-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re: Re:
Why do so many elite athletes have asthma?
Simon Yates tested positive for asthma medication, while studies found a third of Team Sky’s riders and 70% of the top British swimmers have the condition
Peter Walker
Fri 29 Apr ‘16 11.30 BST
Last modified on Wed 20 Sep ‘17 19.26 BST
The idea of a supremely fit professional cyclist like Simon Yates having to occasionally reach for an inhaler to ward off a wheeze might seem anomalous. But asthma is surprisingly common among some elite athletes.
A handful have classic asthma, the usually allergy-triggered constriction of the bronchial tubes that tends to begin in childhood.
Much more common in sport is exercise-induced asthma, or EIA, in which rapid and heavy breathing causes the same symptoms. The effect can be exacerbated by atmospheric conditions, which means some sportspeople tend to suffer more than others.
John Dickinson from Kent University’s school of sport & exercise sciences, a world expert on asthma in sport, tested all 33 UK-based members of the British swimming squad and found 70% had some form of asthma, against a national asthma rate of about 8% to 10%. It is believed the chlorinated atmosphere of a pool could be a factor in this.
Cycling is another sport where EIA is common – Dickinson’s test on cyclists from Team Sky found a third have the condition. Rapid inhalation of cold, dry air has been identified as a trigger of EIA. Around half of elite cross-country skiers have the condition, as does Paula Radcliffe.
While EIA can occasionally bring on have very serious symptoms, sometimes athletes do not realise they have it until they are tested. The test involves them breathing a very dry air mixture for six minutes at high ventilation, with their lung function tested before and after. The asthma-induced fall in lung function can be as much as 40%.
Speaking to the Guardian in 2014, Dickinson said the condition remained a source of some debate: “It depends which respiratory consultant you talk to on whether you put these athletes on a spectrum of asthma, or whether you think that’s purely down to them exercising really hard in a certain environment, and if you take them out of that environment they’re fine. It’s a grey zone. But my argument is it’s a form of asthma.”
It’s not unknown for professional cyclists to carry a reliever inhaler, which helps stop a wheeze as it begins, in the back pocket of a jersey. Use of salbutamol, the most common form of such bronchodilator drugs, usually taken as a blue inhaler, does not need a doctor’s therapeutic use exemption certificate within certain limits.
Terbutaline, the bronchodilator taken by Yates, is permitted by anti-doping authorities as an inhaler, but only with a certificate. Certificates are also needed for the more powerful preventer inhalers for asthma, which aim to ward off symptoms, the most common of which are steroid-based. The injection of any anti-asthma drugs is not permitted.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/29/elite-athletes-asthma-simon-yates-team-sky-swimmers
One wonders how easy it might be to fake the symptoms of asthma, or if it simply is a convenient malady.Rollthedice said:
Why do so many elite athletes have asthma?
Simon Yates tested positive for asthma medication, while studies found a third of Team Sky’s riders and 70% of the top British swimmers have the condition
Peter Walker
Fri 29 Apr ‘16 11.30 BST
Last modified on Wed 20 Sep ‘17 19.26 BST
The idea of a supremely fit professional cyclist like Simon Yates having to occasionally reach for an inhaler to ward off a wheeze might seem anomalous. But asthma is surprisingly common among some elite athletes.
A handful have classic asthma, the usually allergy-triggered constriction of the bronchial tubes that tends to begin in childhood.
Much more common in sport is exercise-induced asthma, or EIA, in which rapid and heavy breathing causes the same symptoms. The effect can be exacerbated by atmospheric conditions, which means some sportspeople tend to suffer more than others.
John Dickinson from Kent University’s school of sport & exercise sciences, a world expert on asthma in sport, tested all 33 UK-based members of the British swimming squad and found 70% had some form of asthma, against a national asthma rate of about 8% to 10%. It is believed the chlorinated atmosphere of a pool could be a factor in this.
Cycling is another sport where EIA is common – Dickinson’s test on cyclists from Team Sky found a third have the condition. Rapid inhalation of cold, dry air has been identified as a trigger of EIA. Around half of elite cross-country skiers have the condition, as does Paula Radcliffe.
While EIA can occasionally bring on have very serious symptoms, sometimes athletes do not realise they have it until they are tested. The test involves them breathing a very dry air mixture for six minutes at high ventilation, with their lung function tested before and after. The asthma-induced fall in lung function can be as much as 40%.
Speaking to the Guardian in 2014, Dickinson said the condition remained a source of some debate: “It depends which respiratory consultant you talk to on whether you put these athletes on a spectrum of asthma, or whether you think that’s purely down to them exercising really hard in a certain environment, and if you take them out of that environment they’re fine. It’s a grey zone. But my argument is it’s a form of asthma.”
It’s not unknown for professional cyclists to carry a reliever inhaler, which helps stop a wheeze as it begins, in the back pocket of a jersey. Use of salbutamol, the most common form of such bronchodilator drugs, usually taken as a blue inhaler, does not need a doctor’s therapeutic use exemption certificate within certain limits.
Terbutaline, the bronchodilator taken by Yates, is permitted by anti-doping authorities as an inhaler, but only with a certificate. Certificates are also needed for the more powerful preventer inhalers for asthma, which aim to ward off symptoms, the most common of which are steroid-based. The injection of any anti-asthma drugs is not permitted.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/29/elite-athletes-asthma-simon-yates-team-sky-swimmers
thehog
BANNED
Re: Re:
Is more powerful than clenbuterol because it’s a legal albeit with a thereshold with a shorter half-life. Inject/swallow it OOC at 8pm nightly and sleep like a baby.
TheSpud said:
Is more powerful than clenbuterol because it’s a legal albeit with a thereshold with a shorter half-life. Inject/swallow it OOC at 8pm nightly and sleep like a baby.
Re: Re:
Was reading up on it and mg for mg Clen is the business, but like you say Clen has not legal limit whereas Salbutamol does. Now whether it has those effects at the trigger level - I assume not otherwise maybe the trigger would have been lower. However I get your point.
thehog said:
Was reading up on it and mg for mg Clen is the business, but like you say Clen has not legal limit whereas Salbutamol does. Now whether it has those effects at the trigger level - I assume not otherwise maybe the trigger would have been lower. However I get your point.
Re: Re:
Something does - whether that is Salbutamol, starving himself, or something else we don't know for sure. Surely cortisone much more likely - or possibly a combo of the two?
Benotti69 said:
Something does - whether that is Salbutamol, starving himself, or something else we don't know for sure. Surely cortisone much more likely - or possibly a combo of the two?
Re:
Would like to know how they test for that - obviously must be more sophisticated than just urine concentration?
And also since he has an AAF wouldn't they have either (a) tested at the first round for oral or (b) performed follow up testing?
70kmph said:
Would like to know how they test for that - obviously must be more sophisticated than just urine concentration?
And also since he has an AAF wouldn't they have either (a) tested at the first round for oral or (b) performed follow up testing?
Re: Re:
I think they're not exactly identical and can be distinguished because they're stereo isomersTheSpud said:
Re: Re:
Not an Asthmatic myself and don't know if hayfever season would affect the symptoms (doesn't seem to with my lad) - if it did then maybe those months would correlate with high use?
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Not an Asthmatic myself and don't know if hayfever season would affect the symptoms (doesn't seem to with my lad) - if it did then maybe those months would correlate with high use?
Re: Re:
I’m going with GT season for the high numbers, or more precisely, Tour and Giro.
Then why the low number for June? Everyone is at the Dauphiné or TDS so we know they’re racing. Most of the asthmatics I’ve known have the most trouble with cooler weather as it can restrict the bronchioles, while warm weather does the opposite.TheSpud said:
I’m going with GT season for the high numbers, or more precisely, Tour and Giro.
Re: Re:
I wondered this also, and concluded the UCI are following a protocol set down by the rules. they first have to disprove inhalation
The same thing happened to Petacchi, they sent his sample to a Barcelona lab who determined the results "were not compatible with an inhaled therapeutic dose of salbutamol."
The lab proved it wasnt from inhaler
but CAS ignored it, called it accidental overdose...well he got a year sanction lost 5 wins
TheSpud said:
I wondered this also, and concluded the UCI are following a protocol set down by the rules. they first have to disprove inhalation
The same thing happened to Petacchi, they sent his sample to a Barcelona lab who determined the results "were not compatible with an inhaled therapeutic dose of salbutamol."
The lab proved it wasnt from inhaler
but CAS ignored it, called it accidental overdose...well he got a year sanction lost 5 wins
thehog
BANNED
Re: Re:
You do realize this photo was taken at the start of the Vuelta? Not the end.
hazaran said:
You do realize this photo was taken at the start of the Vuelta? Not the end.
Re: Re:
He did the Tour-Vuelta double so he first did the Tour. Then he did a training camp on top. There was neither time nor opportunity to gain any significant amount of weight..thehog said:
Re: Re:
There was a photo of his legs from the rear with all the fat eaten away, just veins
hazaran said:
There was a photo of his legs from the rear with all the fat eaten away, just veins
Re: Re:
And what is the connection here? That on stage 18, Froome decides he needs even more fat loss and pops some oral salbutamol *during the stage* or *after the finish and before doping control*? Because that is the time frame you are proposing here, given we've already discredited any sort of transfusion since page one. Feels like we're spinning in circles.
70kmph said:
And what is the connection here? That on stage 18, Froome decides he needs even more fat loss and pops some oral salbutamol *during the stage* or *after the finish and before doping control*? Because that is the time frame you are proposing here, given we've already discredited any sort of transfusion since page one. Feels like we're spinning in circles.
Two well written, concise articles that nail it:
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/
I just posted the following on the Froome thread. It definitely belongs here as well:
Grazie mille! This is a great find. It’s exactly what I wanted to see, but I was unable to open the Petacchi case at the CAS website on my computer. Let's break it down.
This is really interesting. If the correction had been applied, his level would have been reduced to 819 ng/ml. But the panel didn’t accept this. Why not? Read on.
None of the studies I’ve seen report that an inhaled dose of that size would result in a urine concentration (corrected) of 819 ng/ml, even if the dose were taken all at once, and urine submitted at peak, about one hour later. Given Petacchi’s actual description of the events, which indicate only 2-3 puffs were taken within an hour or so of providing the sample, it’s even more improbable.
And note what the prosecution’s experts say:
This is really devastating to Froome’s case. I’ll only add that 12 puffs would be enough to reach 1352 ng/ml only if all of the dose were taken at once, which is not allowed under WADA rules (maximum of 800 ug/12 hr).
Petacchi’s team brings up some points that surely Froome will also try to make:
1) high urine concentration;
2) several puffs after the finish
3) may have swallowed some of the inhaled dose
I’ve already addressed 2). Why does the final decision reject 1) and 3)? Wrt high urine concentration:
I'll just add that we don't know what Froome's sample's SG was, but since it was accepted as a valid sample, it couldn't have been too high. As I've noted before, even if the correction were allowed, it would have to be in the range of 1.036 - 1.040.
What about swallowing some of the inhaled dose? The prosecution doesn’t rule this out, but argues that the amount swallowed would not be enough to account for the results of the enantiomer test that is used to distinguish inhaled vs. oral:
Petacchi’s team also argues that unusual metabolism or renal function may have contributed to the high level, but can’t provide any evidence for this.
Overall, this is the most relevant single document I’ve seen, and it’s really devastating to Froome’s case. Unless some new information pops up that changes everything, I think it will be very difficult for him to argue against a suspension.
Edit: Some more very interesting stuff in the final decision. The Panel’s decision did not conclude that Petacchi intentionally doped. They ruled that he accidentally took too much:
This is almost certainly a joke, of course, but it’s not an impossibility, and allowed them to rationalize giving him a relatively short suspension of ten months. It also allows Petacchi to present himself as an honest rider who just made a mistake, something that Froome would seize on.
But there's a much bigger implication for Froome's case. Petacchi's period of suspension began well after the Giro in which he tested positive, though of his Giro results were also disqualified. This is intriguing, because if Froome’s case went to CAS, and was not resolved until after the Giro and TDF, it’s conceivable, based on this precedent, that he could receive a suspension that would start after those events. He would still lose the Vuelta, but he could possibly be allowed to keep Giro and TDF results even if he lost the decision.
With regard to that possibility, the Panel stated that normally a final decision would be reached within four months after an appeal is filed. That would suggest that if Froome wants to take the case to CAS, he could conceivably have the process finished before the Giro. If he lost in that case, then he would surely be suspended for both the Giro and the Tour. However, if there were delays in this case, as there often are (the Petacchi decision was not handed down until seven and half months after the appeal), or if Froome simply delayed in taking the case to CAS, he could get through both GTs before the decision.
70kmph said:
Grazie mille! This is a great find. It’s exactly what I wanted to see, but I was unable to open the Petacchi case at the CAS website on my computer. Let's break it down.
This is really interesting. If the correction had been applied, his level would have been reduced to 819 ng/ml. But the panel didn’t accept this. Why not? Read on.
None of the studies I’ve seen report that an inhaled dose of that size would result in a urine concentration (corrected) of 819 ng/ml, even if the dose were taken all at once, and urine submitted at peak, about one hour later. Given Petacchi’s actual description of the events, which indicate only 2-3 puffs were taken within an hour or so of providing the sample, it’s even more improbable.
And note what the prosecution’s experts say:
This is really devastating to Froome’s case. I’ll only add that 12 puffs would be enough to reach 1352 ng/ml only if all of the dose were taken at once, which is not allowed under WADA rules (maximum of 800 ug/12 hr).
Petacchi’s team brings up some points that surely Froome will also try to make:
1) high urine concentration;
2) several puffs after the finish
3) may have swallowed some of the inhaled dose
I’ve already addressed 2). Why does the final decision reject 1) and 3)? Wrt high urine concentration:
I'll just add that we don't know what Froome's sample's SG was, but since it was accepted as a valid sample, it couldn't have been too high. As I've noted before, even if the correction were allowed, it would have to be in the range of 1.036 - 1.040.
What about swallowing some of the inhaled dose? The prosecution doesn’t rule this out, but argues that the amount swallowed would not be enough to account for the results of the enantiomer test that is used to distinguish inhaled vs. oral:
Petacchi’s team also argues that unusual metabolism or renal function may have contributed to the high level, but can’t provide any evidence for this.
Overall, this is the most relevant single document I’ve seen, and it’s really devastating to Froome’s case. Unless some new information pops up that changes everything, I think it will be very difficult for him to argue against a suspension.
Edit: Some more very interesting stuff in the final decision. The Panel’s decision did not conclude that Petacchi intentionally doped. They ruled that he accidentally took too much:
This is almost certainly a joke, of course, but it’s not an impossibility, and allowed them to rationalize giving him a relatively short suspension of ten months. It also allows Petacchi to present himself as an honest rider who just made a mistake, something that Froome would seize on.
But there's a much bigger implication for Froome's case. Petacchi's period of suspension began well after the Giro in which he tested positive, though of his Giro results were also disqualified. This is intriguing, because if Froome’s case went to CAS, and was not resolved until after the Giro and TDF, it’s conceivable, based on this precedent, that he could receive a suspension that would start after those events. He would still lose the Vuelta, but he could possibly be allowed to keep Giro and TDF results even if he lost the decision.
With regard to that possibility, the Panel stated that normally a final decision would be reached within four months after an appeal is filed. That would suggest that if Froome wants to take the case to CAS, he could conceivably have the process finished before the Giro. If he lost in that case, then he would surely be suspended for both the Giro and the Tour. However, if there were delays in this case, as there often are (the Petacchi decision was not handed down until seven and half months after the appeal), or if Froome simply delayed in taking the case to CAS, he could get through both GTs before the decision.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d‘Italia 2024 Stage 20, Alpago-Bassano del Grappa, 184 km- Started by QueenStagiaire
- Replies: 664
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d‘Italia 2024 Stage 15, Manerba del Garda-Livigno (Mottolino), 222 km- Started by QueenStagiaire
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2024 Stage 17: Selva di Val Gardena/Wolkenstein in Gröden – Passo Brocon, 159.0k- Started by Red Rick
- Replies: 584
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 19: Mortegliano - Sappada, 157k- Started by DenisMenchov
- Replies: 398
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 21: Roma (EUR) – Roma, 125.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 138
-
Latest posts
-
-
How likely is Tadej Pogačar to win both the Giro and the Tour this season?- Latest: Armchair cyclist
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram