All About Salbutamol

[samhocking]

Pinot is a perfect example you are wrong. Sure he got so ill on second to last day his medical team couldn't keep him high on GC, but i'll explain.

Roy said Pinot was suffering from exhaustion, dehydration and severe respiratory problems throughout the week previously to his Stage 19 exit. So from Stage 13 Pinot's illness began. Lets look at his GC time lost or gained since getting ill within top 5.


Stage 14
FRA 4 PINOT, Thibaut (GROUPAMA - FDJ) + 1:46

Stage 15
FRA 4 PINOT, Thibaut (GROUPAMA - FDJ) + 2:37


Stage 16 (ITT)
FRA 5 PINOT, Thibaut (GROUPAMA - FDJ) + 4:19

Stage 17
FRA 5 PINOT, Thibaut (GROUPAMA - FDJ) + 4:19


Stage 18
FRA 5 PINOT, Thibaut (GROUPAMA - FDJ) + 4:24

Stage 19
FRA 3 PINOT, Thibaut (GROUPAMA - FDJ) + 4:17


Stage 20
FRA 3 PINOT, Thibaut (GROUPAMA - FDJ) DNS


So, earlier in Pinot's illness beginning Stage 13/14 a week before he abandoned to Hospital he lost just under a minute. Could be signs of the illness his DS describes, could just be racing

Obviously he loses a tonne of time in the ITT to push him + 4:19

Now, he is definitely sick now. You can hear it in his voice after the stages in interviews (stage 17/18 iirc), he's bronchial and getting sick audibly now, not just initial signs of virus (I'm assuming the beginnings of his pneumonia is viral and not caused by bacteria)

No time loss on GC Stage 17 (Rolling)
5s time loss on GC Stage 18 (Flat + Prato Nevoso MTF)
7s gained on GC Stage 19 (Finestre, Sestrieere climbs) and up from 5th to 3rd on GC.


So, here we have a 'genuine' ILL rider with respiratory (assume bronchitus/chest infection) problems in last week of a Grand Tour including claimed dehydration and exhaustion. The day before he was in hospital with pneumonia he actually GAINED 7s back on GC in the toughest day of the entire race for EVERYONE and moved up to 3rd on GC.

This is what i'm talking about with good medical support riders do not lose time. Had his broncial and pneumonia issues and dehydration began 48 hour later he could have been on Giro Podium, ill.

 

[gillan1969]

so one rider limits losses before spectaculary collapsing and ending up in hospital and the other goes from strength to strength...putting time into GC rivels and I think then even sprinting for bonuses on the later stages...

great example

 

[samhocking]

The point is we know he was sick in last week. He moved up from 5th to 3rd the day before he ends up in hospital. Roy says he's sick since the rest day. He wasn't limiting his losses in stage 19, he moved up on GC, he was gaining time, winning over the rest of GC below and just above him too while sick, while dehydrated, while exhaused, while with bronchitus and clearly beginnings of his pneumonia the next day.

Then again Roy might have made the whole illness thing up like Sky I guess and Pinto agreed to give up 3rd in protest and spend the day in hospital lol!

 

[gillan1969]

the whole salbutamol debacle is but a bonus...an unexpected bonus and, like the Commons Inquiry before, was an opportunity for a light to be shone where it never usually gets shone....

I know you like a dumbed down book but the act of it being dumbed down, the act of inserting presumed in front of AAF when its an AAF (SKY have done it again in froome's statement) and a myriad of other sins (pillows, hand washing, nutella) are "tainting our collective unconscious and making us pay a higher psychic price than we imagine."

like capone for tax, I would have taken it, but the bigger crimes is the wood when you're looking looking at the trees

a reminder of what a small part of the wood looks like

Pinot was 10th in his first tour................at 22

 

[samhocking]

I take the change of context and you tone you don't want to accept Pinot gained time on GC on the toughest, most spectacular day of the Giro and later that evening be in hospital with pneumonia despite moving up two places in GC? Remember Froome wasn't ill in Giro like Pinot and two days later Doumilin. At least not claimed to be ill anyway.

 

[Benotti69]

Pinot is a doper too. Pinto the doper ended up in hospital.

Sick riders dont win GTs.

Dopers pretending to be sick to get PEDs do.. End of.

 

[samhocking]

Froome wasn't sick in Giro?

 

[Benotti69]

Oh dear.

Sick people do not win 3 week gruelling bike races. Dopers do.

 

[samhocking]

So you don't need to pretend to be sick then? You just said 'Dopers pretending to be sick to get PEDs do' in order to win now they only need to dope to win? Do they do it every other day or something lol?

 

[Mamil]

Another failed argument. Pinot got sick and just hung on for a couple of days, only looking comparatively good on GC mostly 'cause Yates collapsed so badly. And in doing even that he went so deep that he was hospitalised.

Once again all I'm seeing is a rider get sick, struggle on for a bit, and then in this case complelety collapse.

It simply isn't the case, as has been claimed, that every lead rider is ill late in a GT. Being tired, worn, sore and fatigued is not the same as being sick. This idea that the last week is a contest of medical management of illness is false. Management of fatigue, energy and recovery, absolutely. Management of doping, yes probably in far too many cases, unfortunately. But not managing sickness as a matter of course.

 

[samhocking]

Ahh I see. it just 'looked' like Pinot was 'comparatively' gaining 2 places and time on GC while coming down with pneumonia less than 12 hours later and already suffering with claimed dehydration, exhaustion and severe chest problems for a week before the big day. Silly me, I thought one of the 172 riders below him might have been faster than him during his week of suffering and the Giro's toughest day? Maybe they were coming down with the same thing huh?

 

[Mamil]

Let's make this really simple. Pinot started the last week of the Giro with a poor TT, even by his standards. He lost over a minute and a half to Yates, hardly a great TTer himself. Pinot then lost more time on stage 18. He lost even more than Yates did that day. Clearly his illness was taking a toll. Then in Stage 19 he went all in. He made the Dumoulin group, and then he BURIED himself to stay with it, gaining some time on the likes of Pozzovivo who missed it. He pulled it off, for one day, which is why he called it one of the greatest of his career, then he collapsed.

So sick Pinot lost time relative to his main rivals on 2 stages, then gained some on 1 mostly by making the right selection then pushing himself to the point of absolute exhaustion to stay with it. He paid for that, too much unfortunately. By comparison 'sick' Froome at the Vuelta had one bad day, then on the infamous stage 18 he gained time on his rivals, then 2 days later he hammered them again. So not only did he gain time whilst sick, when it was every man for himself on a climb, but despite this big effort he was able to do it again shortly afterwards. Not like Pinot at all.

No-one is saying that an ill rider can't at least try and hang-in there on GC - limit their losses, stay near the front, maybe even maintain their station if the cards fall their way and they ride smart. The point is that they don't gain time and ride away from their rivals, and even on the very rare occasions that they do they pay for it. But not Froome.

Your argument re Pinot is a simplification or misconstruing that simply doesn't hold up against the evidence.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

The idea that a sick rider can win a GT is laughable. Doping riders are what wins GTs.

Froomster now has a free pass to dose as much Salbutamol as he wants/needs. Tip of the iceberg, of course. The more critically ill Froome gets, the more assuredly he wins GTs. Bilharzia, asthma, kidney failure. Gotta get anemia in there, too, so EPO will be a TUE. :lol:

Puff Daddy Froome is a walking miracle. He should be dead with all of his ailments, but he rose from his hospital bed to become the best cyclist to ever ride a bike. It's all well documented. He probably does need to catch a new disease to win all 3 GT's in a single calendar year, but I think we all know he can do it. I can see the headlines now "FIRST EBOLA SURVIVOR TO WIN 10 TOUR DE FRANCES!!!!"

 

[Merckx index]

I don't agree with the comparison to EPO, not of your general reasoning, but simply because it is a banned substance. EPO in the medical environment is not used to address a common everyday medical problem like Salbutomol and Aspirin and even Food and Water using your analogy.

How do you define a “common everyday medical problem”? Less than 10% of the population at large suffers from asthma. OTOH, it’s been reported that one-third of Sky riders have asthma, or about four times as many. Clearly, most riders who have asthma have it because it’s a risk associated with their profession, not because it’s a common everyday problem.

Some people have anemia, too. The proportion is not as high as for asthma, but what is the cutoff? Should WADA decree that if more than 5% of the population has some condition, then it’s OK for athletes to treat this condition with drugs, even if in most cases they have this condition only because it results from training and racing, which doesn’t affect many of their competitors? Doesn’t this discriminate against people who have a somewhat rarer condition?

As I said, I haven’t been in favor of banning salbutamol, but the arguments in support of it are not as obvious as most people think.

Maybe I haven’t followed racing closely enough, but I don’t recall GTs ending with all the contenders seriously sick. Was LA sick when he finished all his TDFs? He sure as hell wasn’t hospitalized. Was Ullrich? I can remember Basso being sick in a Giro, and he dropped out. It was fairly widely understood that when riders came down with a sudden illness in a GT and had to drop out, it could be because they were concerned about testing positive. Floyd had his hip problem, but respiratory illnesses? Contador had allergy problems, but I don’t recall that they made him seriously ill.

All of a sudden, it seems that GTs are won or contended by riders who are collapsing all over the place. According to Sam, a major part of GT racing is having doctors who can manage serious illness that inevitably occur in the final week, though this didn’t seem to happen in the past.

Except Froome. In the data drop, Brailsford said Froome’s Giro was planned so he would have absolutely nothing left on the final climb of the final mountain stage. Yet he dropped Dumo easily (when all he had to do was follow his wheel), and was sprinting up the final few hundred meters. In the Vuelta in 2017, he sprinted for bonus seconds on the final stage. It’s just a flat-out lie to say that a rider who can do that gave his absolutely everything in the climbing stage, that everything was planned so he would be totally drained on the last stage that mattered.

Seriously, a rider who has absolutely nothing left at the finish can't even raise his arms in triumph. It's all he can to crawl past the line.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Given the leak was out by 80%, I would remove 80% from 1500 too. If there's anything Sky teaches us, it's when it's leaked, whistleblown or from an anonymous source or French sports paper, it's invariably unreliable to use in discussion.

LOL! More LOLs!

Thanks for that Sammie, or Sam, or Samantha.

Sky's information is invariably unreliable!

Le Monde - https://www.lemonde.fr/tour-de-fran...tre-les-mailles-du-filet_5327137_1616918.html

--Google Translate

Deconstruct the image of the Sky
These three key elements of the scientific defense synthesis - a large file of about 160 pages according to our information - have prevailed

So now Le Monde has gone from their original 1500 pages Froome Tombe and confirmed it is 160 pages. Lets see I make that what 89% smaller?

 

[Merckx index]

According to the information of the world, three main elements played in favor of the athlete.

By restoring the evolution of salbutamol concentrations in the urine of Froome throughout the Tour of Spain, the scientists at his service found that the concentration in the urine rarely corresponded to his taking of salbutamol after the stage. Especially the day before his abnormal control, when his concentration of salbutamol was close to zero when he had just taken 10 puffs of ventolin to calm an asthma attack. It was the next day that he would have rejected all the salbutamol stored in his body all at once.

If I understand this correctly, they’re saying that Froome took 1000 ug the day before stage 18, yet had a urine concentration close to zero. In the first place, he couldn’t take 1000 ug in the twelve hours prior to providing the sample; that would be against the rules. So the question is, how much of that 1000 ug did he take the day of the stage (and to be clear, we're now talking about stage 17)? Without knowing that, any attempt at correlation with the urine concentration is meaningless.

In the second place, how did Froome prove that he took 1000 ug over whatever time period? Does he really have evidence other than his word?

Third, again if I understand this translated passage correctly, the argument is that the 1000 ug he took was not excreted immediately, but stayed in the body, coming out the following day, stage 18. This is akin to the kidney malfunction theory that had been floated before. But what is the reason given for this? Are they arguing that an illness caused it? What illness and how, and why only on this one day? Another drug he took? Same questions.

At the least, the need to publish Froome's urine levels for each stage he was tested. That is the rock bottom bare minimum if they expect to have any credibility at all--Petacchi's were released--and even that isn't nearly enough to make an evaluation.

Then, the testimony of Australian researcher Kenneth Fitch weighed heavily: after helping to set the limit of salbutamol, he said that this rule was not valid for athletes making repeated efforts.

What evidence is there for this? AFAIK, none has been published. Fitch has for years railed against athletes being sanctioned for going over the limit, but he’s never suggested this “repeated efforts” before. He was one of Petacchi's scientific advisors, didn't bring it up then.

Finally, Sky stated that there was no "doping scenario" with a plausible salbutamol that fits the situation. The question, in fact, tapped all the experts in anti-doping, who were struggling to understand why Chris Froome would venture to take salbutamol in pills in the middle of the Tour of Spain, on a single day, knowing that he would be controlled the same evening.

So if it would be really stupid to dope, that’s the time to do it. Reverse psychology. Why didn't Ricco think of that? Come to think of it, Contador used an argument something like that, but it didn't work for him.

Already, Team Sky is trying to rewrite the history of this abnormal control by referring to an "alleged anomalous analysis result", a concept that does not exist (Froome has made an abnormal analytical result, which has not turned into an offence), or Contesting that the concentration of salbutamol was twice as high as the permitted limit. The Sky team ensures that the concentration of salbutamol was only 19% higher than the limit. An erroneous assertion, for two reasons: First, Sky applies in this case the correction of the specific gravity, thus reducing the 2 000 nanograms (NG) per millilitre of Christopher Froome to 1 429 ng, whereas this rule was not in force at the time of Abnormal control. Then it sets the permissible limit to 1 200 ng, whereas it is actually the zone of tolerance: the limit, in reality, is well fixed at 1 000 ng per millilitre.

Yes, his corrected concentration was not double, it was only 20% over the threshold. So what? It still was not close.
"I didn't shoot ten people, your honor, I shot only five. And only two died. Two is pretty close to zero, so I will argue I was under stress from previous efforts, or none of the people I shot would have died."

The team is also working to deny the figure, published in the spring by the Italian daily La Stampa, of a defense costing 7 million euros. In fact, the score would be well seven digits, but significantly less than EUR 2 million. A way for her to deconstruct the image, strongly anchored in the platoon, of a team whose success is very much a part of its financial strike force.

Even 1.5 millon, say, would stretch WADA to keep up.

Absent seeing the actual documents, this looks like hand-waving to me. You can't prove that Froome's salbutamol wasn't backed up, therefore it was. You can't prove that great efforts over three weeks couldn't account for a higher urinary level, therefore they did. It would make no sense to dope intentionally (and of course we can trust Froome when he says he didn't accidentally take too many puffs), so it must be these other factors.

The third argument is basically psychology, which is allowed at CAS hearings, but which I understand is off limits at this level. The second argument I'm pretty sure has no empirical data to back it up. The first argument appears to be to be the best one, but has many questions associated with it, not the least of which is, how were the actual amounts of salbutamol that Froome took every day verified? But beyond that, can they actually document a specific drug that was involved in inhibiting salbutamol excretion, or a specific physiological effect of some illness? Without this, we have more hand-waving.

Froome has now called for WADA to release these documents, so it's on them to do it. I'm sure Froome isn't worried, because no matter what criticism they may receive, the decision isn't going to be changed. He also has called for release of studies underpinning the current threshold. In fact, there are many studies in the literature that support it, and I think most of the information is available on their website.

 

[samhocking]

I would wait for WADA. Froome's requesting WADA to publish his exoneration and their research. In UCI's Q&A it sounds like WADA actually have their own unplublished research on this that goes into the decision, so it would seem WADA might internally be very aware of Fitch's concerns and so these AAFs typically are explained more internally using that research despite the rules externally not correlating so neatly being based on older research with the recent specific gravity bolt-on perhaps? It might simply be lag between research the last few years and it affecting rule change too though.

"I would welcome the publication by WADA of the scientific studies they relied on both to create the current testing regime and to exonerate me"

Edit: That to me sounds like WADA have the research for regime in place, but additional research used for exoneration to me?

 

[brownbobby]

Im pleased to see reference to the 'no plausible doping scenario' with salbutamol.

Throughout, this has been the one question that kept stumping me. Not why he would do it knowing he was going to be tested, but just why would he do it full stop i.e. take a one off super dose towards the end of a grand tour. It just never made sense.

I know people question the uncanny coincidence of his turnaround in form on the exact day of the failed test, but as a PED salbutamol is simply not a drug that does that. I know people will drag up the odd study showing improvements in anaerobic power from this drug but in the real world the only way salbutamol brings about dramatic improvements from one day to the next is by action of its intended and legal use, i.e. dealing with asthma symptoms that were hampering performance.

Before cycling, I was what you might call a gym rat, I still have many friends in that world. Most will probably know or assume what goes on in most serious gyms. I've had many conversations on this subject since the Froome case blew up....I can't find one single person, who believes for one second that any dose of salbutamol, no matter how massive, can bring about such overnight performance enhancement. It's viewed as a very mild 'icing on the cake' slow burning addition to hardcore drug programmes, only useful in combination with other drugs used long term for weight management.

It seems Wada have similar views

No lab studies will dissuade me from this view, and the Froome decision seems much more plausible in light of this than any verdict which would have found him guilty of deliberate use for performance enhancing purposes.

 

[gillan1969]

Im pleased to see reference to the 'no plausible doping scenario' with salbutamol.

Throughout, this has been the one question that kept stumping me. Not why he would do it knowing he was going to be tested, but just why would he do it full stop i.e. take a one off super dose towards the end of a grand tour. It just never made sense.

I know people question the uncanny coincidence of his turnaround in form on the exact day of the failed test, but as a PED salbutamol is simply not a drug that does that. I know people will drag up the odd study showing improvements in anaerobic power from this drug but in the real world the only way salbutamol brings about dramatic improvements from one day to the next is by action of its intended and legal use, i.e. dealing with asthma symptoms that were hampering performance.

Before cycling, I was what you might call a gym rat, I still have many friends in that world. Most will probably know or assume what goes on in most serious gyms. I've had many conversations on this subject since the Froome case blew up....I can't find one single person, who believes for one second that any dose of salbutamol, no matter how massive, can bring about such overnight performance enhancement. It's viewed as a very mild 'icing on the cake' slow burning addition to hardcore drug programmes, only useful in combination with other drugs used long term for weight management.

It seems Wada have similar views

No lab studies will dissuade me from this view, and the Froome decision seems much more plausible in light of this than any verdict which would have found him guilty of deliberate use for performance enhancing purposes.

it's guys like you SKY rely on....

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

I would wait for WADA. Froome's requesting WADA to publish his exoneration and their research. In UCI's Q&A it sounds like WADA actually have their own unplublished research on this that goes into the decision, so it would seem WADA might internally be very aware of Fitch's concerns and so these AAFs typically are explained more internally using that research despite the rules externally not correlating so neatly being based on older research with the recent specific gravity bolt-on perhaps? It might simply be lag between research the last few years and it affecting rule change too though.

"I would welcome the publication by WADA of the scientific studies they relied on both to create the current testing regime and to exonerate me"

Edit: That to me sounds like WADA have the research for regime in place, but additional research used for exoneration to me?

I'd like to see the independent verification of the dosage amounts of salbutamol across all the Vuelta stages as it appears that is what lead to him being spared the test....I mean.....it would have to be independent......wouldn't it?

 

[Merckx index]

Throughout, this has been the one question that kept stumping me. Not why he would do it knowing he was going to be tested, but just why would he do it full stop i.e. take a one off super dose towards the end of a grand tour. It just never made sense.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. He could have been orally dosing throughout the race--though I myself was one who said this was unlikely--and just screwed up the dosage on that one day. That happens in sports, for sure, when you are doing something you have to be very careful about day in, day out.

Or taking a page from their own playbook and flipping it around, if Froome's great efforts contributed to a higher than usual urine level from inhaling, the same could be said for oral dosing. In fact, that shows that 1) and 3) are somewhat contradictory. If you believe 1), you have a good reason for rejecting 3).

Or he could have inhaled more than the allowed amount, accidentally or on purpose, which is what most salbutamol researchers seemed to believe.

But come on, the excuse--I would never dope when I knew I was being tested because i would get caught--is one of the oldest and most commonly rebutted ones in the book. How many times did LA transfuse and/or take EPO when he was in the MJ?

 

[brownbobby]

Im pleased to see reference to the 'no plausible doping scenario' with salbutamol.

Throughout, this has been the one question that kept stumping me. Not why he would do it knowing he was going to be tested, but just why would he do it full stop i.e. take a one off super dose towards the end of a grand tour. It just never made sense.

I know people question the uncanny coincidence of his turnaround in form on the exact day of the failed test, but as a PED salbutamol is simply not a drug that does that. I know people will drag up the odd study showing improvements in anaerobic power from this drug but in the real world the only way salbutamol brings about dramatic improvements from one day to the next is by action of its intended and legal use, i.e. dealing with asthma symptoms that were hampering performance.

Before cycling, I was what you might call a gym rat, I still have many friends in that world. Most will probably know or assume what goes on in most serious gyms. I've had many conversations on this subject since the Froome case blew up....I can't find one single person, who believes for one second that any dose of salbutamol, no matter how massive, can bring about such overnight performance enhancement. It's viewed as a very mild 'icing on the cake' slow burning addition to hardcore drug programmes, only useful in combination with other drugs used long term for weight management.

It seems Wada have similar views

No lab studies will dissuade me from this view, and the Froome decision seems much more plausible in light of this than any verdict which would have found him guilty of deliberate use for performance enhancing purposes.

it's guys like you SKY rely on....

Got anything to contribute other than cheap shots or just happy to stick with the unconsidered mob hysteria....you wanna keep telling yourself that 2mg of salbutamol overnight won the Vuelta, stay right there if that's where you feel most comfortable my friend

 

[gillan1969]

Im pleased to see reference to the 'no plausible doping scenario' with salbutamol.

Throughout, this has been the one question that kept stumping me. Not why he would do it knowing he was going to be tested, but just why would he do it full stop i.e. take a one off super dose towards the end of a grand tour. It just never made sense.

I know people question the uncanny coincidence of his turnaround in form on the exact day of the failed test, but as a PED salbutamol is simply not a drug that does that. I know people will drag up the odd study showing improvements in anaerobic power from this drug but in the real world the only way salbutamol brings about dramatic improvements from one day to the next is by action of its intended and legal use, i.e. dealing with asthma symptoms that were hampering performance.

Before cycling, I was what you might call a gym rat, I still have many friends in that world. Most will probably know or assume what goes on in most serious gyms. I've had many conversations on this subject since the Froome case blew up....I can't find one single person, who believes for one second that any dose of salbutamol, no matter how massive, can bring about such overnight performance enhancement. It's viewed as a very mild 'icing on the cake' slow burning addition to hardcore drug programmes, only useful in combination with other drugs used long term for weight management.

It seems Wada have similar views

No lab studies will dissuade me from this view, and the Froome decision seems much more plausible in light of this than any verdict which would have found him guilty of deliberate use for performance enhancing purposes.

it's guys like you SKY rely on....

Got anything to contribute other than cheap shots or just happy to stick with the unconsidered mob hysteria....you wanna keep telling yourself that 2mg of salbutamol overnight won the Vuelta, stay right there if that's where you feel most comfortable my friend

if you've read my other posts you'll know that this whole sorry debacle is but a sideshow in the bigger fraud that is froome

the interesting thing for me is, for example, is this exchange...that and the illumination is shines on that which is normally hidden

I'm not coming from the same place as you..

I presume you'll think the whole thing fraudulent if there is no independent collaboration of Froome's intake of salbutamol throughout the Vuelta?

 

[brownbobby]

Throughout, this has been the one question that kept stumping me. Not why he would do it knowing he was going to be tested, but just why would he do it full stop i.e. take a one off super dose towards the end of a grand tour. It just never made sense.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. He could have been orally dosing throughout the race--though I myself was one who said this was unlikely--and just screwed up the dosage on that one day. That happens in sports, for sure, when you are doing something you have to be very careful about day in, day out.

Or taking a page from their own playbook and flipping it around, if Froome's great efforts contributed to a higher than usual urine level from inhaling, the same could be said for oral dosing. In fact, that shows that 1) and 3) are somewhat contradictory. If you believe 1), you have a good reason for rejecting 3).

Or he could have inhaled more than the allowed amount, accidentally or on purpose, which is what most salbutamol researchers seemed to believe.

But come on, the excuse--I would never dope when I knew I was being tested because i would get caught--is one of the oldest and most commonly rebutted ones in the book. How many times did LA transfuse and/or take EPO when he was in the MJ?

Happy to give consideration to the first part of this MI.

But to the latter; I thought it was clear in my post that the fact he knew he'd be tested was not part of my thinking, it was more what gains would he get from the dose?

I could be wrong but I thought that was the meaning behind the Wada reference 'no plausible doping scenario

Of course just saying 'honest Guv, as if id dope when I knew I was being tested' isn't going to convince anyone. Again that is not my interpretation of the Wada/UCI statement

 

[brownbobby]

Im pleased to see reference to the 'no plausible doping scenario' with salbutamol.

Throughout, this has been the one question that kept stumping me. Not why he would do it knowing he was going to be tested, but just why would he do it full stop i.e. take a one off super dose towards the end of a grand tour. It just never made sense.

I know people question the uncanny coincidence of his turnaround in form on the exact day of the failed test, but as a PED salbutamol is simply not a drug that does that. I know people will drag up the odd study showing improvements in anaerobic power from this drug but in the real world the only way salbutamol brings about dramatic improvements from one day to the next is by action of its intended and legal use, i.e. dealing with asthma symptoms that were hampering performance.

Before cycling, I was what you might call a gym rat, I still have many friends in that world. Most will probably know or assume what goes on in most serious gyms. I've had many conversations on this subject since the Froome case blew up....I can't find one single person, who believes for one second that any dose of salbutamol, no matter how massive, can bring about such overnight performance enhancement. It's viewed as a very mild 'icing on the cake' slow burning addition to hardcore drug programmes, only useful in combination with other drugs used long term for weight management.

It seems Wada have similar views

No lab studies will dissuade me from this view, and the Froome decision seems much more plausible in light of this than any verdict which would have found him guilty of deliberate use for performance enhancing purposes.

it's guys like you SKY rely on....

Got anything to contribute other than cheap shots or just happy to stick with the unconsidered mob hysteria....you wanna keep telling yourself that 2mg of salbutamol overnight won the Vuelta, stay right there if that's where you feel most comfortable my friend

if you've read my other posts you'll know that this whole sorry debacle is but a sideshow in the bigger fraud that is froome

the interesting thing for me is, for example, is this exchange...that and the illumination is shines on that which is normally hidden

I'm not coming from the same place as you..

I presume you'll think the whole thing fraudulent if there is no independent collaboration of Froome's intake of salbutamol throughout the Vuelta?

Indeed, I know exactly where you're coming from, I enjoy our exchanges and it's healthy for the debate that we come at it from different starting points.

I hope enough data and information gets released in the coming weeks to give us some comfort that the decision was an honest one

I also hope England win the World cup this year.... :lol: