Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

1…3132343637…44

Comments

  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Asthma is a medical condition whereas training fatigue is not.

    I think that's a pretty clear difference.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    edited July 2018
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Asthma is a medical condition whereas training fatigue is not.

    I think that's a pretty clear difference.
    Yes thats very clear. I was talking about tolerance or response to training fatigue.

    I.e some people can tolerate far higher levels of training fatigue. Surely taking ped to address dificiancies in training stress tolerance or response is only bringing them up to the level they would have been at had they not been born with that particular limitation.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    iainf72 wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Kimmage on Froome
    ‘The issue isn’t Salbutamol, the issue is that a rider with limited pedigree is about to become the greatest cyclist of all time.’

    That's why Hinault got mouthy about Froome

    If you look up "rider with limited pedigree" in the dictionary, there is a picture of Paul Kimmage.

    Harsh. If it hadn’t been for systematic doping in the late ‘80s he’d have been the next Merckx. I know this as he has pretty much implied it at every opportunity since A Rough Ride was published. I can understand why he gets so upset, he’d have been a millionaire celebrity had the others not all cheated.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Pross wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Kimmage on Froome
    ‘The issue isn’t Salbutamol, the issue is that a rider with limited pedigree is about to become the greatest cyclist of all time.’

    That's why Hinault got mouthy about Froome

    If you look up "rider with limited pedigree" in the dictionary, there is a picture of Paul Kimmage.

    Harsh. If it hadn’t been for systematic doping in the late ‘80s he’d have been the next Merckx. I know this as he has pretty much implied it at every opportunity since A Rough Ride was published. I can understand why he gets so upset, he’d have been a millionaire celebrity had the others not all cheated.
    Most of Rough Ride itself is not a doping expose but more a 300 page whinge about not being treated as a big star despite coming sixth in the amateur Worlds.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Asthma is a medical condition whereas training fatigue is not.

    I think that's a pretty clear difference.
    Yes thats very clear. I was talking about tolerance or response to training fatigue.

    I.e some people can tolerate far higher levels of training fatigue. Surely taking ped to address dificiancies in training stress tolerance or response is only bringing them up to the level they would have been at had they not been born with that particular limitation.

    I agree with what you are saying but the conditions which you gave are distinct. One is a disease and one is bad luck.

    Dealing with bad luck is a part of life. Banning people with .undane diseases which are easily treatable seems a bit tough. Plus the fact that cycling can induce asthma (exercise induced asthma for example!)

    Plus as noted above, it's pretty fascist to start telling asthmatic kids they will never be elite sportspeople isn't ideal.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    I find the whole no pedigree / came out of nowhere argument amazingly weak.

    Are they saying it is completely impossible for something like that to happen? If so, what is the evidence? It has never happened before? Is that it? And it has happened, so what is the theory as to how? Because we've seen it happen.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Look they’re no better than people who don’t listen to experts. Usually the same.

    At that point you realise it’s nof about evidence.
    _
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    jwa581 wrote:
    What do we want sport to be about? Should we be sending a message to asthmatic or short sighted or diabetic kids that sorry despite there be simple treatments to correct or manage these conditions that no matter how talented you are you will not be able to compete at the top level? Or do we want sport to be as inclusive as possible? Salbutamol or glasses or insulin to treat diabetes (as well as other similar treatments or conditions) simply put the athelete back to the condition they would be in if they had not been born with these conditions, and do not enhance thier ability at that sport. This is different from saying you were not born with natural talent so artificially boost that talent using Peds. There will always be an line that has to drawn somewhere between what is performance enhancing and what is not, but I think most reasonable people would not want to exclude individuals from competing to their maximum about because they have asthma or diabetes etc.

    Good points and i agree with some of it, in particular we should def encourage people to do what they can, my comments were that id like to see pure sports without chemical assistance. I acknowledge its unlikely to happen but it doesnt mean my wish is any less valid.

    I do disagree with the train of thought that says putting an athlete in a position they might not have been in if they hadnt been born with an impediment is ok. Presumably many recipients of these drugs have attributes in other areas that then allow them to beat other athletes. Is there really any difference between addressing a weakness caused by asthma and addressing a weakness caused by lower tolerance to training stress?


    Without chemical assistance? Yes let's get the scourge of C6H12O6 out of professional sport.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Asthma is a medical condition whereas training fatigue is not.

    I think that's a pretty clear difference.
    Yes thats very clear. I was talking about tolerance or response to training fatigue.

    I.e some people can tolerate far higher levels of training fatigue. Surely taking ped to address dificiancies in training stress tolerance or response is only bringing them up to the level they would have been at had they not been born with that particular limitation.

    I agree with what you are saying but the conditions which you gave are distinct. One is a disease and one is bad luck.

    Dealing with bad luck is a part of life. Banning people with .undane diseases which are easily treatable seems a bit tough. Plus the fact that cycling can induce asthma (exercise induced asthma for example!)

    Plus as noted above, it's pretty fascist to start telling asthmatic kids they will never be elite sportspeople isn't ideal.

    But both are bad luck, and both can be addressed using drugs. Both are features of the individual. This isnt an argument for free for all drug use in elite sport more an acknowledgement that we all have different stregths and weaknesses. Leveling the playing field is merely the acceptable face of performance enhancement. everyone has strengths and weaknesses, imagine some athletes being able to eliminate theirs whilst other athletes are forbidden to address their own.
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    Jez mon wrote:
    Without chemical assistance? Yes let's get the scourge of C6H12O6 out of professional sport.

    Don't stop there. There's that H2O and that O2 that need eradicating too.

    We've entered the anti-vaxxers anti-science universe of the utterly ignorant where people don't want any chemicals entering their children's body.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Above The Cows wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Without chemical assistance? Yes let's get the scourge of C6H12O6 out of professional sport.

    Don't stop there. There's that H2O and that O2 that need eradicating too.

    We've entered the anti-vaxxers anti-science universe of the utterly ignorant where people don't want any chemicals entering their children's body.
    I think youre becoming hysterical.
  • kleinstroker
    kleinstroker Posts: 2,133
    Above The Cows wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Without chemical assistance? Yes let's get the scourge of C6H12O6 out of professional sport.

    Don't stop there. There's that H2O and that O2 that need eradicating too.

    We've entered the anti-vaxxers anti-science universe of the utterly ignorant where people don't want any chemicals entering their children's body.

    I stopped using C6H12O6 in my tea a while back. Don't miss it to be honest. I miss the odd bit of C20H25N3O though.
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Above The Cows wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Without chemical assistance? Yes let's get the scourge of C6H12O6 out of professional sport.

    Don't stop there. There's that H2O and that O2 that need eradicating too.

    We've entered the anti-vaxxers anti-science universe of the utterly ignorant where people don't want any chemicals entering their children's body.

    I stopped using C6H12O6 in my tea a while back. Don't miss it to be honest. I miss the odd bit of C20H25N3O though.

    Yeah but the C8H10N4O2 in tea is a stimulant as you know, so naughty, naughty.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • kleinstroker
    kleinstroker Posts: 2,133
    Above The Cows wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Above The Cows wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Without chemical assistance? Yes let's get the scourge of C6H12O6 out of professional sport.

    Don't stop there. There's that H2O and that O2 that need eradicating too.

    We've entered the anti-vaxxers anti-science universe of the utterly ignorant where people don't want any chemicals entering their children's body.

    I stopped using C6H12O6 in my tea a while back. Don't miss it to be honest. I miss the odd bit of C20H25N3O though.

    Yeah but the C8H10N4O2 in tea is a stimulant as you know, so naughty, naughty.

    I did try it once without. Never again!!
  • kleinstroker
    kleinstroker Posts: 2,133
    Back in the 90's we would all go out MTB'ing with the help of C11H15NO2.
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Back in the 90's we would all go out MTB'ing with the help of C11H15NO2.

    I've cracked the case!

    skytab.jpg
    Correlation is not causation.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Strengths / weaknesses are not the same as mild medical diseases in my view. But each to their own.
  • kleinstroker
    kleinstroker Posts: 2,133
    Above The Cows wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Back in the 90's we would all go out MTB'ing with the help of C11H15NO2.

    I've cracked the case!

    skytab.jpg

    Bingo! Or Bingo Bango as we used to say on the bike!! :mrgreen:
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Froome's pedigree? What pedigree did it take to get out of Africa and into a European pro team to stand a chance of getting into a GT?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Froome's pedigree? What pedigree did it take to get out of Africa and into a European pro team to stand a chance of getting into a GT?
    I laugh when Ross Tucker says he's talked to South African riders who rode with him and said he was very average. So how come they didn't get onto Barloworld's Tour de France team instead?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    RichN95 wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Froome's pedigree? What pedigree did it take to get out of Africa and into a European pro team to stand a chance of getting into a GT?
    I laugh when Ross Tucker says he's talked to South African riders who rode with him and said he was very average. So how come they didn't get onto Barloworld's Tour de France team instead?
    Perhaps he was average when they rode with him.
  • kleinstroker
    kleinstroker Posts: 2,133
    Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    Say "Thank you Dave"

    SAY IT!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44752765

    John Milton: Vanity, definitely my favorite sin.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

    This
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

    This

    Why what drugs are sky taking?

    With Lance postal it was pretty obvious.
    _
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

    This

    Why what drugs are sky taking?

    With Lance postal it was pretty obvious.


    Was it obvious? I dont recall you listing products? I do recall you being pro lance for some time though.

    however since this is the pro sky forum Ill break down whats written above so you can think about what ive said.

    1 I dont suspect froome specifically of using ped. I hope he's not but i wouldnt be surprised if he were.

    2 theres a cutlure at sky similar to Postal. Theres loads of similarities here, team performance, winning (in a different way to quickstep before you say and in anycase they have different objectives) finances, it goes on. That doesn't mean that there IS something going on but it DOES mean that the conditions are similar.

    so ill ask you, WHY is it unfeasible that either Froome or Sky are using PED?

    Please use Froome would never do that to his body when hes got Asthama.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

    This

    Why what drugs are sky taking?

    With Lance postal it was pretty obvious.


    Was it obvious? I dont recall you listing products? I do recall you being pro lance for some time though.

    however since this is the pro sky forum Ill break down whats written above so you can think about what ive said.

    1 I dont suspect froome specifically of using ped. I hope he's not but i wouldnt be surprised if he were.

    2 theres a cutlure at sky similar to Postal. Theres loads of similarities here, team performance, winning (in a different way to quickstep before you say and in anycase they have different objectives) finances, it goes on. That doesn't mean that there IS something going on but it DOES mean that the conditions are similar.

    so ill ask you, WHY is it unfeasible that either Froome or Sky are using PED?

    Please use Froome would never do that to his body when hes got Asthama.

    You are quoting someone saying it was highly likely something is going on however can't say what. Have you got a tin foil hat and believe in other things without evidence to support this. You are right on some levels sky could have a team sponsored doping programme and be cheating the sport without anyone catching them in the same way that everyone you meet today could be a pedo, rapist or a murderer. I however will wait for some evidence prior to taking a view without supporting evidence.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

    This

    Why what drugs are sky taking?

    With Lance postal it was pretty obvious.


    Was it obvious? I dont recall you listing products? I do recall you being pro lance for some time though.

    however since this is the pro sky forum Ill break down whats written above so you can think about what ive said.

    1 I dont suspect froome specifically of using ped. I hope he's not but i wouldnt be surprised if he were.

    2 theres a cutlure at sky similar to Postal. Theres loads of similarities here, team performance, winning (in a different way to quickstep before you say and in anycase they have different objectives) finances, it goes on. That doesn't mean that there IS something going on but it DOES mean that the conditions are similar.

    so ill ask you, WHY is it unfeasible that either Froome or Sky are using PED?

    Please use Froome would never do that to his body when hes got Asthama.

    As far as I was concerned, I couldn't have liked Lance less when he was riding. Was very happy to see him retire. I just have a bit of perspective ;).

    I was also convinced at the time that, like everyone else who was caught, he must have been on the same stuff; everyone else was being busted for it, and it was making a huge performance difference, so why wouldn't he be on it?

    Anyway.

    To answer your points:

    1) either he's doping or he's not. If he is, what he's taking is entirely relevant, as some drugs impact performance much more than others.

    2) winning GTs with same tactics doesn't really tell us anything. After all, USP were, towards the end, the biggest budget team, rather like Sky. That's not to do with doping, that's to do with the most effective tactic to win GTs.

    If your best shot at accusing sky doping is that they win GTs a lot, then you need to go back and come back with some better evidence.

    Currently there aren't enough positives in the peloton to really know what PEDs people are using, and therefore, working out which are race changing, and which are placebos.
    _
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    I thought asthma was an issue with the airways and not about the lungs.

    Glasses? Without mine I would not be safe riding a bike.they certainly help my performance by allowing me to see things that aren't close to n the end of my nose.

    Without salbutamol inhaler I'll occasionally have issues with breathing due to my airways being restricted. Most I've ever needed has been 10 puffs or 5 double puffs (always take them in pairs). After taking them I always start breathing a lot better and my coughing fits stop too. Occasionally it makes no difference. On those occasions I just assume I've got a cold and chest infection so ease up on my activities for a while.

    There does seem to be some simplistic arguments going on here. The main protagonist seems to be arguing against user of salbutamol by elite sports because he's got a problem with Froome and wants him to be done for cheating or just forced out of the sport somehow. If it's not salbutamol and asthma he'd argue on some other basis.

    My advice is to go with the rules experts have agreed on and so long as Froome is competing within those rules, indeed every racer is competing under them, then enjoy the event. Arguing with a hater who can't bear that Froome was cleared isn't adding much to discussions. Unless you're all about adding the pages to this already over long thread.

    Stick him on block, its far better. He'll argue the earth is flat if its Froome that put out its round.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • fenix
    fenix Posts: 5,437
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    kleinstroker wrote:
    Spent the best part of today going round and round with Tucker and others, only to find he doesn't suspect Froome specifically of using PEDs, but the culture at Sky is similar to that of Postal so it is highly likely there is something untoward going un but is not specified.

    This

    That's complete rubbish. The culture at Postal was that Lance ran the show with Johan. Who is the Lance here ? Its not Wiggins. It's not Froome. Has anyone come out with anything about the two of them ? Have any ex Sky riders been busted ? Look at ex USPS riders - you could have filled a team bus with busted riders.

    Look at what Brailsford did with the track cyclists - where's the dirt there ?

    To accuse them of doing something untoward but you don't know what is just stupid.

Categories