Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

carbonclem

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

People talk about Hinault being a hardman and this photo comes up. To me, he was a bit of a bully and I wonder if he'd have got stuck into those protesters without having cameras and, presumably, police around to protect him?

I suspect he was both a hardman and a bully, didn't Robert Millar say he admired him as a rider but not as a person.

Slaying The Badger gives a great insight into him. An absolute cad and fully aware of it and unrepentant, indeed, he takes credit for LeMonds success because of it.

kleinstroker

RichN95 wrote:

Jeroen Swart yesterday:

So my take on the Froome issue. This has been brewing for some time. 1) There is limited evidence for Salbutamol being on the list in the first place. Other more pressing substances aren’t on it. 2) The thresholds were based on very limited research. This is WADA’s mess.
It just took someone who had the finances and means to challenge the regulations on Salbutamol and they’ve been found wanting.
My opinion: Take Salbutamol off the list. You get more bang for your buck out of a cup of coffee. Then put Tramadol on it. And prohibit Corticosteroids at all times. Hopefully some changes soon.

I'm sure someone else on this board mentioned once or twice that coffee is more of a PE than Salbutamatol

kleinstroker

From the article

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.
...

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

This really is getting silly. It still won't be enough for the haters though.

curium

Pross wrote:

kingrollo wrote:

Pross wrote:

kingrollo wrote:

No agenda to plug either way - but I just don't get it.

If he submitted a sample with levels way above that allowed - how can there be no case to answer - was the the test result wrong ?

Do people still not understand that the testing does not necessarily correlate output to input hence the opportunity to explain why the test result may not have shown he ingested too much? It's not a difficult concept FFS. He has submitted information that WADA have reviewed and presumably determined that it satisfactorily explains the raised test results.

I am not pre judging it either way - but if the tests have no bearing on the amount of stuff he inhaled - then what is the point of the test ?

I assume that, in general, they correlate but that there are factors that can affect the readings. That is why it was always classed as an AAF and not a failed test. It has been complicated by the leaking of the result as really no-one outside the relevant authorities should have ever been aware of the AAF unless Froome was unable to explain the discrepancy and was sanctioned. Someone should really be looking for the source of the leak if people are concerned about damage to the reputation of the sport.

The bit in bold a million times!

All the people protesting about the damage done to the image of the sport should now assist an investigation to identify the source of the leak in any way they can.

rick_chasey

Shirley Basso wrote:

I guess it's not so much about affecting the outcome, but the intention.

Nibali can't help if an Italian Moto tows him and french riders can't help if jury decisions are overturned when it's realised it affects a French GC hopeful.

He doesn't have to steer so he follows them though does he? I'd say that's worth more than a few extra puffs on an asthma inhaler.

He hung on to a car so long he got thrown off a race!

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

I guess it's not so much about affecting the outcome, but the intention.

Nibali can't help if an Italian Moto tows him and french riders can't help if jury decisions are overturned when it's realised it affects a French GC hopeful.

He doesn't have to steer so he follows them though does he? I'd say that's worth more than a few extra puffs on an asthma inhaler.

He hung on to a car so long he got thrown off a race!

Anyway, to avoid this being whataboutism, I think some relativism in relation to what has gone on would really help.

I don't think anyone thinks Froome's positive reflects some race changing level of doping, and if they do, I'd like to know exactly how.

shirley_basso

Totally agree this story is way OTT but I think there is a slight difference between deliberate malicious intent (not Froome, but doping in general) and taking advantage of a poor Moto driver.

Hanging onto car windows is just taking the mickey

above_the_cows

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

I guess it's not so much about affecting the outcome, but the intention.

Nibali can't help if an Italian Moto tows him and french riders can't help if jury decisions are overturned when it's realised it affects a French GC hopeful.

He doesn't have to steer so he follows them though does he? I'd say that's worth more than a few extra puffs on an asthma inhaler.

He hung on to a car so long he got thrown off a race!

Because this needs an airing at least every few months...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E4vRtC7IcY

pamplemoose

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't think anyone thinks Froome's positive reflects some race changing level of doping, and if they do, I'd like to know exactly how.

I think most of that nonsense comes from people who've never taken Salbutomal. In arid conditions (like I don't know, Spain for example) I can need my inhaler a couple of times during an all day ride. It doesn't give me cycling superpowers, it restores my lungs to functioning normally. It boggles my mind how in some people's eyes it's the modern equivalent of EPO...

Vino'sGhost

man theres a total difference between conditions on the road influencing things and shooting up with PED to influence the race. They are not valid equivalences

N0bodyOfTheGoat

BBC have article on Froome's Giro stages, mental details, Like 400W average for 1hr5mins up Finestre.

tangled_metal

I guess that's why you've not got Froome's palmares.

bigmat

I get it that people who think Froome is doping wanted him to be hung drawn and quartered for even the most minor of doping contraventions - a bit like Al Capone being done for tax evasion. I felt that way about Contador. Difference here is that Froome hasn't broken the rules. People need to let it go and move on. At most it's just a bit more smoke, but seriously, the most obvious explanation was always that this was a dodgy result, or even a dodgy test procedure. I have yet to see a coherent explanation for how that isolated result would fit with any kind of known doping programme.

bigmat

...

StillGoing

curium wrote:

Pross wrote:

kingrollo wrote:

Pross wrote:

kingrollo wrote:

No agenda to plug either way - but I just don't get it.

If he submitted a sample with levels way above that allowed - how can there be no case to answer - was the the test result wrong ?

Do people still not understand that the testing does not necessarily correlate output to input hence the opportunity to explain why the test result may not have shown he ingested too much? It's not a difficult concept FFS. He has submitted information that WADA have reviewed and presumably determined that it satisfactorily explains the raised test results.

I am not pre judging it either way - but if the tests have no bearing on the amount of stuff he inhaled - then what is the point of the test ?

I assume that, in general, they correlate but that there are factors that can affect the readings. That is why it was always classed as an AAF and not a failed test. It has been complicated by the leaking of the result as really no-one outside the relevant authorities should have ever been aware of the AAF unless Froome was unable to explain the discrepancy and was sanctioned. Someone should really be looking for the source of the leak if people are concerned about damage to the reputation of the sport.

The bit in bold a million times!

All the people protesting about the damage done to the image of the sport should now assist an investigation to identify the source of the leak in any way they can.

I'll lay a bet they're French.

kleinstroker

After this mornings revelations it makes me happy to know that I don't have to un-enjoy stage 19 of the Giro this year. I would have really hated the haters forever telling me it was because he was doping.

In fact I hope all those involved in slamming Froome at the Giro have the balls to suck it up and say they were just plain wrong

carbonclem

kleinstroker wrote:

In fact I hope all those involved in slamming Froome at the Giro have the balls to suck it up and say they were just plain wrong

Not a hope! It all just adds weight to the increasingly mental theories out there

inseine

There should be a joke about a leak of Froomes urine, or is it just me?

timoid.

inseine wrote:

There should be a joke about a leak of Froomes urine, or is it just me?

Sadly, I went there too...

Vino'sGhost

a theoretical unprovable possibility as reason for the result is hardly exoneration, its called a theory. its erring on the £7million side of caution.


Time to move on.

mamil314

So you want to both wave the lawyer card and drop the microphone? I feel for you.
The 'reason' is that the test result itself was improbable and unreliable, as admitted by the WADA scientist behind the Salbutamol test.

Vino'sGhost

feel all you like, the facts are the facts. now its finally over it would be better if we got on with the actual racing.

mamil314

Not really over, in my opinion. WADA are, yet, to rework Salbutamol testing and Froome to emerge on the other side of the TdF physically unharmed by the public.

blazing_saddles

mamil314 wrote:

Not really over, in my opinion. WADA are, yet, to rework Salbutamol testing.

Test reform is an aside. Froome is out of that loop.

mamil314 wrote:

Froome to emerge on the other side of the TdF physically unharmed by the public.

I think this is a concerned share by many.
Unfortunately, the biggest single contributing factor, should such a disgraceful action befall Froome, or any member of the team, must be the ASO's misguided attempt to block his attendance at their race.
They have either intentionally, or unwittingly poured fuel onto the flames of the French fan's fires of frustration and failure.

Pross

Heard twice on Radio 5 that Froome has released his diet and HR info for the Giro D'Italia with the first saying like 'where he was accused of taking too much asthma medication' and the second saying 'where he failed a dope test'. Now, leaving aside the semantics about him failing a dope test was the data from the Giro as stated or last year's Vuelta? Also, it shows how poor the BBC sport department are in their knowledge of cycling to issue a report where two basic facts don't correlate.

slowbike

Blazing Saddles wrote:

They have either intentionally, or unwittingly poured fuel onto the flames of the French fan's fires of frustration and failure.

unwittingly? nah - surely they're not that thick ....

Vino'sGhost

im looking forward to the giant inhalers running up the mountain beside froom

Vino'sGhost

have a read of the bbc on the nutrition for stage 19 Giro https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/44694122

tim000

Vino'sGhost wrote:

im looking forward to the giant inhalers running up the mountain beside froom

thats because you are a very sad person

Vino'sGhost

tim000 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

im looking forward to the giant inhalers running up the mountain beside froom

thats because you are a very sad person

thats because its funny.