Breaking news: Froome on drugs...

cougie

There's no drug that can turn you into an elite pro.

You still have to do the work.

imposter2.0

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.

VO2 max is not a particularly good predictor of capability...

ilovegrace

Imposter wrote:

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.

VO2 max is not a particularly good predictor of capability...

ilovegrace

ilovegrace wrote:

Imposter wrote:

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.

VO2 max is not a particularly good predictor of capability...

It is not a bad one though

imposter2.0

ilovegrace wrote:

ilovegrace wrote:

Imposter wrote:

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.

VO2 max is not a particularly good predictor of capability...

It is not a bad one though

You'd have to explain why you think that...

sloppyschleckonds

Trago1987 wrote:

He has only reached the threshold for reporting, he hasn't failed a drugs test.

You'd have to explain why you think that...

navrig2

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Trago1987 wrote:

He has only reached the threshold for reporting, he hasn't failed a drugs test.

You'd have to explain why you think that...

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifi ... oceedings/

trago1987

If you read the WADA rules it's quite simple. It's just been really badly reported on very badly in fact.

Matthewfalle

philthy3 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

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:

He had it when he lived in SA. They would have spotted it miles away.

European doctors would also have spotted it as they would have looked at his background. Doctors are quite clever don’t you know.

Matthewfalle

Trago1987 wrote:

He has only reached the threshold for reporting, he hasn't failed a drugs test.

He hasn’t realized the threshold. FAKE NEWS.

He’s smashed through the threshold and doubled the approved limit.

sloppyschleckonds

Trago1987 wrote:

If you read the WADA rules it's quite simple. It's just been really badly reported on very badly in fact.

It clearly states he tested positive

Matthewfalle

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Trago1987 wrote:

If you read the WADA rules it's quite simple. It's just been really badly reported on very badly in fact.

It clearly states he tested positive

By having twice the allowed amount of stuff in him I believe.

Bumo_b

Just to stick my oar in and being a non asthma sufferer,
I still cannot see from the limited research I have done why on earth that would be the drug of choice for performance enhancing? It is almost certain to be found due to the nature of testing.
Also, with how many times he gets tested, the abuse of it would be found out. It virtually offers no benefits to cyclists other than death prevention. No benefits at all according to the research below. Add to that dehydration in the upper limits and it seems that going above the threshold is easily possible.

Please also bear in mind that whilst people are mentioning athletes who are banned, we have no way of knowing how many have explained inhaler use above the limit satisfactorily.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access ... ?aid=59717

Excerpt:Conclusion
Our findings suggest there is no ergogenic benefit, from inhaling up to 1600 μg of salbutamol, on intermittent running performance in soccer players. However, inhalation of 1600 μg may result in a urine concentration above the current WADA upper limit and decision limit leading to a positive test finding. Athletes should ensure they use inhaled salbutamol at therapeutic doses to avoid the risk of breaching the WADA decision limit.

priory

''''By having twice the allowed amount of stuff in him I believe.''''

NO
twice the CONCENTRATION of the drug IN HIS URINE.

Is it really that hard to understand?

---

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26044066


this test did not stress the athletes nearly as much as a Froomalike and they were not Froome.

''When adjusted for USG, the corresponding percentages fell to 21, 15, and 8%.
=======During EXD[excercise dehydrated], mean urine concentrations of salbutamol exceeded (1325±599 ng/mL)[up to 1925ng/ml] the decision limit 4 h after administration when unadjusted for USG.=======
Serum salbutamol Cmax was lower (P<0.01) for R(3.0±0.7 ng/mL) than EX(3.8±0.8 ng/mL) and EXD(3.6±0.8 ng/mL). AUC was lower for R (14.1±2.8 ng/mL·∙h) than EX (16.9±2.9 ng/mL·∙h)(P<0.01) and EXD (16.1±3.2 ng/mL·∙h)(P<0.05). In conclusion, exercise and dehydration affect urine concentrations of salbutamol and increase the risk of Adverse Analytical Findings in samples collected after inhalation of that maximal permitted (1600 µg) for salbutamol. This should be taken into account when evaluating doping cases of salbutamol.

Matthewfalle

priory wrote:

''''By having twice the allowed amount of stuff in him I believe.''''

NO
twice the CONCENTRATION of the drug IN HIS URINE.

Is it really that hard to understand?

---

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26044066


this test did not stress the athletes nearly as much as a Froomalike and they were not Froome.

''When adjusted for USG, the corresponding percentages fell to 21, 15, and 8%.
=======During EXD[excercise dehydrated], mean urine concentrations of salbutamol exceeded (1325±599 ng/mL)[up to 1925ng/ml] the decision limit 4 h after administration when unadjusted for USG.=======
Serum salbutamol Cmax was lower (P<0.01) for R(3.0±0.7 ng/mL) than EX(3.8±0.8 ng/mL) and EXD(3.6±0.8 ng/mL). AUC was lower for R (14.1±2.8 ng/mL·∙h) than EX (16.9±2.9 ng/mL·∙h)(P<0.01) and EXD (16.1±3.2 ng/mL·∙h)(P<0.05). In conclusion, exercise and dehydration affect urine concentrations of salbutamol and increase the risk of Adverse Analytical Findings in samples collected after inhalation of that maximal permitted (1600 µg) for salbutamol. This should be taken into account when evaluating doping cases of salbutamol.

1. Twice the concentration is the same as twice the amount of stuff.

2. In his urine. I really hope that at some point his urine was in him. Or was he trying to take the urine?

Guilty as, so please don’t be angry. Couldn’t really be guiltier unless he was found to have twice the allowed amount of a stuff in him that the rules allowed.

Oh.

priory

must be trolling

out

chris_bass

Matthewfalle wrote:

1. Twice the concentration is the same as twice the amount of stuff.

actually it means half as much other stuff

cycleclinic

Twice the ammount in his urine than is allowed does not mean he had twice the allowed dose in his body. People metabolise at different rates. So if froome took alot quickly but under the legal dose then he could have metabolised the drug quickly enough to give twice the allowed level in his urine. As metabolism rate for a drug depends on many factors it is not possible for any one to know if the medication will throw them over the urine limit or not as it dies also depend when the sample is taken too.

Also all cyclists who take this drug are only allowed because they have been diagnosed through a test and have exercise induced asthma. It is common. Thus drug as far as i can tell keeps the airways open during a hard effort that would otherwise cause an asthma attack. It dies however over relax the Airways and allow more air into the lungs under any condition. Therefore not only is the test poor and misleading but testing for this drug is also pointless as all it does is allow a cyclist with exercise induced asthma to race and not fall over.

Those that think frome should be banned see things in black and white. There is a limit even if the test is junk ban him. A bit like witch trails, even though the trials were junk if she failed burn her. Same mentality I am afraid.

Doping rules are not made by biochemists or on consultation with biochemists and doctors they are made by sports politicians with little to know knowledge of human biology. Essentially it like Donald trump is making the rules. We can see how that is working out in us plots now. The same has been happening in sport for years. Catch the drug is the mantra but who cares how many are caught in the cross fire.

On this basis sugar which is a refined product and generally with the exception of honey is not available in granules in nature should be banned and all those eating products contain should be banned. Processed sugar is as unnatural as asthma medication, it all manufactured by humans. Where does it end. I am being serious by the way. The logic is sound if a little extreme but it is meant to be.

sloppyschleckonds

thecycleclinic wrote:

Doping rules are not made by biochemists or on consultation with biochemists and doctors they are made by sports politicians with little to know knowledge of human biology.

Michael Ashenden would disagree with you

Bumo_b

Do I remember the biological passport coming in because people metabolise, produce and clear various substances at different rates and one size does not fit all, one limit does not fit all. Guess I missed the biological passport no longer being used?? Or is there acceptence that human bodies do have differences between athletes
Are those saying he is guilty, actually saying he doped to gain and advantage or just over a limit? I remember reading somewhere about the amount of riders in a 3 week race using the magic "hold" on a bottle, which was pretty much all of them, ban them as well for cheating? We would have barely a field left at any race!
I'm all for banning him if he gained an advantage, but he didn't really did he? For those that say he did? What advantage did he gain?
Or is everyone just going to join the mob and carry on chanting "guilty"?

cycleclinic

There is also mention to be issues with the sample size of the study used to set the limits for this drug on urine. The population of the study was very small something like 5 athletes which is a problem. You need a decent population to access what dosage could give an advantage and to properly determine if that advantage exists. I think the level has been set assuming there is an advantage based on very limited and flaws evidence. If this is the case then the regime is truly flawed and it makes you wonder what other substances are controlled by meaningless test when they give no advantage. I am all for dealing with cheats but the processes have to be sound and based on proper evidence that using in depth studies with good population sizes. This is expensive but other wise you are controlling substances for the sake of control.

Many cyclist have excerise induced asthma. The current regime means none of them can compete and that is discriminatory as with this drug they can.

While i dont know everything about this drug and the tests I know enough to make me question everything about it. If these cases were taken to court I think many of them would not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

DeVlaeminck

thecycleclinic wrote:

There is also mention to be issues with the sample size of the study used to set the limits for this drug on urine. The population of the study was very small something like 5 athletes which is a problem. You need a decent population to access what dosage could give an advantage and to properly determine if that advantage exists. I think the level has been set assuming there is an advantage based on very limited and flaws evidence. If this is the case then the regime is truly flawed and it makes you wonder what other substances are controlled by meaningless test when they give no advantage. I am all for dealing with cheats but the processes have to be sound and based on proper evidence that using in depth studies with good population sizes. This is expensive but other wise you are controlling substances for the sake of control.

Many cyclist have excerise induced asthma. The current regime means none of them can compete and that is discriminatory as with this drug they can.

While i dont know everything about this drug and the tests I know enough to make me question everything about it. If these cases were taken to court I think many of them would not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

If your EIA is bad then you need a TUE for a different drug. What you aren't allowed to do is take large amounts of salbutamol as it can be abused to enhance performance.

I accept Froome's levels and on a one off occasion would not fall into that category but the rule is there for a reason and he has fallen foul of it. If he metabolises salbutamol differently to you and I then he has opportunity to prove that - presumably as yet he hasn't been able to do so either through old test data or doing lab trials. We you can't have is a situation where you just take an athlete's word for it because it would be a cheat's charter.

cycleclinic

The drug can't enhance performance though. It normalises in case if a excersice induced asthma attack. If I took it for example its only effect would be placebo. It will not increase the ammount of air I can inhale that is my understanding of the drug.

DeVlaeminck

thecycleclinic wrote:

The drug can't enhance performance though. It normalises in case if a excersice induced asthma attack. If I took it for example its only effect would be placebo. It will not increase the ammount of air I can inhale that is my understanding of the drug.

My understanding is it can be used as part of a doping programme in a similar fashion to clenbuterol which is what Contador was popped for - without looking it up regular use can help shed fat without losing muscle.

I'm not suggesting Froome was doing that and yes if he was it would probably have been picked up long before just that there is a reason for there being a limit of some sort.

Bumo_b

Took several puffs of my daughters spare inhaler last night and went for a spin. With all the fusss I was expecting several KOMs and a mighty performance. Ended up with a furry tongue and a dry mouth, not sure how that helped my performance? Maybe I need to embark on the most sophisticated doping programme on inhalers for an effect?

mrb123

Bumo_b wrote:

Took several puffs of my daughters spare inhaler last night and went for a spin. With all the fusss I was expecting several KOMs and a mighty performance. Ended up with a furry tongue and a dry mouth, not sure how that helped my performance? Maybe I need to embark on the most sophisticated doping programme on inhalers for an effect?

Double the dosage next time.

mfin

Bumo_b wrote:

Took several puffs of my daughters spare inhaler last night and went for a spin. With all the fusss I was expecting several KOMs and a mighty performance. Ended up with a furry tongue and a dry mouth, not sure how that helped my performance? Maybe I need to embark on the most sophisticated doping programme on inhalers for an effect?

Or either have asthma or stop taking comedy lessons from Andy Parsons.

Bumo_b

I could, but where is the fun in either of those suggestions!

timothyw

It isn't performance enhancing taken as an inhaler (unless it stops you having an Asthma attack, obviously...)

It is performance enhancing when taken as tablets, or as an injection.

You can't tell from someone's urine if they inhaled it or consumed it via other means.

It has a very short half life in the body - this means even if someone has taken a large dose after a race to aid their recovery, by the time they are tested again they should be able to clear the excess from their system (and test below the legal threshold) if they are clever.

It might be that Froome was a bit unlucky/careless with his inhaler. Or it might be that he uses it as part of a doping program, and was unlucky to get caught.

Given what history has told us about past grand tour winners who have tested positive, and the jiffy bag, and questionable use of a TUE to give Wiggo Triamcinolone, well, personally I struggle to give the benefit of the doubt.