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!
Yes. and since we know the doping doctors are years ahead of the testers...And that doesn't even account for the other shenanigans that go on.gillan1969 said:Robert5091 said:This indicates that a large number of British Olympic athletes were receiving medication for which there was no clinical indication.
This is what gets the Swedes all riled up over the Norwegians. So now lots of Swedes are "asthmatic" too
indeed, the studies all indicate that asthmatic athletes outperform non-asthmatic....perhaps MI has covered that in some of his posts? Do they have a theory as to why? I mean other than the obvious My cursory quick look hasn't found one......
An overview of asthma and airway hyper-responsiveness in Olympic athletes
Kenneth D Fitch
Abstract
Data from the past five Olympic Games obtained from athletes seeking to inhale β2 adrenoceptor agonists (IBA) have identified those athletes with documented asthma and airway hyper-responsiveness (AHR). With a prevalence of about 8%, asthma/AHR is the commonest chronic medical condition experienced by Olympic athletes. In Summer and Winter athletes, there is a marked preponderance of asthma/AHR in endurance-trained athletes. The relatively late onset of asthma/AHR in many older athletes is suggestive that years of endurance training may be a contributory cause. Inspiring polluted or cold air is considered a significant aetiological factor in some but not all sports. During the last five Olympic Games, there has been improved management of athletes with asthma/AHR with a much higher proportion of athletes combining inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with IBA and few using long-acting IBA as monotherapy. Athletes with asthma/AHR have consistently outperformed their peers, which research suggests is not due to their treatment enhancing sports performance. Research is necessary to determine how many athletes will continue to experience asthma/AHR in the years after they cease intensive endurance training.
Asthma and the elite athlete: Summary of the International Olympic Committee's Consensus Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, January 22-24, 2008
Kenneth D. Fitch, MBBS, MD'Correspondence information about the author MBBS, MD Kenneth D. FitchEmail the author MBBS, MD Kenneth D. Fitch
, Malcolm Sue-Chu, MBChB, PhD
, Sandra D. Anderson, PhD, DSc
, Louis-Philippe Boulet, MD, FCCP, FRCPC
, Robert J. Hancox, MBChB, MD
, Donald C. McKenzie, MD, PhD
, Vibeke Backer, MD, DMSci
, Kenneth W. Rundell, PhD
, Juan M. Alonso, MD
, Pascale Kippelen, PhD
, Joseph M. Cummiskey, MD
, Alain Garnier, MD
, Arne Ljungqvist, MD, PhD
Why are patients with asthma successful at the Olympic Games?
Athletes who notified β2-agonist use in Sydney and were approved to inhale β2-agonists in Salt Lake City, Athens, and Torino won more individual Olympic medals than their counterparts without asthma at each Games (see this article's Fig E3 in the Online Repository at http://www.jacionline.org).
The differences were greater in winter athletes than in summer athletes because a greater percentage of winter competitions can be classed as endurance events. Of the 28 summer sports, 6—boxing, wrestling, gymnastics, judo, shooting, and weightlifting—award 42% of all individual medals, and none of these can be classed as an endurance sport. This raises the intriguing question whether some endurance athletes develop asthma or AHR after achieving success as an elite athlete. There is some evidence that the age of onset of asthma/AHR is unusually high in endurance winter athletes.3 In addition, the psychology of having a chronic disease and competing at this level may represent an additional training stimulus for the elite athlete. Inhaled β2-agonists are not considered to enhance endurance performance,89, 90 although oral salbutamol does increase strength.91 Every medalist is drug-tested after the event, and oral salbutamol is distinguishable from inhaled,92 a test introduced before the 2000 Olympics. For further details see “The effects of inhaled β2-agonists on endurance performance: Olympic medalists inhaling β2-agonists” in the Online Repository at http://www.jacionline.org.
There is little or no evidence that denying athletes permission to inhale a β2 -agonist has resulted in unfavorable outcomes on their performance. In Salt Lake City, 30 (23.1%) of the130 athletes who were approved to inhale a β2 agonist won 46 medals (30 individual and 16 team medals). Seven (24.1%) of the 29 athletes who were denied permission to inhale a B2-agonist won a total of eight medals (two individual and six team medals). In Athens, 6 (8.5%) of the 45 athletes who were refused permission to inhale a B2-agonist won six medals (three gold, two silver, and one bronze medal).
gillan1969 said:samhocking said:British Olympic team in 2004 were all diagnosed externally of their federations. There's a report somewhere online about it. 21% of athletes were diagnosed with EIB in NHS Clinics. Rates of EIB were found higher in sports requiring heavy breathing through mouth and upto 40% diagnosed in swimming, running and cycling. In sports like Archery, basically normal polulation of 8-10%.
As for Froome, WADA would not confirm the AAF would they. To do so, would mean they would have to disprove not only the expert that helped write the rules for them in the first place, but also that Austin's 10% claim too, otherwise Froome simply appeals and wins anyway. Basically you can't disprove good science no matter how expensive your lawyer is.
yup...quite interesting study
"In the case of our own data, 21% of athletes previously diagnosed with asthma and using inhalers did not meet the IOC-MC criteria. This indicates that a large number of British Olympic athletes were receiving medication for which there was no clinical indication."
the expert that got it wrong that last time? That expert? That demonstrates he has the capacity to get things....er...wrong
In conclusion, the prevalence of asthma in 2004 Team GB athletes remained similar to that in 2000 (No criteria for asthma diagnosis in 2000, it started in 2001 with IOC MC) Team GB athletes, despite changes in IOC-MC requirements. The improved diagnostic techniques, however, identified a large number of false positive diagnoses and also identified a number of previously unknown asthmatics. These athletes were either removed from unnecessary treatment or placed on appropriate medication, and therefore received an improved level of care
samhocking said:gillan1969 said:samhocking said:British Olympic team in 2004 were all diagnosed externally of their federations. There's a report somewhere online about it. 21% of athletes were diagnosed with EIB in NHS Clinics. Rates of EIB were found higher in sports requiring heavy breathing through mouth and upto 40% diagnosed in swimming, running and cycling. In sports like Archery, basically normal polulation of 8-10%.
As for Froome, WADA would not confirm the AAF would they. To do so, would mean they would have to disprove not only the expert that helped write the rules for them in the first place, but also that Austin's 10% claim too, otherwise Froome simply appeals and wins anyway. Basically you can't disprove good science no matter how expensive your lawyer is.
yup...quite interesting study
"In the case of our own data, 21% of athletes previously diagnosed with asthma and using inhalers did not meet the IOC-MC criteria. This indicates that a large number of British Olympic athletes were receiving medication for which there was no clinical indication."
the expert that got it wrong that last time? That expert? That demonstrates he has the capacity to get things....er...wrong
I think you're missing the point, or misreading to favricate something that is in fact the opposite, that none of those athletes as far as i'm aware in 2004 Olympics tested positive > 1000 limit (introduced in 2000) and that the study if you read on, actually concludes the misdiagnosis meant salbutomol was being taken by some with neither benefit to performance and was essentially doing nothing and other misdiagnoses as not having EIA were not being treated when they did in fact have EIA with more accurate testing. No difference in the 21% figure between 2000 and 2004 despite in 2004 was the first olympics you required medical evidence to receive an IOC TUE for Salbutomol.
The key part of the Team GB conclusion by Dickinson was:
In conclusion, the prevalence of asthma in 2004 Team GB athletes remained similar to that in 2000 (No criteria for asthma diagnosis in 2000, it started in 2001 with IOC MC) Team GB athletes, despite changes in IOC-MC requirements. The improved diagnostic techniques, however, identified a large number of false positive diagnoses and also identified a number of previously unknown asthmatics. These athletes were either removed from unnecessary treatment or placed on appropriate medication, and therefore received an improved level of care
For Clarity and most importantly, the 21% IOC MC Requirement of Asthma diagnosis was a comparison between number of athletes diagnosed EIA in 2000, and the 2004 team that needed to also meet IOC MC requirement. ie proves diagnosis was not being abused by Team GB in 2000 games when there was no medical diagnosis required.
So in simple terms. In 2000 there was no IOC MC conditions to meet for asthma, it was free-for-all, no diagnosis was medically required to take salbutomol in 2000 Olympics. The prevalence of asthma within Team GB remained unchanged however between 2000 (no medical diagnosis required) and 2004 (medical diagnosis required) to be granted the old IOC equivalent of a WADA TUE.
samhocking said:British Olympic team in 2004 were all diagnosed externally of their federations. There's a report somewhere online about it. 21% of athletes were diagnosed with EIB in NHS Clinics. Rates of EIB were found higher in sports requiring heavy breathing through mouth and upto 40% diagnosed in swimming, running and cycling. In sports like Archery, basically normal polulation of 8-10%.
As for Froome, WADA would not confirm the AAF would they. To do so, would mean they would have to disprove not only the expert that helped write the rules for them in the first place, but also that Austin's 10% claim too, otherwise Froome simply appeals and wins anyway. Basically you can't disprove good science no matter how expensive your lawyer is.
samhocking said:MPCC Committee Structure
President: Roger Legeay (Z-Peugeot, GAN, CA etc)
Tested positive for amphetamines in Paris Nice
11 riders with doping violations under him
Vice-President: Iwan Spekenbrink (Managed/DS for Skill Shimano through to Sunweb)
2 riders with doping violations under him
Treasurer: Yvon Sanque (Managed/DS for Astana, Festina, Cofidis, FdeJ)
Too complicated to quickly count, but lots and lots of violations under him
Assistant Treasurer: Marc Sergeant (Lotto rider etc, Manager of Lotto)
Tested positive for Norephedrine in Scheldeprijs
Tested positive for Undisclosed Substance in Vuelta a Andalucia
4 riders with doping violations under him
Assistant Secretary: Christophe Brandt (Rider for Sergeant, WB Aqua Protect Manager)
Tested positive at Lotto for Methadone under Sergeant, later cleared as accidental contamination by pharmacist by Belgian Federation
Board Member: Sébastien Hinault (Rider for Legeay, AG2R etc. DS/Manager for Fortuneo–Samsic since 2015 iirc)
No violations, but considered team was paying Bernard Saiz for homeopathy medicines in a TV documentary.
Board Member: Gianni Savio (Androni Giocattoli)
6 doping violations in last 6 years alone. Too many others under Selle Italia etc
Board Member: Vincent Lavenu (Manager for AG2R)
5 riders with doping violations
Cash investigations, arrested as part of Festina affair etc etc.
samhocking said:Says more about why the MPCC exists to me.
gillan1969 said:samhocking said:Says more about why the MPCC exists to me.
which in quick summary is.......?
70kmph said:This explains how the Froome overdose was excused by WADA
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ives-highest-accolade-of-british-honours-list
Is she British?brownbobby said:70kmph said:This explains how the Froome overdose was excused by WADA
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ives-highest-accolade-of-british-honours-list
Wait...so Her Majesty is in on the whole Sky thing now???
veganrob said:Is she British?brownbobby said:70kmph said:This explains how the Froome overdose was excused by WADA
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ives-highest-accolade-of-british-honours-list
Wait...so Her Majesty is in on the whole Sky thing now???
brownbobby said:veganrob said:Is she British?brownbobby said:70kmph said:This explains how the Froome overdose was excused by WADA
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ives-highest-accolade-of-british-honours-list
Wait...so Her Majesty is in on the whole Sky thing now???
Depends who you ask....
samhocking said:Similar to Millar. Claiming to be superior ethically than everyone else in order to save their past doping reputations by inventing their own credibility to continue their careers in cycling as ex dopers and ex managers of teams they helped facilitate doping. All of MPCC board manage pro teams today.
brownbobby said:70kmph said:This explains how the Froome overdose was excused by WADA
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ives-highest-accolade-of-british-honours-list
Wait...so Her Majesty is in on the whole Sky thing now???
samhocking said:No WADA case has ever been published to the public before, so not sure what difference or why Froome's case should really change that. If you've only come to this public knowledge/transparency conclusion 'after' the Froome case and not before, then it suggests either bias related to Froome or you simply were not bothered about it for all the other athletes exonerated before?
Let’s also not forget that after the decision was announced, just prior to the Tour, Froome said he expected the details would be published “within a few days”, and wanted them to be. I have a lot of trouble believing that if Froome actually gave his approval, WADA/UCI would overrule him.
I would think it was Sky who put the brakes on releasing data.Mr. Froome was able to show the UCI Tribunal ...
Mr. Froome was able to show the UCI Tribunal ...