregor or Tom v Chris will have to be posponed until Chris has served his 1000 year ban. For most journalists here Chris Froome is about as clean as an apprentice car mechanics oily rag.Team SKY as bent as a nine bob note.All we need is someone to say they collected a package from Dr Dope and delivered it to Chris personally and tomorrows newspapers have yet another exclusive. Of course we now await the full response from team SKY which you can be sure will be so technical that only those who have worked at NASA or the IQ of Steven Hawkin will be able to understand.

thegreatdivide

The Sky blue is turning out to be a bad choice

Richmond Racer 2

oh you bad bad man

mfin

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Clearly a major misjudgement. Nothing more.

But he’s over the limit so will have to pay the price.

Yep. That's basically it.

Although having said that there are issues to clarity about the correlation between amount taken and the levels of urine. But I doubt that will clear him.

These comments do really sum it up.

ddraver

ademort wrote:

Tom v Chris

Outstanding Sir!

mfin

So, pages and pages of not much at all on this thread have been posted and pages and pages more will be.

A few people seem like there's some drama here, are saddened by it, or some other reaction showing emotional investment, if you feel any emotional reaction at all then you really do need to get a grip, the news hardly warrants an emotional reaction.

If you just hate cheats though (which is no bad thing) there's nothing really here of note either. So, those excited about it from that angle need to grow up really.

tailwindhome

He was told of the adverse finding on the day of the Worlds TT