Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

pamplemoose

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Do you genuinely think that Salbutomal enhances athletic performance? If it did then every single member of the peloton would have asthma inhalers.

tim000

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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.

on the last page you wrote that it was time to move on and talk about the racing . i say it again , you are a very sad person.

mamil314

pamplemoose wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Do you genuinely think that Salbutomal enhances athletic performance? If it did then every single member of the peloton would have asthma inhalers.

Apparently, it might, if ingested or injected, as opposed to inhaled. Thus the need for testing.

bobmcstuff

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

To be fair, that happened at the Giro already and it was a bit amusing.

wiznaeme

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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.

I used to think the fancy dress spectators were a good laugh when it was the devil character and a handful of others. It’s a bit boring now, is it not? Maybe I’m just getting old. Perhaps there will be something new this year. Ok, I am getting old.

bobmcstuff

mamil314 wrote:

pamplemoose wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Do you genuinely think that Salbutomal enhances athletic performance? If it did then every single member of the peloton would have asthma inhalers.

Apparently, it might, if ingested or injected, as opposed to inhaled. Thus the need for testing.

It's used by weightlifters etc. to boost metabolism and help with weight loss (like clenbuterol). This is ingested or injected in very high doses (milligrams rather than micrograms).

Nobody really has a convincing argument as to why you would want that effect in week 3 of a grand tour, and in any case even the amount Froome produced doesn't seem to reflect that sort of dose.

I thought it might have been from a blood bag (I.e. he had been taking big doses of salbutamol during training to help weight loss, like Contador was likely doing with clenbuterol) and this showed up in his urine, but apparently to get that much salbutamol into a urine sample following a blood bag would mean he would have to have been taking enough salbutamol to kill several horses (not remotely feasible).

above_the_cows

Pross wrote:

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.

I know they don't want to do a Lance and bring in the lawyers, but...

iainf72

I love all the conspiracy stuff about what happened. It's amazing.

If a test cannot survive legal and / or scientific scrutiny, it's not worth anything. If it took some money to expose that, it benefits all athletes as it tightens things up.

carbonclem

I read one leading anti doper* state that after this episode they expected Froome and Sky would never fail. Too big, too protected, too sly etc etc.
That’s a great cover for not actually being a thing perhaps?


*troll

DeadCalm

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

That is a fascinating read. Losing weight without sacrificing power is incredibly difficult. If Sky truly managed to calculate the calorific intake required to that level of accuracy over the course of a grand tour, that truly is a game changer.

DeadCalm

bobmcstuff wrote:

mamil314 wrote:

pamplemoose wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Do you genuinely think that Salbutomal enhances athletic performance? If it did then every single member of the peloton would have asthma inhalers.

Apparently, it might, if ingested or injected, as opposed to inhaled. Thus the need for testing.

It's used by weightlifters etc. to boost metabolism and help with weight loss (like clenbuterol). This is ingested or injected in very high doses (milligrams rather than micrograms).

Nobody really has a convincing argument as to why you would want that effect in week 3 of a grand tour, and in any case even the amount Froome produced doesn't seem to reflect that sort of dose.

I thought it might have been from a blood bag (I.e. he had been taking big doses of salbutamol during training to help weight loss, like Contador was likely doing with clenbuterol) and this showed up in his urine, but apparently to get that much salbutamol into a urine sample following a blood bag would mean he would have to have been taking enough salbutamol to kill several horses (not remotely feasible).

Bottom line, Salbutomal is going to go the way of caffeine and be legitimised sooner rather than later. Whether you think Froome is a doper or not, this is completely a non-story other than the fact that Froome and Sky have the resources to help overturn something that is patently unjust.

DeVlaeminck

BigMat wrote:

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.

Could it not have been by accident or desperation?

DeadCalm

DeVlaeminck wrote:

BigMat wrote:

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.

Could it not have been by accident or desperation?

Possibly / probably depending on your stance on Froome, but if the test is unreliable it doesn't really matter does it?

moonshine

https://twitter.com/dickinsontimes/stat ... 38016?s=21

Asthma scientist behind WADA salbutamol rules says they aren’t fit for purpose - which is why he defended Froome

argyllflyer

DeVlaeminck wrote:

BigMat wrote:

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.

Could it not have been by accident or desperation?

The only accident by all accounts was to accuse him of taking too much of this specified substance despite knowing with 100% certainty he'd be tested and it would show up in said test.

RichN95.

DeadCalm wrote:

Bottom line, Salbutomal is going to go the way of caffeine and be legitimised sooner rather than later. Whether you think Froome is a doper or not, this is completely a non-story other than the fact that Froome and Sky have the resources to help overturn something that is patently unjust.

Looking for old salbutamol cases, I found five in the past ten years in Britain. In everyone one - and they included higher readings than Froome and people who admitted to taking way too many puffs - there was no sanction, just a warning. And this would seem to be the way to go. One dodgy test can be put down to circumstances, but if it happens again... Just like the whereabouts system.

apriliarider

DeadCalm wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

That is a fascinating read. Losing weight without sacrificing power is incredibly difficult. If Sky truly managed to calculate the calorific intake required to that level of accuracy over the course of a grand tour, that truly is a game changer.

Source please - if you have body fat to lose then surely it does not contribute to power output in any way ??

W/Kg on the other hand.....

RichN95.

apriliarider wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

That is a fascinating read. Losing weight without sacrificing power is incredibly difficult. If Sky truly managed to calculate the calorific intake required to that level of accuracy over the course of a grand tour, that truly is a game changer.

Source please - if you have body fat to lose then surely it does not contribute to power output in any way ??

W/Kg on the other hand.....

But the body needs a certain amount of fat. There's an optimal amount for general sporting performance. For example I doubt there's anyone at the World Cup with 5% body fat.

bobmcstuff

apriliarider wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

That is a fascinating read. Losing weight without sacrificing power is incredibly difficult. If Sky truly managed to calculate the calorific intake required to that level of accuracy over the course of a grand tour, that truly is a game changer.

Source please - if you have body fat to lose then surely it does not contribute to power output in any way ??

W/Kg on the other hand.....

It's very difficult to *just* lose fat - you'll normally lose a bit of muscle mass at the same time. Especially if you are an athlete with 5 - 10% body fat, your body doesn't like having very low fat percentages.

rick_chasey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Sorry Froome was shooting up sabutamol.

m.r.m.

He has certainly shot up in most people's estimation!

ocdupalais

RichN95 wrote:

apriliarider wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

That is a fascinating read. Losing weight without sacrificing power is incredibly difficult. If Sky truly managed to calculate the calorific intake required to that level of accuracy over the course of a grand tour, that truly is a game changer.

Source please - if you have body fat to lose then surely it does not contribute to power output in any way ??

W/Kg on the other hand.....

But the body needs a certain amount of fat. There's an optimal amount for general sporting performance. For example I doubt there's anyone at the World Cup with 5% body fat.

I forget now which testing of Froome it was that revealed that his body fat percentage has always been surprisingly high - especially when at Barloworld ( I think it was around the 18/19% mark). Even at some of his recent big wins his body fat was surprisingly high. The difference is that his fat is less sub-cutaneous and more organ based than normal. I understand that it’s quite common for tall, slender lanky types to actually have a high fat percentage - it’s just “hidden” on the inside...

m.r.m.

Just the pure numbers never tell the entire story. According to Google, Mathieu van der Poel and Peter Sagan are the same height and weight. They look completely different. vdP looks like a GC rider and Sagan like a classics beast.

DeadCalm

apriliarider wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

That is a fascinating read. Losing weight without sacrificing power is incredibly difficult. If Sky truly managed to calculate the calorific intake required to that level of accuracy over the course of a grand tour, that truly is a game changer.

Source please - if you have body fat to lose then surely it does not contribute to power output in any way ??

W/Kg on the other hand.....

That was sloppy terminology on my part. I should have said performance rather than power. There would have been a risk of losing muscle mass which would have affected power but the bigger risk would have been that he wouldn't have the energy reserves to be competitive. If they erred on the side of weight loss early in the race it would explain his relatively poor showing and subsequent improvement once he started upping the calories.

bompington

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Thing that stands out most for me is the revealing bit at the end from Jeremy Whittle - "this doesn't prove 100% that he isn't doping so I'm going to keep believing he is"

apriliarider

DeadCalm wrote:

apriliarider wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

That is a fascinating read. Losing weight without sacrificing power is incredibly difficult. If Sky truly managed to calculate the calorific intake required to that level of accuracy over the course of a grand tour, that truly is a game changer.

Source please - if you have body fat to lose then surely it does not contribute to power output in any way ??

W/Kg on the other hand.....

That was sloppy terminology on my part. I should have said performance rather than power. There would have been a risk of losing muscle mass which would have affected power but the bigger risk would have been that he wouldn't have the energy reserves to be competitive. If they erred on the side of weight loss early in the race it would explain his relatively poor showing and subsequent improvement once he started upping the calories.

Cheers - thank you

inseine

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Thing that stands out most for me is the revealing bit at the end from Jeremy Whittle - "this doesn't prove 100% that he isn't doping so I'm going to keep believing he is"

Is that in the podcast? I can’t find it in the text

kleinstroker

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Thing that stands out most for me is the revealing bit at the end from Jeremy Whittle - "this doesn't prove 100% that he isn't doping so I'm going to keep believing he is"

I have come to believe that it is these certain writers/bloggers that are actually spoiling cycling for a lot of people by their vehement beliefs that Team Sky in particular are rampant dopers. They have no evidence at all, but constantly refer back to LA etc and keep at it enough to plant the no smoke without fire kind of logic in a lot of cycling fans minds.

You cannot reason with them, no evidence will ever be enough, as they will always point to some perceived gap and jump on that as proof that they are hiding something, and that something is definitely doping.

They are sad little nobody's who just seem to want everybody to be as cynical and miserable as they are

slim_boy_fat

inseine wrote:

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

Thing that stands out most for me is the revealing bit at the end from Jeremy Whittle - "this doesn't prove 100% that he isn't doping so I'm going to keep believing he is"

Is that in the podcast? I can’t find it in the text

I think bompington was reading between the lines

bobmcstuff

Well it doesn't prove anything, really. All it shows is that Sky were extremely organised (which we knew already).