Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

Richmond Racer 2

'Chelle started lashing out to all and sundry on the Twatters yet?

richard_t._biscuit

I think however this plays out it is going to cement the idea that the Sky's period of dominance was at least in part built on being the most effective at exploiting loopholes that, while within the rules, were far outside the spirit of the rules.

RichN95.

Richard T. Biscuit wrote:

I think however this plays out it is going to cement the idea that the Sky's period of dominance was at least in part built on being the most effective at exploiting loopholes that, while within the rules, were far outside the spirit of the rules.

I think however this plays out it is going to cement whatever opinions people had yesterday.

ocdupalais

mfin wrote:

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.

Some might say that someone who bangs out 6000+ posts on a forum needs to get a grip. I’ll make sure I go through them all to find the bit where you were anointed as Chief Arbiter of Emotion.

powerbookboy

Ben6899 wrote:

powerbookboy wrote:

[If a team could find an asthmatic with colitis and diabetes they'd be set for the next 10 years ( salbutamol, insulin and oral low dose steroids )

I know it was a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment (right?), but I'm guessing you've never taken the 'favourite' steroid to combat IBD - prednisolone. It's no performance enhancer!

Slightly tongue in cheek - but not that much. I've taken pred on a number of occasions for colitis and more recently for Bells Palsy. Utterly incredible drug. On the first week at 60mg I feel massively better than by rights I should be, to the point of euphoria. Gut symptoms clear up in days when I've been losing blood from places you shouldn't be for months. As the dose gets tapered I often get hideous muscle cramps, followed by what we describe as ( sorry ladies, not meaning to be offensive) "man period" where I suddenly start crying for no apparently obvious reason and ask people to call me through the day just to "check". Which to be honest is completely brutal but occasionally necessary.

However people react very differently to steroids; some people don't get the euphoria, don't get the cramps, don't get the depression. But almost everyone gets heavily accelerated weight loss. Fat literally melted off me despite the fact for the first time in months I might be able to keep food in my bowel for a sensible length of time. Mix in some properly anabolic stuff like insulin and you\ll be muscle, bone and very little fat in no time.

Get a diagnosis that gets you the aforementioned triumvirate of legally prescribed drugs and you're laughing all the way to the podium, assuming you're not actually that ill.

It's plainly obvious TUEs can be used as a legalised form of cheating for those that are motivated to do so. So to protect those that don't, you've got to crucify anyone who fails a test, even if there might be a benign explanation. I rather think Froome might not be taking the piss, but that's irrelevant. He has to lose the Vuelta and get a ban.

The fact that Sky didn't sign up to MPCC means they didn't have to worry about the Cortisol test, which means they might have been able to use steroids out of competition to lean down. It certainly could explain why they didn't join the MPCC. If i recall my very first post in this forum was how Sky were using their budget to get unfair advantage by "mechanical doping", essentially having better use of technology give them a marginal gain that others could not afford. Now I'm wondering if it also bought access to better medicine.

RichN95.

OCDuPalais wrote:

Some might say that someone who bangs out 6000+ posts on a forum needs to get a grip. I’ll make sure I go through them all to find the bit where you were anointed as Chief Arbiter of Emotion.

What's the threshold for posts that shows a loss of grip?

(I'm trundling up to 20000 so I'm long beyond help)

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

Some might say that someone who bangs out 6000+ posts on a forum needs to get a grip. I’ll make sure I go through them all to find the bit where you were anointed as Chief Arbiter of Emotion.

What's the threshold for posts that shows a loss of grip?

(I'm trundling up to 20000 so I'm long beyond help)

You're allowed up to 30,000 I believe.

Wheelspinner

RichN95 wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

Some might say that someone who bangs out 6000+ posts on a forum needs to get a grip. I’ll make sure I go through them all to find the bit where you were anointed as Chief Arbiter of Emotion.

What's the threshold for posts that shows a loss of grip?

(I'm trundling up to 20000 so I'm long beyond help)

It's possible for any number >= 1. See "whiteboytrash" for example.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

Some might say that someone who bangs out 6000+ posts on a forum needs to get a grip. I’ll make sure I go through them all to find the bit where you were anointed as Chief Arbiter of Emotion.

What's the threshold for posts that shows a loss of grip?

(I'm trundling up to 20000 so I'm long beyond help)

Agreed

RichN95.

I was just thinking with regard to his Giro announcement and how he didn't seem bother by this (or at any time). Maybe, just maybe, he's already done these PK tests and they support his defence.

ocdupalais

RichN95 wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

Some might say that someone who bangs out 6000+ posts on a forum needs to get a grip. I’ll make sure I go through them all to find the bit where you were anointed as Chief Arbiter of Emotion.

What's the threshold for posts that shows a loss of grip?

(I'm trundling up to 20000 so I'm long beyond help)

Ah, Rich - you aren’t “trundling”; you’re soaring like the er, lovely pony that will feature in your inevitable Lovely Pony Moment at some point between your 20 and 30k posts...

richard_t._biscuit

RichN95 wrote:

Richard T. Biscuit wrote:

I think however this plays out it is going to cement the idea that the Sky's period of dominance was at least in part built on being the most effective at exploiting loopholes that, while within the rules, were far outside the spirit of the rules.

I think however this plays out it is going to cement whatever opinions people had yesterday.

Probably.
However I think Froome ostensibly getting caught going over the line (on a good day too) lends weight to the idea that they were often sailing close to the wind, and that the ideology of "marginal gains" went a lot further than bringing their own pillows to hotels.
It's not going to change the views of people who have already made up their minds, but I think it could be something of a watershed for how history generally judges Froome and Sky.

No_Ta_Doctor

Ben6899 wrote:

powerbookboy wrote:

[If a team could find an asthmatic with colitis and diabetes they'd be set for the next 10 years ( salbutamol, insulin and oral low dose steroids )

I know it was a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment (right?), but I'm guessing you've never taken the 'favourite' steroid to combat IBD - prednisolone. It's no performance enhancer!

*Dumoulin*

Mad_Malx

RichN95 wrote:

I was just thinking with regard to his Giro announcement and how he didn't seem bother by this (or at any time). Maybe, just maybe, he's already done these PK tests and they support his defence.

That’s an interesting idea.

Whatever happens now though the team are going to have deluge of body fluid to dodge at all next year’s gts.

ridgerider

RichN95 wrote:

I was just thinking with regard to his Giro announcement and how he didn't seem bother by this (or at any time). Maybe, just maybe, he's already done these PK tests and they support his defence.

How could they reproduce the 18 days of competitive racing on his body that went before the fateful test...?

part time waster

I had lost faith in Davo Brailsford when Sky were having a muck out , supposedly riding Sky of all who had an association with drugs / other jolly bad things.
Then Sean Yates gets to leave on health grounds without getting his plumbs felt by the media.
Oh then he gets a job hiding as D.S with Catford/Banks to save him doing anymore gardening jobs.
The dust settles and of he goes with pro tour D.S roles . It's like The wolf of Wall Street staring in Breaking Bad.
Lucky barstool.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

I was just thinking with regard to his Giro announcement and how he didn't seem bother by this (or at any time). Maybe, just maybe, he's already done these PK tests and they support his defence.

They just need to find someone who can work dropbox

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

I was just thinking with regard to his Giro announcement and how he didn't seem bother by this (or at any time). Maybe, just maybe, he's already done these PK tests and they support his defence.

Or that it only went into his schedule so that the minimal ban they're angling for looks like it hurts a bit. "Sure I get to ride the Tour, but hey, I missed my three GT chance"

awavey

t5nel wrote:

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

if you are taking 5 puffs regularly to combat your asthma, your yearly asthma review, and the NHS will withold your repeat prescriptions if you dont conform to their box ticking exercises, should be highlighting you are in a high risk category by using your blue inhaler that much and your Dr rather than saying yeah take the blue one as much as you like, should start prescribing stronger preventer medicines that come in brown inhalers, or if you're really in trouble coping, a course of oral steroids, nebulizers are what they use when all else is failing.

if I get a winter cold, or if the air is really cold (Ive had 3 asthma attacks on my bike in winter), then yeah Ill use my blue inhaler, probably 2 puffs as its a comfort pschologically you arent quite sure the first has worked,and maybe over the course of several hour 5 puffs, not 5 in one go, and thats when its really bad, rest of the time my daily preventer inhaler keeps it in check. the blue inhaler is your fallback always, its not the way to treat it.

twotoebenny

Mad_Malx wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I was just thinking with regard to his Giro announcement and how he didn't seem bother by this (or at any time). Maybe, just maybe, he's already done these PK tests and they support his defence.

That’s an interesting idea.

Whatever happens now though the team are going to have deluge of body fluid to dodge at all next year’s gts.

What a load of p1$$

trivial_poursuivant

Froome should and would have been tested every single day he was racing, certainly the days he wore red, which was almost every day anyway. Of all them days he goes over the threshold once. What of the days either side? It does seem strange to me that of all them days gets one big spike and nothing else over a 3 week period.

Because it’s not a banned substance and there is no proof it is performance enhancing (if it were trust me they would ALL be on it whether they needed it or not. It’s not banned after all!!) any punishment Sky will no doubt take to CAS and with the possible reasons why he could show a spike, dehydration or altitude or any combination of variables, they will try and show the threshold WADA use if flawed and could very well win their case.

t5nel

awavey wrote:

t5nel wrote:

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

if you are taking 5 puffs regularly to combat your asthma, your yearly asthma review, and the NHS will withold your repeat prescriptions if you dont conform to their box ticking exercises, should be highlighting you are in a high risk category by using your blue inhaler that much and your Dr rather than saying yeah take the blue one as much as you like, should start prescribing stronger preventer medicines that come in brown inhalers, or if you're really in trouble coping, a course of oral steroids, nebulizers are what they use when all else is failing.

if I get a winter cold, or if the air is really cold (Ive had 3 asthma attacks on my bike in winter), then yeah Ill use my blue inhaler, probably 2 puffs as its a comfort pschologically you arent quite sure the first has worked,and maybe over the course of several hour 5 puffs, not 5 in one go, and thats when its really bad, rest of the time my daily preventer inhaler keeps it in check. the blue inhaler is your fallback always, its not the way to treat it.

You are right of course and I was prescribed the brown steroid inhaler too. However given that for some reason the taste of that makes me gag/cough (i have no issue with ventolin) AND because I only get acute symptoms occasionally (usually related to animal contact) I do not take the brown one religiously.

The point still stands that when that unpleasant / panic sets in most people will probably take a larger dose / more puffs than necessary until they feel some relief.

trivial_poursuivant

As per my previous post

https://news.sky.com/story/chris-froome ... s-11169173

All Sky need to do is call in experts in this field who suggest no performance enhancing benefit comes from taking higher amounts and may even have a detrimental effect. It throws doubt on WADAs stance and that’s what CAS is there to judge.

Matthewfalle

Joelsim wrote:

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.

Why "clearly a misjudgement. Nothing more"

Why so certain?

RichN95.

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

As per my previous post

https://news.sky.com/story/chris-froome ... s-11169173

All Sky need to do is call in experts in this field who suggest no performance enhancing benefit comes from taking higher amounts and may even have a detrimental effect. It throws doubt on WADAs stance and that’s what CAS is there to judge.

I don't think he could be cleared on that basis though. A far better defence is to demonstrate that Froome himself can take a legal amount of salbutamol inhalations and then test above the threshold (which studies suggest is possible). If he can do that it would undermine the credibility of the test and therefore the credibility of the prosecution.

It's a big if though.

Matthewfalle

ademort wrote:

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 Donald Trump will be able to understand.

FTFY

flasher

Froome on the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42345354

trivial_poursuivant

RichN95 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

As per my previous post

https://news.sky.com/story/chris-froome ... s-11169173

All Sky need to do is call in experts in this field who suggest no performance enhancing benefit comes from taking higher amounts and may even have a detrimental effect. It throws doubt on WADAs stance and that’s what CAS is there to judge.

I don't think he could be cleared on that basis though. A far better defence is to demonstrate that Froome himself can take a legal amount of salbutamol inhalations and then test above the threshold (which studies suggest is possible). If he can do that it would undermine the credibility of the test and therefore the credibility of the prosecution.

It's a big if though.

WADA would have to say that he gained an unfair advantage. Experts suggest he couldn’t do so. If it was in any way performance enhancing then everyone in the peloton would be taking it within its limits. I mean if 2000mg is seen as enhancing to an asthma sufferer then it’s reasonable to say 1000mg would do so to a non sufferer but it does nothing according to experts. So it’s not likely to do anything extra for Froome, according to the expert it’s even likely to be detrimental to performance.

Sky take that to CAS they imo have a chance of success. WADA saying something is banned means nothing if they cannot prove a reason to ban it. They could ban gummy bears if they wanted to but it would be stupid because they don’t offer any unfair advantage. Hence why is they can disprove WADAs reasons to ban it they can overturn a ban. They don’t have to prove it isn’t a performance enhancing drug. That lays with WADA to prove.

Bakunin

Joelsim wrote:

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.

Doesn't this profound declaration define all doping?
Marginal gains baby.

RichN95.

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

WADA would have to say that he gained an unfair advantage. Experts suggest he couldn’t do so. If it was in any way performance enhancing then everyone in the peloton would be taking it within its limits. I mean if 2000mg is seen as enhancing to an asthma sufferer then it’s reasonable to say 1000mg would do so to a non sufferer but it does nothing according to experts. So it’s not likely to do anything extra for Froome, according to the expert it’s even likely to be detrimental to performance.

Would they? I mean, the amount of clenbuterol that Contador tested for wouldn't have been performance enhancing. But he was still banned. It will probably reduce any ban to a matter of months, but a total clearance. I don't know.