Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

larkim

TailWindHome wrote:

I hope someone will correct me here.
But is this quote from Froome not factual inaccurate?

"There are two phases: it goes to the explanation phase and then, after that, if that's not sufficient, then it goes to the pharmaceutical study. Mine stopped before it even went to that phase."

As you've read the WADA docs, you'll see that that does appear to have been the process. Though the PK study was discounted as being unusable, rather than being a "second phase" process.

Whether that is as written in the various UCI / WADA protocols or not is a different matter.

larkim

TailWindHome wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

WADA add a whole lot more

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... her-froome

I'm quite baffled how anyone could read that document and have their confidence in the outcome confirmed.

It depends what outcome you want to see confirmed. Do you want someone being banned and their reputation shredded when the research seems to clearly indicate a fairly substantial amount of doubt in the reliability of the conclusions that can be drawn, especially in the context of the Froome case (i.e. lots of other surrounding testing, physiology at that stage in a GT, etc)? Or would you rather have someone banned because doping is a possible conclusion from the testing?

I posted earlier that the WADA document definitely doesn't 100% paint a clean bill of health for Froome's case so that will continue to allow doubts to persist. But overall I'm happy that they've published their rationale for scrutiny, they are happy with their decision, that's good enough for me to accept as I am just a mildly interested by-stander.

tailwindhome

larkim wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I hope someone will correct me here.
But is this quote from Froome not factual inaccurate?

"There are two phases: it goes to the explanation phase and then, after that, if that's not sufficient, then it goes to the pharmaceutical study. Mine stopped before it even went to that phase."

As you've read the WADA docs, you'll see that that does appear to have been the process. Though the PK study was discounted as being unusable, rather than being a "second phase" process.

Whether that is as written in the various UCI / WADA protocols or not is a different matter.

Yeah.
It's a interesting version of the truth

Anyone not following the story would left with the impression that Froome didn't need to do a PK study as his explanation cleared things up.

tailwindhome

larkim wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

WADA add a whole lot more

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... her-froome

I'm quite baffled how anyone could read that document and have their confidence in the outcome confirmed.

It depends what outcome you want to see confirmed.

The outcome was that Froome was completely cleared.
There's nothing (in my view) in that document which adds to the confidence that this outcome is correct

larkim

It doesn't really matter though - whether Froome was right or wrong about his description of what he understands to be the "process" doesn't change what the "process" actually is.

My reading of the WADA docs, particularly that very brief summary of how the threshold was arrived at (the first linked doc) gives me the distinct impression they weren't expecting Froome to be able to bring anything to the table that would cast doubt on a reading being taken at face value in the absence of a PK test. Their second and more length document gives the impression of them responding to some points they'd not previously considered and taking perhaps a more rounded view.

Whatever your conclusions, the bottom line is that with evidence at least that there was no systemic use of Salbutamol at higher levels throughout the Vuelta, a one off "hit" on that day would make no logical sense. From WADA / UCI's point of view that's irrelevant - they are not concerned about motive in doping, quite rightly. But I am. It just adds weight to the circumstantial evidence that it is highly unlikely that there is any sinister reason why Froome should exceed the threshold for a drug for which any performance enhancing benefits would only arise under longer term systemic use in a training phase. Add that to the fact that WADA and UCI are happy to stand up and say "no case to answer" and that adds up to more than enough evidence for me that the most likely scenario is as WADA describe it.

larkim

TailWindHome wrote:

larkim wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

WADA add a whole lot more

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... her-froome

I'm quite baffled how anyone could read that document and have their confidence in the outcome confirmed.

It depends what outcome you want to see confirmed.

The outcome was that Froome was completely cleared.
There's nothing (in my view) in that document which adds to the confidence that this outcome is correct

But the other outcome would be that Froome was completely found guilty. Does that document support that either?

tangled_metal

That's the only way to look at it. Which outcome does they document most support? That is then the outcome that has to be accepted by the wider sport and dare I say it all the fans and followers of the sport.

If you can't trust the outcome of UCI involvement in this situation then can you really trust the sport they run?

Put up our shut up is the phrase that springs to mind over Froome and Sky's detractors. Take your evidence to the authorities (UCI) and let them adjudicate. So far they've cleared Sky and Froome to their satisfaction. Good enough for me because there is really no other option IMHO.

Can this thread be locked? There is really nowhere for it to go now. Decision has been made and discussed. Some will never accept it. So close the thread down. Start another one if there is any new case or evidence to discuss.

No_Ta_Doctor

Please, please, stop.

This thread is longer and more boring than today's 231km flat stage.

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

larkim wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

WADA add a whole lot more

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... her-froome

I'm quite baffled how anyone could read that document and have their confidence in the outcome confirmed.

It depends what outcome you want to see confirmed.

The outcome was that Froome was completely cleared.
There's nothing (in my view) in that document which adds to the confidence that this outcome is correct

But the other outcome would be that Froome was completely found guilty. Does that document support that either?

Thats because this is a fudge of sorts, there can be no satisfactory outcome because the study which would prove it one way or the other isnt possible. hence no confirmed AAF and no referal to CAS from WADA.

Its a bit like we cant give you the records because the laptop was stolen / we didnt keep them in the first place.

thats why as an exercise to clear a potential doping infraction it was successful, but as an exercise to prove innocence there has been no answer either way. Of course some may conflate the two but they are distinct.

larkim

If anyone is looking for proof of innocence, I think they are misguided sadly. We don't have that for any pro rider.

topper_harley

No tA Doctor wrote:

Please, please, stop.

This thread is longer and more boring than today's 231km flat stage.

steady on, this stage is a shocker

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

If anyone is looking for proof of innocence, I think they are misguided sadly. We don't have that for any pro rider.

but in this instance the study that would prove the conditions led to his initial and now unconfirmed AAF could have proved that he wasnt guilty this time. Sadly, its not possible to do that study so we'll just never know........

dolan_driver

I think the "Oh Hinault" thread was added to this amalgamation of numerous threads, so here is Hinault adding more petrol to the fire. (Copied from CN).

"It's up to the international authorities [WADA, UCI] who allowed him to line up for the start of the Tour to resolve any problems arising from it," said Hinault. "They haven't thought through the consequences, but it's serious.

"The other day I was with a youth cycling coach, and before races parents have been giving Ventolin [asthma inhalers] to children who aren't sick. That's what's happened. People copy what the stars do.

"As for Froome, he's still at the Tour, and I wish him all the best, as he's up against a lot of people who don't want him there," Hinault continued. "Mentally, it must be tough to have all those people booing.

"But that's his problem – not mine."

There was praise, meanwhile, for French favourite Romain Bardet (AG2R La Mondiale), who Hinault believes has the ability to win the Tour.

"He has to take advantage of the rivalries between the other contenders," said Hinault. "He has to take advantage of being such a great descender. Even in the dry, he can put people under pressure, so he has to show what he's capable of."

Hinault also told Sport24 that he believes today's professional cyclists ride very differently to how they did when he was racing.

"Riders today are always on their brakes," said Hinault, who won the Tour in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, and finally in 1985, which remains the last Tour won by a Frenchman. "They're always waiting for the final climb.

"It wasn't like that in my generation: if you had the opportunity to drop someone, you went for it. It was fun," he said. "It's still the best rider who wins today, because you have to be good at time trialling and in the mountains, but we also used to have fun going for the sprints and time bonuses, just to try to get one over on our rivals."

Hinault also bemoaned the fact that so few riders seem to take advantage of opportunities that come their way.

"No one just rides on instinct anymore, for the fun of it. No one looks back under their arm, sees that they've got a 50-metre gap and then decides to shout, 'A bloc!' and go for it, right when no one expects them to go. That was bike racing, but it's not like that anymore these days, unfortunately."

DD.

above_the_cows

larkim

Dolan Driver wrote:

I think the "Oh Hinault" thread was added to this amalgamation of numerous threads, so here is Hinault adding more petrol to the fire. (Copied from CN).

"It's up to the international authorities [WADA, UCI] who allowed him to line up for the start of the Tour to resolve any problems arising from it," said Hinault. "They haven't thought through the consequences, but it's serious.

"The other day I was with a youth cycling coach, and before races parents have been giving Ventolin [asthma inhalers] to children who aren't sick. That's what's happened. People copy what the stars do."

DD.

LOL. It's the tinfoil hat guys who want to believe that inhalers are a significant PED that are putting these ideas into parents' minds (if indeed Hinault is correct), not the pro's who need them to manage their own situation.

On another forum, far away from here, a poster who is a GP wrote the following which I think gives at least one anecdotal story of asthma being detected when none was obvious, and I think is likely to represent how those elites who use inhalers end up legitimately having them.

"I found out a few years ago that I have slight evidence of asthma when tested on spirometry. I don't wheeze at all except in certain weather conditions or, a couple times, for some time after a respiratory infection. If I was racing on a cold dry day in an event that mattered to me I'd take a couple of puffs of salbutamol beforehand. If I didn't run and hadn't done a test as part of a course in learning to record spirometry, I'd never know."

Vino'sGhost

1. Effect of salbutamol on muscle strength and endurance performance in nonasthmatic men. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Jul;32(7):1300-6.
2. The effects of Albuterol and isokinetic exercise on the quadriceps muscle group.Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995 Nov;27(11):1471-6

Im feeling a bit wheezy after my ice cream.

larkim

I'm not qualified to comment on the medical studies and I suspect neither are you Vino (though I am prepared to be corrected!). But WADA's experts are. I'll leave that stuff to them.

RichN95.

Hinault's such a self parody. All this 'in my day we would attack' nonsense. An actual examination of his Tour wins shows four of them were won by bludgeoning his nearest rival (Zoetemelk x3, van Impe) in the time trials. And generally there was only one credible rival. When he came up against a rider that could TT he lost (Fignon, LeMond) or had to be gifted the win (LeMond).

His image is mostly self-created macho BS.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Hinault's such a self parody. All this 'in my day we would attack' nonsense. An actual examination of his Tour wins shows four of them were won by bludgeoning his nearest rival (Zoetemelk x3, van Impe) in the time trials. And generally there was only one credible rival. When he came up against a rider that could TT he lost (Fignon, LeMond) or had to be gifted the win (LeMond).

His image is mostly self-created macho BS.

but his comments were that they would attack, that it was fun to do so, that it wasnt formulaic. He started by saying the strongest rider won, that you needted to climb and time trial just like now.

Another Rich dismissal of those who dont adhere to his world view........

bobmcstuff

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Hinault's such a self parody. All this 'in my day we would attack' nonsense. An actual examination of his Tour wins shows four of them were won by bludgeoning his nearest rival (Zoetemelk x3, van Impe) in the time trials. And generally there was only one credible rival. When he came up against a rider that could TT he lost (Fignon, LeMond) or had to be gifted the win (LeMond).

His image is mostly self-created macho BS.

but his comments were that they would attack, that it was fun to do so, that it wasnt formulaic. He started by saying the strongest rider won, that you needted to climb and time trial just like now.

Another Rich dismissal of those who dont adhere to his world view........

What Hinault says, isn't that exactly what Yates did in the Giro this year? And pretty conclusively proved that it's not a great idea.

Yes it was very fun to watch but at the end of the day it doesn't win races. Or it doesn't any more.

Vino'sGhost

Quite agree, but his point was that they would do it just for the sheer exuberance.

Things have moved on obviously, fitness levels and understanding are much closer now and our understanding of sports physiology generally; my point was that Rich was attacking and dismissing him as a parody unfairly. He does that if he perceives a threat to his beloved Froome.
(He might not be aware he’s doing it though)

tangled_metal

I have come to suspect that hinault was a good pro cyclist who should have left it at that. Whilst former pro cyclists can have insights that other pundits or sports journalists don't but quite frankly that isn't universal. Some riders are worth listening to others not.

IMHO the first and most important factor is an understanding of the sport. This means the actual racing but also technical aspects like anti doping procedures. Indeed the commonly discussed TUE drugs and other drugs commonly taken legally should also be part of their knowledge of they're in the limelight.

Put simply hinault doesn't seem to understand about salbutamol, AAF and procedures of the AAFs. He also associates things like kids taking salbutamol with top racers. Correct me if I'm wrong salbutamol is a prescription drug in France like the UK. So all those kids are either using doctor prescribed medicine or they're using illegally obtained drugs. Which is most likely?

Vino'sGhost

Tangled Metal wrote:

I have come to suspect that hinault was a good pro cyclist who should have left it at that. Whilst former pro cyclists can have insights that other pundits or sports journalists don't but quite frankly that isn't universal. Some riders are worth listening to others not.

IMHO the first and most important factor is an understanding of the sport. This means the actual racing but also technical aspects like anti doping procedures. Indeed the commonly discussed TUE drugs and other drugs commonly taken legally should also be part of their knowledge of they're in the limelight.

Put simply hinault doesn't seem to understand about salbutamol, AAF and procedures of the AAFs. He also associates things like kids taking salbutamol with top racers. Correct me if I'm wrong salbutamol is a prescription drug in France like the UK. So all those kids are either using doctor prescribed medicine or they're using illegally obtained drugs. Which is most likely?

LOL Most likely? A judgment based on experience informed guesswork. I thought we had to stick with facts?

mattsaw

Hinault has never had a problem with doping, unless of course you're not French.

carbonclem

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Hinault's such a self parody. All this 'in my day we would attack' nonsense. An actual examination of his Tour wins shows four of them were won by bludgeoning his nearest rival (Zoetemelk x3, van Impe) in the time trials. And generally there was only one credible rival. When he came up against a rider that could TT he lost (Fignon, LeMond) or had to be gifted the win (LeMond).

His image is mostly self-created macho BS.

but his comments were that they would attack, that it was fun to do so, that it wasnt formulaic. He started by saying the strongest rider won, that you needted to climb and time trial just like now.

Another Rich dismissal of those who dont adhere to his world view........

How does Hinault balance this with what Froome did, for example, in the Giro?

Apologies if it’s been covered before.

ddraver

So Bernie is basically saying that front should be bad cos some bad patents are idiots..?

Riiiiiiiight... :roll:

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

So Bernie is basically saying that front should be bad cos some bad patents are idiots..?

Riiiiiiiight... :roll:

If his story is true, it's also more down to the media portraying asthma inhalers as some sort of advance performance enhancer for non-asthmatics, than the asthmatics themselves. Similarly it may discourage an asthmatic kid from not using his inhaler so as not to be seen as a cheat.

Vino'sGhost

CarbonClem wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Hinault's such a self parody. All this 'in my day we would attack' nonsense. An actual examination of his Tour wins shows four of them were won by bludgeoning his nearest rival (Zoetemelk x3, van Impe) in the time trials. And generally there was only one credible rival. When he came up against a rider that could TT he lost (Fignon, LeMond) or had to be gifted the win (LeMond).

His image is mostly self-created macho BS.

but his comments were that they would attack, that it was fun to do so, that it wasnt formulaic. He started by saying the strongest rider won, that you needted to climb and time trial just like now.

Another Rich dismissal of those who dont adhere to his world view........

How does Hinault balance this with what Froome did, for example, in the Giro?

Apologies if it’s been covered before.

I doubt he can because that was epic. but it was also planned so who knows

inseine

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Hinault's such a self parody. All this 'in my day we would attack' nonsense. An actual examination of his Tour wins shows four of them were won by bludgeoning his nearest rival (Zoetemelk x3, van Impe) in the time trials. And generally there was only one credible rival. When he came up against a rider that could TT he lost (Fignon, LeMond) or had to be gifted the win (LeMond).

His image is mostly self-created macho BS.

but his comments were that they would attack, that it was fun to do so, that it wasnt formulaic. He started by saying the strongest rider won, that you needted to climb and time trial just like now.

Another Rich dismissal of those who dont adhere to his world view........

Did you manage to catch any of the Giro?

salsiccia1

Old man in 'things were better in my day' shocka