- May 31, 2010
- 1,143
- 125
- 10,680
22.
Nebulizers are not prohibited as a device; however the amount of beta-2-agonist administered by nebulisation may surpass the allowed maximum doses of salbutamol, salmeterol or formoterol by inhalation; therefore the dose may be prohibited.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/prohibited-list-qa#item-1411
Wiggins Fluimucil was of a type for use with a nebulizer
Nebulizers are not prohibited as a device; however the amount of beta-2-agonist administered by nebulisation may surpass the allowed maximum doses of salbutamol, salmeterol or formoterol by inhalation; therefore the dose may be prohibited.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/prohibited-list-qa#item-1411
Wiggins Fluimucil was of a type for use with a nebulizer
In the original poll thread, before it was locked and transferred to this thread, someone said Froome could not get four years. That is one of the choices in the poll, and just to be clear, that is a possibility. Article 10.2.1.2 of the WADA code says that an athlete can be banned four years for a specified substance if it can be established that use of that substance was intentional, for performance enhancement. So if Froome were ruled to have orally dosed salbutamol for non-therapeutic purposes, he could get a four year ban.
That’s unlikely, because the enantiomers test can’t actually distinguish oral from supra-maximal inhaled doses, and even if it could, Froome could argue as a last resort that he orally dosed because he needed massive relief (though expert witnesses could argue that orally dosing would not be as helpful as amounts he could inhale, and of course Froome’s argument would be at odds with his claim that he didn’t make a mistake). But it’s worth keeping in mind this possibility as we evaluate Froome’s all-or-nothing strategy. The downside risk is considerable. Two years might or might not mean the end of his career. Four years almost certainly would, at least as a GC contender, unless he proved to be the second coming of that other Chris.
As far as the outcome of this case, I’d prefer not to predict at least until there’s certainty that there will be a CADF hearing. Based on the information that’s emerged so far, I’d guess two years, but almost all of that information has been denied at some point, so it’s really hard to judge what Froome’s specific strategy is, not to mention that we don’t have access to some of the most important data.
That’s unlikely, because the enantiomers test can’t actually distinguish oral from supra-maximal inhaled doses, and even if it could, Froome could argue as a last resort that he orally dosed because he needed massive relief (though expert witnesses could argue that orally dosing would not be as helpful as amounts he could inhale, and of course Froome’s argument would be at odds with his claim that he didn’t make a mistake). But it’s worth keeping in mind this possibility as we evaluate Froome’s all-or-nothing strategy. The downside risk is considerable. Two years might or might not mean the end of his career. Four years almost certainly would, at least as a GC contender, unless he proved to be the second coming of that other Chris.
As far as the outcome of this case, I’d prefer not to predict at least until there’s certainty that there will be a CADF hearing. Based on the information that’s emerged so far, I’d guess two years, but almost all of that information has been denied at some point, so it’s really hard to judge what Froome’s specific strategy is, not to mention that we don’t have access to some of the most important data.
- May 13, 2011
- 654
- 0
- 9,980
I went low probability of success, but more likely to win the race (poll) by voting 4 years. Kind of like attacking solo on a false flat 80 km out.
Why? Sky is leaky these days and Froome doesn't seem well liked by all. It is possible that more information will come out that will show intent (which in itself seems highly probable) and then Froome's defense would be busted. Has he paid off enough people, or pissed off enough?
Why? Sky is leaky these days and Froome doesn't seem well liked by all. It is possible that more information will come out that will show intent (which in itself seems highly probable) and then Froome's defense would be busted. Has he paid off enough people, or pissed off enough?
70kmph said:
Umm, Wiggins didn't take fluimucil with a nebulizer in the back of that bus
Kenacort injection - bingo!
- May 31, 2010
- 1,143
- 125
- 10,680
Wiggins is an example where Sky admit to using a nebuliser for general use...
Of course Froome hasn't said he used this method and if he does it wont help because he took a larger than therapeutic dose but nebulizer is a more efficient delivery system than the portable spray
It wouldn't expose him to the oral intentional doping, if they run entainomers testing
Of course Froome hasn't said he used this method and if he does it wont help because he took a larger than therapeutic dose but nebulizer is a more efficient delivery system than the portable spray
It wouldn't expose him to the oral intentional doping, if they run entainomers testing
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,600
- 6,854
- 28,180
MI. 2 Years would mean the end of his career if we consider that Sky would move on to a different rider.
70kmph said:
In the Sundby case, they argued—on the basis of published studies as well as Sundby’s own lab tests—that the nebulizer was a less efficient means of salbutamol delivery. Also, of course, Froome has repeatedly said he takes salbutamol only for “great efforts”, i.e., in a race, where of course a nebulizer couldn’t be used.
And to repeat, the enantiomers test doesn’t distinguish between oral and inhaled use. Petacchi “failed” that test, and CAS still ruled that he had just inhaled too much.
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Yes, that’s quite possible. I just wonder that if a party like UCI refuses to agree to go directly to CAS, whether they have to provide a reason, and if so, whether “the process takes too long” would be considered acceptable. Because going directly to CAS is generally considered a right of any defendant. After the USADA decision came out against LA, before he basically gave up, it was speculated that he might go directly to CAS, rather than defend the case in the U.S. system.
Froome could point out that regardless of the CADF decision, his case would end up at CAS, anyway. He will obviously appeal any ruling against him, and the prosecution will almost certainly appeal any decision favorable to Froome. So the final decision would come sooner if the case went directly to CAS. The argument about getting him out of competition hinges on a) reaching a CADF decision before the Giro begins; and b) the assumption that the decision will go against Froome. So if UCI prevailed on this basis, I think there must have been a considerable legal fight.
Escarabajo said:
Could Froome sign with another team before his suspension was finished? Even if he couldn't, under the two years I envision, he would be reinstated by the end of the 2019 season, and could sign with another team before 2020 began. Of course, he might be done as a GC contender even then, considering his age (about like Contador now) and the long layoff, but the odds against him wouldn't be as formidable as after four years.
- May 31, 2010
- 1,143
- 125
- 10,680
From WADA website:
Nebulizers are not prohibited as a device; however the amount of beta-2-agonist administered by nebulisation may surpass the allowed maximum doses of salbutamol, salmeterol or formoterol by inhalation; therefore the dose may be prohibited.
Walsh said that since being seen using an inhaler during a stage of the 2014 Criterium du Dauphine and been criticised for it, Froome did not use it during racing anymore.
It meant the number of puffs of his inhaler that he could legally take were no longer always spread evenly across a day.
Can we tell the difference between a general intake, which is strictly prohibited, and an inhaled intake?
We have no element of certainty. By combining certain indicators with other information on the outcome and the environment described by the athlete, however, this can lead to a relatively high level of certainty.- Oliver Rabin
Re:
I think that refers to the fact that much higher doses are obtainable by nebulizer, not that a larger amount of a given dose gets into the lungs. From the Sundby CAS case:
These points were contested by the prosecution, and rightly so IMO, but they do indicate that the amount of salbutamol getting into the body via nebulizer is a smaller fraction of the nominal dose than is the case with a standard inhaler.
That’s very interesting, I hadn’t heard that. It has a lot of implications. First, since great efforts are generally when asthma is worst, if he didn’t use an inhaler during racing, why would he need it at all? Maybe an asthmatic could comment on this.
Second, if he doesn’t use an inhaler during racing, how was he able to take several puffs at the end of stage 18? Did someone immediately hand him an inhaler after he crossed the finish line?
Third, this makes Froome’s positive even more difficult to explain. If he doesn’t take salbutamol during a race, but only at some time before, this means that, assuming he urinated at some point during the race, his levels should be quite low. Even if hypothetically he loaded up before the start of the stage, taking 800 ug all at once, if he stopped to pee at any point in the race, much of the drug would be out of his system. I had assumed he was going to claim that he took most of the drug in the final hour or two of the race, so that maximum urine levels would occur when he provided a sample at controls at the end of the stage.
The proof, or absence of proof, is in the pudding. Has any rider ever been sanctioned for intentionally dosing with salbutamol based on the enantiomers test? Not that I’m aware of. As I discussed upthread, the test is designed to distinguish between a sub-maximal inhaled dose and an oral dose. In theory, one could design a test to distinguish between a supra-maximal inhaled dose—IOW, inhaling too much by accident—and an oral dose, but this hasn’t been done. In fact, if one has the other information Rabin refers to, that alone will probably add more to the conclusion than the enantiomers test.
70kmph said:
I think that refers to the fact that much higher doses are obtainable by nebulizer, not that a larger amount of a given dose gets into the lungs. From the Sundby CAS case:
These points were contested by the prosecution, and rightly so IMO, but they do indicate that the amount of salbutamol getting into the body via nebulizer is a smaller fraction of the nominal dose than is the case with a standard inhaler.
That’s very interesting, I hadn’t heard that. It has a lot of implications. First, since great efforts are generally when asthma is worst, if he didn’t use an inhaler during racing, why would he need it at all? Maybe an asthmatic could comment on this.
Second, if he doesn’t use an inhaler during racing, how was he able to take several puffs at the end of stage 18? Did someone immediately hand him an inhaler after he crossed the finish line?
Third, this makes Froome’s positive even more difficult to explain. If he doesn’t take salbutamol during a race, but only at some time before, this means that, assuming he urinated at some point during the race, his levels should be quite low. Even if hypothetically he loaded up before the start of the stage, taking 800 ug all at once, if he stopped to pee at any point in the race, much of the drug would be out of his system. I had assumed he was going to claim that he took most of the drug in the final hour or two of the race, so that maximum urine levels would occur when he provided a sample at controls at the end of the stage.
The proof, or absence of proof, is in the pudding. Has any rider ever been sanctioned for intentionally dosing with salbutamol based on the enantiomers test? Not that I’m aware of. As I discussed upthread, the test is designed to distinguish between a sub-maximal inhaled dose and an oral dose. In theory, one could design a test to distinguish between a supra-maximal inhaled dose—IOW, inhaling too much by accident—and an oral dose, but this hasn’t been done. In fact, if one has the other information Rabin refers to, that alone will probably add more to the conclusion than the enantiomers test.
Re: Re:
As for Stage 18, I used TV coverage to show that there was a maximum of 50 minutes between Froome crossing the line and him attending post race interviews. The doping control would have had to have happened somewhere in that time frame, so there's no way a post-stage puff or three would have resulted in peak plasma concentrations.
Unless he can be shown to have taken some puffs on the bike, he was nebulizing or popping pills before the stage.
John Swanson
I did a bit of analysis way up thread that I can share. To the first point, my personal experience with asthma is yjay it van feel totally random. Feel great all day on the bike, and wham! Hacking and coughing. Ten minutes into a gentle ride and Blam! I need to stop and sit down for a while. Sitting on the couch and Wheeze! There doesn'y seem to be a huge consistency, rather general trends of when I can expect an attack. I carry my inhaler everywhere I go just for that reason.Merckx index said:
As for Stage 18, I used TV coverage to show that there was a maximum of 50 minutes between Froome crossing the line and him attending post race interviews. The doping control would have had to have happened somewhere in that time frame, so there's no way a post-stage puff or three would have resulted in peak plasma concentrations.
Unless he can be shown to have taken some puffs on the bike, he was nebulizing or popping pills before the stage.
John Swanson
Re: Re:
That's not always the case, especially for someone who has been up on the podium. The TV interviews often get done first. TV has a schedule to keep, anti-doping can wait all day if need be.ScienceIsCool said:
- May 31, 2010
- 1,143
- 125
- 10,680
Re: Re:
“That evening at the finish (of stage 18), wanting to show he was healthy, he took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interview,” Walsh claims.
He then adds that 50 minutes after crossing the finish line he had his interview and dope test done.
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/david-walsh-froome-inhaler/
Parker said:
“That evening at the finish (of stage 18), wanting to show he was healthy, he took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interview,” Walsh claims.
He then adds that 50 minutes after crossing the finish line he had his interview and dope test done.
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/david-walsh-froome-inhaler/
Re: Re:
Now some guys are selected for random controls and they probably aren't met by a chaperone, but they're informed right away to get to doping control. There's no getting on the team bus or any of that stuff. But Froome wasn't a ransom control, was he? He was definitely met by a chaperone.
Only after the doping control do you get to have a wipe-down and a change of clothes for interviews at the press tent. If you care to look, you can see that is indeed wiped down and has a fresh change of kit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkBT13_ELCM
The time from when he crossed the line, to when the interview aired is 50 minutes. So we have a hard and fast timeline. Now you'll note that the interview in all likelihood happened after the podium presentation, and the presentation is often delayed because of the doping controls. Sponsors normally want the riders in spiffy clean clothes to look good for the cameras. So the greatest likelihood is that the absolute maximum window between post-race puffs and giving a sample is 45 minutes.
John Swanson
I don't think that's possible. As soon as you cross the line, you're met by a chaperone. You'll often see crews looking for quick post-race reactions and photographs and stuff but the chaperone will be right there observing. From there, you are lead to doping control. Along the way you might be given some towels, water, etc by a soigneur, but the chaperone will be watching closely.Parker said:
Now some guys are selected for random controls and they probably aren't met by a chaperone, but they're informed right away to get to doping control. There's no getting on the team bus or any of that stuff. But Froome wasn't a ransom control, was he? He was definitely met by a chaperone.
Only after the doping control do you get to have a wipe-down and a change of clothes for interviews at the press tent. If you care to look, you can see that is indeed wiped down and has a fresh change of kit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkBT13_ELCM
The time from when he crossed the line, to when the interview aired is 50 minutes. So we have a hard and fast timeline. Now you'll note that the interview in all likelihood happened after the podium presentation, and the presentation is often delayed because of the doping controls. Sponsors normally want the riders in spiffy clean clothes to look good for the cameras. So the greatest likelihood is that the absolute maximum window between post-race puffs and giving a sample is 45 minutes.
John Swanson
Re: Re:
Sometimes athletes, particularly dehydrated ones, take a long time to pee. It's a rare talent to be able to do it on demand.
And the chaperone will stick with them during those media commitments. It's addressed at the top of page 2 of this: http://uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/56/45/TD20Notificationofridersforanin-competitiontest.EN_English.PDFScienceIsCool said:
Sometimes athletes, particularly dehydrated ones, take a long time to pee. It's a rare talent to be able to do it on demand.
Re: Re:
I'd never seen that technical document before. Thanks!! But I'd still maintain that a quick trip to the bus to freshen up for the press/podium wouldn't really be feasible until after the doping control.
John Swanson
Parker said:
I'd never seen that technical document before. Thanks!! But I'd still maintain that a quick trip to the bus to freshen up for the press/podium wouldn't really be feasible until after the doping control.
John Swanson
Re: Re:
No, not the bus. I fully agree with you there. There's usually an area set aside for them to do that and soigneurs carry big rucksacks around.ScienceIsCool said:
- Feb 16, 2010
- 15,338
- 6,033
- 28,180
Interesting discussion about how long after the finish the rider can report to the doping control, but if Walsh was correct when he claimed Froome no longer inhales during a race, it's pretty irrelevant. Two or three puffs even at a time before providing the sample that optimizes urine concentration is not going to matter much.
The really important factor here is, did Froome stop to pee at some point during the race, and if so, when? Given that information, which surely must be available, plus the volume of urine provided at the doping control, one can calculate with fairly high probability a maximum level of urinary salbutamol. Again, this assumes he didn't inhale during the race. Possibly that can be confirmed, too.
By the way, I find this Walsh claim extremely interesting for another reason than the ones I suggested before. Consider this possible sequence of events:
1) Froome never took salbutamol prior to joining Sky. I've already discussed the evidence for this, viz., a) no mention of a salbutamol TUE in the Fancy Bears hack of Froome's ADAMS account; and b) Froome himself, upon being confronted by the FB hack showing his prednisolone TUEs, said those were the only TUEs he ever had.
2) The year Froome joined Sky, a TUE was no longer needed to use salbutamol, up to the established limits. This of course was an invitation for any rider to orally dose, if he took a reasonable amount of caution. But even salbutamol levels well within the allowed amounts might look suspicious for a rider with no history of asthma. As long as Froome was a relatively unknown and unimportant rider, this was unlikely to be a problem, because this information is not public, and the difficulty of a reporter's obtaining it wouldn't be worth it for such a rider. But after the 2011 Vuelta, of course, this started to change, and after the 2013 Tour, Froome was gaining recognition as one of the best GC riders of his generation. So he not only began to use an inhaler, but made a public show of it, so everyone would know that he took salbutamol.
3) Initially, he told Kimmage he used salbutamol only for "great efforts". If Walsh's claim is correct, though Froome later changed this story. He no longer took salbutamol during a race. Why would he say this? Well, if the whole purpose of claiming to inhale was just a cover for oral dosing, actually using an inhaler during a race would not only be unnecessary, but I would think would hinder him. When you're on the edge of the red zone on a final climb, the last thing you want to do is pull our your inhaler and start puffing. So just dispense with that show. The point had already been made.
I'm not pushing this story as what likely has been going on. But I've seen nothing to refute it, and Froome, who could easily refute at least 1), by furnishing proof of his salbutamol TUE, so far hasn't done so. Also, it isn't an either-or situation. E.g., Froome could have mild, EIA, such that he does use an inhaler sometimes, but is not dependent on it regularly. As long as he uses it occasionally, he has an adequate cover for regularly testing for salbutamol in the urine.
The really important factor here is, did Froome stop to pee at some point during the race, and if so, when? Given that information, which surely must be available, plus the volume of urine provided at the doping control, one can calculate with fairly high probability a maximum level of urinary salbutamol. Again, this assumes he didn't inhale during the race. Possibly that can be confirmed, too.
By the way, I find this Walsh claim extremely interesting for another reason than the ones I suggested before. Consider this possible sequence of events:
1) Froome never took salbutamol prior to joining Sky. I've already discussed the evidence for this, viz., a) no mention of a salbutamol TUE in the Fancy Bears hack of Froome's ADAMS account; and b) Froome himself, upon being confronted by the FB hack showing his prednisolone TUEs, said those were the only TUEs he ever had.
2) The year Froome joined Sky, a TUE was no longer needed to use salbutamol, up to the established limits. This of course was an invitation for any rider to orally dose, if he took a reasonable amount of caution. But even salbutamol levels well within the allowed amounts might look suspicious for a rider with no history of asthma. As long as Froome was a relatively unknown and unimportant rider, this was unlikely to be a problem, because this information is not public, and the difficulty of a reporter's obtaining it wouldn't be worth it for such a rider. But after the 2011 Vuelta, of course, this started to change, and after the 2013 Tour, Froome was gaining recognition as one of the best GC riders of his generation. So he not only began to use an inhaler, but made a public show of it, so everyone would know that he took salbutamol.
3) Initially, he told Kimmage he used salbutamol only for "great efforts". If Walsh's claim is correct, though Froome later changed this story. He no longer took salbutamol during a race. Why would he say this? Well, if the whole purpose of claiming to inhale was just a cover for oral dosing, actually using an inhaler during a race would not only be unnecessary, but I would think would hinder him. When you're on the edge of the red zone on a final climb, the last thing you want to do is pull our your inhaler and start puffing. So just dispense with that show. The point had already been made.
I'm not pushing this story as what likely has been going on. But I've seen nothing to refute it, and Froome, who could easily refute at least 1), by furnishing proof of his salbutamol TUE, so far hasn't done so. Also, it isn't an either-or situation. E.g., Froome could have mild, EIA, such that he does use an inhaler sometimes, but is not dependent on it regularly. As long as he uses it occasionally, he has an adequate cover for regularly testing for salbutamol in the urine.
- May 11, 2013
- 13,995
- 5,289
- 28,180
Sports Integrity Briefs – 8 February
The Norwegian Olympic team has taken over 6,000 doses of asthma medication to the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics, reports NRK. The broadcaster reported that the 109 athletes and 100 person support team have access to 52 different drugs and ten nebuliser devices. Last month, an article in Norwegian newspaper Verde Gang, featured the Norwegian cross-country ski team doctor, Petter Olberg, who claimed that between 50% and 70% of the team suffer with asthma. The Norwegian Olympic Committee (NIF) has yet to comment on the reports.
The Norwegian Olympic team has taken over 6,000 doses of asthma medication to the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics, reports NRK. The broadcaster reported that the 109 athletes and 100 person support team have access to 52 different drugs and ten nebuliser devices. Last month, an article in Norwegian newspaper Verde Gang, featured the Norwegian cross-country ski team doctor, Petter Olberg, who claimed that between 50% and 70% of the team suffer with asthma. The Norwegian Olympic Committee (NIF) has yet to comment on the reports.
You seem to be really stretching here. To address your three points.Merckx index said:
1. Would he even be on ADAMS at Barloworld? And would he even know what a TUE is? Also Sky may have suggested he upgrade to a more effective asthma drug. Braloworld were a team run on a shoestring. They were a collection of riders with the same jersey.
2. You say that it was an invitation to dose orally. But so was having a TUE for asthma. We have had plenty of confessionals from old dopers. Not a single one of them has mentioned using salbutamol as a PED. Don't you think that the likes of Rasmussen, Jaksche, Landis etc would pipe up about it?
And why? Because it's been shown to be a lousy performance enhancer, barely worth bothering with. Don;t fool yourself into believing that salbutamol is the cornerstone of a doping programme.
And as for Froome making a public show - it was a three second clip in the Tour of Romandie spotted by someone on Twitter. Two and a half years after he became a contender. If he wanted to really make a public show of it, maybe he should have written about it in his book.
3. He's clearly changed his behaviour due to the hysterical reaction to people viewing an inhaler as if it's a bloodbag. I'm sure he'll take it in a race if he needs to. He can use as his sees fit. He can use it as maximum security against asthma if he wants. In fact non-asthmatics are allowed to use an inhaler if they want.
I'll add a fourth point. More a question. If this doping programme you are proposing is correct. What went wrong on the day in question? He's had six years of getting the dosage right.
Parker said:
As I noted before, Froome's teammate at Barlo, Steve Cummings, had a TUE for salbutamol. If your point is that Froome was taking some other drug for asthma back then, OK, that's an interesting idea, that hadn't occurred to me, but what drug might work that would not also be on the prohibited list? In addition to salbutamol, salmeterol and formoterol are permitted at certain levels. But they were banned in 2009, i.e., a TUE was required for their use, just as with salbutamol.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933613/
Is there some non-prohibited substance that one could take for asthma? Maybe some asthmatic could weigh in here, but I doubt it, as all beta2-agonists and glucocorticoids are on the prohibited list. The latter require a TUE for in-competition use, and I assume did back in 2009 as well.
The use of various drugs may change over time. The riders you mention mostly were active prior to the bio passport, which limited the amount of blood doping possible. In those circumstances, riders may seek out other substances to supplement more important drugs. Also, I think removing the requirement for a TUE was a significant change. At that point, a rider didn't have to do anything except be careful about doses. Even if salbutamol has only a minor effect, that's a nothing-to-lose situation. If it doesn't have an adverse effects, and it might help, why not use it?
Of course not, nobody I know of has claimed that. Testosterone isn't the cornerstone of a doping program, either, not for cyclists, but it's still used. Salbutamol may, though, be especially useful in weight loss, and unquestionably that was a key element in Froome's transformation. That wouldn't explain why he was taking it during a GT--and I pointed this out on Day 1--but he may have found other benefits that were worth it to him. A lot of studies report that it can increase anaerobic power.
Well, in the Lowe article linked upthread, it was described as "clearly done with a view to being seen." YMMV, but we know there are certain portions of a race where the leader will definitely be on the screen, and that's why it was observed. If he had been taking it for years on finishing climbs, it seems a little strange that no one ever noticed before. After the news broke, I don't recall a single journalist, rider or anyone else associated with cycling say, oh, of course, I've seen him puffing away before.
Again, it doesn't have to be one or the other. There may be more than one explanation for the change. In fact, some might argue (I won't) that the "hysterical reaction" was just a convenient rationalization for doing what he wanted to do, anyway.
Why do riders ever get busted for anything? How long had Tyler been using before he was popped? What about Floyd? Contador? Vino? Getting dosages right usually isn't difficult if one is careful. The problem is that it's not necessarily that easy to be careful dozens, hundreds of time, when there are so many other details involved in racing that one also has to pay attention to.
Beyond that, your question, of course, applies just as much to scenarios in which Froome was not intentionally doping. If he accidentally took too much, how could that happen after all this time? It also applies to random chance theories: how could one test be so much higher than all the others?
Merckx index said:
Cummings was on the British track programme for many years
It's clearly not a nothing to lose situation. What readings would do pills give. Isn't that the point of the threshold?Merckx index said:
But lots of people have talked about taking testosterone as a performance enhancer. Nobody at all has mentioned taking salbutamol for anything but asthma.Merckx index said:
What did you think he should do? Drop back down the bunch and hide behind people. No-one had seen him puffing away before because they weren't looking for it. It barely looks any different to someone eating something.Merckx index said:
Precisely my point. But a person who knows they are doing something wrong will always be more cautious.Merckx index said:
The most rational explanation is that he overdid his asthma drugs and/or the test isn't perfect (probably a combination of both). Not that he had some sort of overarching scheme plotted over many years to abuse an ineffective drug that no-one else has ever bothered with before.
I know you really, really want this to be a proper doping scandal, but I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram