Forum home Road cycling forum Road general

Breaking news: Froome on drugs...

«1

Posts

  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    Already being covered in Po Face.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • kingrollokingrollo Posts: 3,147
    Jesus will it never end.

    Seems like overdosing on asthma meds rather than performance enhancing drugs. Still he will be tainted whatever the outcome.
  • ben@31[email protected] Posts: 2,322
    edited December 2017
    Already being covered in Po Face.

    Whenever I'm cycling up the hill back home and I see a deliveroo rider in front, I get my pro face on.

    Or do you mean Poo Face? That doesn't sound good
    "The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby
  • 2011 wants its thread back
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,021
    kingrollo wrote:
    Jesus will it never end.

    Seems like overdosing on asthma meds rather than performance enhancing drugs. Still he will be tainted whatever the outcome.
    Asthma meds are performance enhancing as it's reason for existing is to open up the air tubes.
    Is it pure coincidence that athletes appear to have asthma higher than the normal percentage?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 10,822
    pblakeney wrote:
    kingrollo wrote:
    Jesus will it never end.

    Seems like overdosing on asthma meds rather than performance enhancing drugs. Still he will be tainted whatever the outcome.
    Asthma meds are performance enhancing as it's reason for existing is to open up the air tubes.
    Is it pure coincidence that athletes appear to have asthma higher than the normal percentage?

    It isn't performance enhancing. It offers 'normalisation' for asthma sufferers, but offers no performance benefit to those who do not have asthma.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,021
    Imposter wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    kingrollo wrote:
    Jesus will it never end.

    Seems like overdosing on asthma meds rather than performance enhancing drugs. Still he will be tainted whatever the outcome.
    Asthma meds are performance enhancing as it's reason for existing is to open up the air tubes.
    Is it pure coincidence that athletes appear to have asthma higher than the normal percentage?

    It isn't performance enhancing. It offers 'normalisation' for asthma sufferers, but offers no performance benefit to those who do not have asthma.
    At 2000 mg/mm?
    That is way above any usual prescription, and the question.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 10,822
    pblakeney wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    kingrollo wrote:
    Jesus will it never end.

    Seems like overdosing on asthma meds rather than performance enhancing drugs. Still he will be tainted whatever the outcome.
    Asthma meds are performance enhancing as it's reason for existing is to open up the air tubes.
    Is it pure coincidence that athletes appear to have asthma higher than the normal percentage?

    It isn't performance enhancing. It offers 'normalisation' for asthma sufferers, but offers no performance benefit to those who do not have asthma.
    At 2000 mg/mm?
    That is way above any usual prescription, and the question.

    You said it was 'performance enhancing'. It's not performance enhancing, for the reasons I mentioned. That's all I'm trying to say.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,021
    Imposter wrote:
    You said it was 'performance enhancing'. It's not performance enhancing, for the reasons I mentioned. That's all I'm trying to say.
    Fair enough, but I still have doubts. I doubt he would have taken that dosage by accident. I doubt a doctor would prescribe such a prescription purely for asthma. I doubt Sky would use the dose without "marginal gains". I have doubts.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 10,822
    pblakeney wrote:
    I doubt a doctor would prescribe such a prescription purely for asthma.

    Not sure what this means. Salbutamol is a medication specifically developed for treating asthma. Doctors routinely prescribe it purely for asthma, as it doesn't really treat any other condition.
  • Imposter wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    kingrollo wrote:
    Jesus will it never end.

    Seems like overdosing on asthma meds rather than performance enhancing drugs. Still he will be tainted whatever the outcome.
    Asthma meds are performance enhancing as it's reason for existing is to open up the air tubes.
    Is it pure coincidence that athletes appear to have asthma higher than the normal percentage?

    It isn't performance enhancing. It offers 'normalisation' for asthma sufferers, but offers no performance benefit to those who do not have asthma.
    At 2000 mg/mm?
    That is way above any usual prescription, and the question.

    You said it was 'performance enhancing'. It's not performance enhancing, for the reasons I mentioned. That's all I'm trying to say.

    It was performance enhancing for Froome though wasnt it? the limits are there for a reason, had he stuck to them he would have either had to retire or lose time.

    Surely he must have known what he was doing! even with Doc's advice, he was taking significantly more drug than normal and should have known the dangers.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 10,822
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    kingrollo wrote:
    Jesus will it never end.

    Seems like overdosing on asthma meds rather than performance enhancing drugs. Still he will be tainted whatever the outcome.
    Asthma meds are performance enhancing as it's reason for existing is to open up the air tubes.
    Is it pure coincidence that athletes appear to have asthma higher than the normal percentage?

    It isn't performance enhancing. It offers 'normalisation' for asthma sufferers, but offers no performance benefit to those who do not have asthma.
    At 2000 mg/mm?
    That is way above any usual prescription, and the question.

    You said it was 'performance enhancing'. It's not performance enhancing, for the reasons I mentioned. That's all I'm trying to say.

    It was performance enhancing for Froome though wasnt it? the limits are there for a reason, had he stuck to them he would have either had to retire or lose time.

    Surely he must have known what he was doing! even with Doc's advice, he was taking significantly more drug than normal and should have known the dangers.

    Not sure if you've understood what I said. Salbutamol does not 'enhance' performance. For asthmatics, the best it will do is 'normalise' your lung function, thus putting you on a level par with athletes who do not have asthma. There is no particular performance benefit in taking higher doses of salbutamol, other than is necessary to relieve asthma symptoms. Salbutamol will have no beneficial effect on someone who does not have asthma.
  • I understood what you said.
    But the point here is the drug has a limit on dosage and Froome exceeded that by some margin, are you saying these limits are unnecessary? and on what basis?
    We only have his word for it that he was suffering acute asthma, Froome looked remarkably well in the post race interviews? when was he taking this medication?

    I very much hope he can explain this and save his Vuelta win and possibly his 2018 season too but trying to defend him by saying its not performance enhancing is a weak argument.
  • StillGoingStillGoing Posts: 5,152
    An individual's metabolic rate and under extremes of exercise will have an effect of how the Salbutamol passes through the system. Froome could merely have had a build up of the stuff in his urine after the extreme physical exertion. The Lab trails will establish what has happened rather than amateur speculation and anti Sky conjecture.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 10,822
    edited December 2017
    Lookyhere wrote:
    I understood what you said.
    But the point here is the drug has a limit on dosage and Froome exceeded that by some margin, are you saying these limits are unnecessary? and on what basis?
    We only have his word for it that he was suffering acute asthma, Froome looked remarkably well in the post race interviews? when was he taking this medication?

    I very much hope he can explain this and save his Vuelta win and possibly his 2018 season too but trying to defend him by saying its not performance enhancing is a weak argument.

    I'm not defending him at all - but calling salbutamol a 'performance enhancer' is factually incorrect. Like I say, salbumatol has little/no effect on non-asthma sufferers, so cannot be seen as a performance enhancing drug in the typical sense. All it does is 'enhance' the performance of an asthma sufferer up to the level of a non-asthma sufferer. Taking more of the drug than is necessary to treat his condition will not have any further or additional benefit.

    Drinking a gallon of the stuff will not turn you into superman - although the side effects would probably kill you.
  • 2000ng/ml is something like 38 puffs. 38 puffs! If you need 38 puffs, even if you’re an elite athlete, then something is very wrong with you.

    Ulissi got a ban after the salbutamol rules were changed so like it or not, Froome has been found with excessive amounts in his system so he will need to take a ban too.
  • philthy3 wrote:
    The Lab trails will establish what has happened rather than amateur speculation and anti Sky conjecture.

    You mean like the amateur speculation you've just posted?
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • StillGoingStillGoing Posts: 5,152
    philthy3 wrote:
    The Lab trails will establish what has happened rather than amateur speculation and anti Sky conjecture.

    You mean like the amateur speculation you've just posted?

    If you take it in the spirit it was intended instead of looking for points, I merely suggest there are reasons why he may or may not have a higher than permitted reading. I don't speculate either way. But there are posters here who have been adamant that Froome is a doper from day one and will take anything they can to support their conjecture.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • nicklongnicklong Posts: 231
    2000ng/ml is something like 38 puffs. 38 puffs! If you need 38 puffs, even if you’re an elite athlete, then something is very wrong with you.

    Ulissi got a ban after the salbutamol rules were changed so like it or not, Froome has been found with excessive amounts in his system so he will need to take a ban too.

    Not quite. That is the concentration in urine - that is how the dosage is measured, but it isn't the dosage taken, hence why there isn't an automatic ban (it isn't like alcohol in the blood).

    The proscribed limit is 1600 mcg orally inhaled in 24 hours, or 800 mcg in 12 hours. A salbutamol inhaler gives doses from 100 to 200 mcg depending on brand, prescription etc. The nanograms/ml is an indirect indicator and the onus is then on the subject to confirm they did not take greater than 800/1600 mcg in the period.

    FYI I've had one GP prescribe 200mcg, another 100 mcg, the prescription was the same in both cases - 2 puffs or as many as needed to relieve symptoms. I've easily taken more than 8 puffs in a 12 hour period, and no-one would be the wiser. Relief is relatively instant.

    Note, 100mcg inhaled does NOT equate to 100ng/ml in urine.

    I could take 2 puffs in a race and feel better, another 10 wouldn't do a thing. I could also need 10 puffs another day to get anywhere near the same level of relief.

    If I'm under the weather it isn't unusual for me to go through 6+ puffs during an hour's turbo session.
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    philthy3 wrote:
    But there are posters here who have been adamant that Froome is a doper from day one and will take anything they can to support their conjecture.

    Oh no - incorrect. Not from day one.

    Just from when he went from mid peloton mediocrity to T de F 2nd place in a year or so.........
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • socratessocrates Posts: 453
    Doesn't matter what way we cut it. Limit 1000 - Froome's reading 2000. Sky and Froome have questions to answer. That's only natural. Perhaps an innocent reason and if so then fair enough but let's wait and see.
  • Salbutomol inhaler is 100 micrograms per actuation. That is 20 actuations or puffs as they are known to get 2000 micrograms. Salbutomol can stay in your blood stream for some time so will show up in urine.
    I use salbutomol for asthma when i need it. It is known as an enabler not an enhancer. If i am suffering as i do mainly in summer when polon is high, 20 actuations over a few days especially when cycling is not unusual.
    If Salbutomol is listed as an enabler i am not sure why UCI sets a limit for diagnosed asthmatics. Froome, his team and medical staff new the UCI limit so why exceed it. On occasions one actuation is enough for me ( i nearly wrote 1 puff is enough for me but that sounds wrong) and sometimes it can take 2,3 or 4 to have any effect on enabling clear breathing. The inhaler is not an exact science. Thats just my view as an asthma sufferer. I can say its never enhanced my performance especially uphill.
  • priorypriory Posts: 743
    interesting account by a patient.
    people vary very greatly in the number of puffs they use. The drug has not been shown to enhance performance except by treating asthma., and if he needed to use a lot perhaps he was having a bad wheezy day. If we ban this then no illnesses can be treated; no diabetics , haemophiliacs, eczema, psoriasis, high bp , anticoagulants, familial hypercholesterolaemia, manic depression, psychosis,etc etc..

    as has been pointed out, the limit is a urine level, not a number of puffs, so even if there is an intent to restrict salb to a number of mcg/hr you could not be sure what your test result will be as it depends on particle size in the aerosol ( can double the delivery effect ) , efficiency of patient's technique, whether he swallowed the off-target drug or rinsed his mouth out, for how long he was absorbing his doses from the mucosa of mouth and gut, liver metabollsm of the drug, kidney function( high blood filtering rate producing concentrated urine in a dehydrated cyclist will cause high levels) , and we have to remember that whatever research has been done on these drugs and urine levels might not have been done on a lot of extremely muscular people with 10% body fat. A spot test like that can only really indicate the presence of the drug, not how much has been used.
    The limit is so unreliable i am surprised they set one at all , except to provide trigger for further enquiry and monitoring.
    Raleigh Eclipse, , Dahon Jetstream XP, Raleigh Banana, Dawes super galaxy, Raleigh Clubman

    http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z122 ... =slideshow
  • john1967john1967 Posts: 366
    I suffer from a low VO2 max due to genetic reasons.Is there a drug i can take to put me on a level playing field.
  • priory wrote:
    interesting account by a patient.
    people vary very greatly in the number of puffs they use. The drug has not been shown to enhance performance except by treating asthma., and if he needed to use a lot perhaps he was having a bad wheezy day. If we ban this then no illnesses can be treated; no diabetics , haemophiliacs, eczema, psoriasis, high bp , anticoagulants, familial hypercholesterolaemia, manic depression, psychosis,etc etc..

    as has been pointed out, the limit is a urine level, not a number of puffs, so even if there is an intent to restrict salb to a number of mcg/hr you could not be sure what your test result will be as it depends on particle size in the aerosol ( can double the delivery effect ) , efficiency of patient's technique, whether he swallowed the off-target drug or rinsed his mouth out, for how long he was absorbing his doses from the mucosa of mouth and gut, liver metabollsm of the drug, kidney function( high blood filtering rate producing concentrated urine in a dehydrated cyclist will cause high levels) , and we have to remember that whatever research has been done on these drugs and urine levels might not have been done on a lot of extremely muscular people with 10% body fat. A spot test like that can only really indicate the presence of the drug, not how much has been used.
    The limit is so unreliable i am surprised they set one at all , except to provide trigger for further enquiry and monitoring.

    Given how many athletes are also suffer from asthma, it seems that the vast majority do manage their symptoms without exceeding this limit.
    If CF was having a bad wheezy day, then like many other top riders before him, who ve succumbed to illness, he should have retired from the Vuelta and not risked a drugs test failure.
    All very well anecdotal evidence from an asthmatic but with all due respect, you are not an elite cyclist with access to the worlds best treatments and medical advice, SKY would have been well aware of these limits and the consequences of breaking them.
  • He has only reached the threshold for reporting, he hasn't failed a drugs test.
  • StillGoingStillGoing Posts: 5,152
    philthy3 wrote:
    But there are posters here who have been adamant that Froome is a doper from day one and will take anything they can to support their conjecture.

    Oh no - incorrect. Not from day one.

    Just from when he went from mid peloton mediocrity to T de F 2nd place in a year or so.........

    Maybe you should read his book and the parasite infestation of his blood that European Doctors hadn't detected instead of jumping to unfounded conclusions. :roll:
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,868
    john1967 wrote:
    I suffer from a low VO2 max due to genetic reasons.Is there a drug i can take to put me on a level playing field.

    No.
Sign In or Register to comment.