Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1012 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
MartinGT said:
armchairclimber said:
A couple of things. I suspect that this will be seen, in the long run, as a minor infraction and it distracts from more major issues with Froome (Pred for a start).

Secondly, I just can't see Froome/Sky taking double the legal dose when he is inevitably going to be tested. That would be stupid ... and they may be a lot of things but they aren't stupid. My bet is that they will "find" a reason for the high concentration in the urine ... dehydration for instance.

That said, he should lose the Vuelta even if there is ultimately no ban.
They're not stupid? No, but they think the general cycling fan is and will aim their excuses at them.
Bingo. I suspect that Sky will do two things if Froome gets a provisional suspension:

Dredge up previous Salbutamol positives where the subject has gotten off very lightly or altogether and claim Froome is a victim.

Be relieved that Froome doesn’t have to attempt the double and can focus on the Tour.


Eh??

Why would they be 'relieved' about this? They never 'had' to attempt the double. They chose to.

Wait. Let me preempt a response with my own tin hat theory.....

Sky only announced they were going to go for the double when they knew already they were going to be suspended and therefore not able to do it. That way, they could always respond to the critics who said Froome should have gone for the Giro to be recognised as a true great by saying that they were going to but were prevented from doing so by those meanies at the UCI who unfairly suspended him....

I guess that's how it goes right?
 
Another example from other Sport. The "Froomie" of XC Skiing, Norwegian Martin Johnsrud Sundby, delivered 2 samples with over the limit Salbutamol values back in 2015. The matter was kept silent for 1,5 years by international Ski federation and ultimately they released Sundby from all suspitions. However, WADA made an appeal to CAS, which took a decision of stripping off Sundby's results in 4 different races and banning Sundby for 2 months (!) given it was proved Sundby didn't overdose to increase his performance.

I suspect Froome will get something similar, losing his Vuelta win (Nibali's woodoo in late action) and very short ban which makes him miss no races.
 
Re: Re:

MartinGT said:
Bolder said:
My wife is asthmatic and when she has a bad attack she has taken that many puffs. It doesn't have adverse health effects. I also know that during a bad attack, the asthma sufferer will do anything to clear their airway.

As stated above, CF knows all too well the rules regarding the medicine. So...either he miscalculated, or really couldn't breathe. The third alternative is that he's been using salbutamol as a PED all along -- I wouldn't rule that out but since you can get a TUE for it, why?

I'm scratching my head a bit, as I did for Contador. I don't doubt that CF's preparation involves more than pane e aqua, but not sure this is the smoking gun we've been waiting for. On the other hand, he and his team may decide to eat a suspension along with a lot of mea culpas.
If it was that bad for him, surly he wouldnt go onto win the stage by 1'+ ? Surly.
We don't know when he may have taken the dose. He could have had an attack that morning -- I don't know how long it stays in your system. From my experience with my wife's asthma -- which has sometimes been so bad that I was THIS close to taking her to the emergency room -- she's been debilitated for a few hours afterwards; other times she's been fine after an hour or so.
 
I am not unfortunate enough to suffer from asthma but an athlete I work with was under-performing a couple of years ago and said that he felt that he was breathing noisily in a race. I suggested that he get checked out ..... I was actually thinking pollen allergy. Turns out he had hay fever and (related) asthma. He has subsequently raced with salbutamol. It made a difference ... but largely because it alleviated symptoms of his asthma. I don't know what the benefits would be to a healthy athlete .... and whether the dose that would give a 2000mg reading post-race would be performance enhancing beyond keeping asthma symptoms at bay.
 
Re:

bambino said:
Another example from other Sport. The "Froomie" of XC Skiing, Norvegian Martin Johnsrud Sundby, delivered 2 samples with over the limit Salbutamol values back in 2015. The matter was kept silent for 1,5 years by international Ski federation and ultimately they released Sundby from all suspitions. However, WADA made an appeal to CAS, which took a decision of stripping off Sundby's results in 4 different races and banning Sundby for 2 months (!) given it was proved Sundby didn't overdose to increase his performance.

I suspect Froome will get something similar, losing his Vuelta win (Nibali's woodoo in late action) and very short ban which makes him miss no races.
Yes, thought the same. This might be a good guesstimate.

The main thing, however, is that Froome has officially tested positive. The rest will be politics and games as many have suggested.

In addition to being an ointment for breathing issues, salbutamol has a slight anabolic effect right?
 
Sep 19, 2011
203
0
9,030
Re: Re:

Bolder said:
MartinGT said:
Bolder said:
My wife is asthmatic and when she has a bad attack she has taken that many puffs. It doesn't have adverse health effects. I also know that during a bad attack, the asthma sufferer will do anything to clear their airway.

As stated above, CF knows all too well the rules regarding the medicine. So...either he miscalculated, or really couldn't breathe. The third alternative is that he's been using salbutamol as a PED all along -- I wouldn't rule that out but since you can get a TUE for it, why?

I'm scratching my head a bit, as I did for Contador. I don't doubt that CF's preparation involves more than pane e aqua, but not sure this is the smoking gun we've been waiting for. On the other hand, he and his team may decide to eat a suspension along with a lot of mea culpas.
If it was that bad for him, surly he wouldnt go onto win the stage by 1'+ ? Surly.
We don't know when he may have taken the dose. He could have had an attack that morning -- I don't know how long it stays in your system. From my experience with my wife's asthma -- which has sometimes been so bad that I was THIS close to taking her to the emergency room -- she's been debilitated for a few hours afterwards; other times she's been fine after an hour or so.
If your wife needs 12 puffs a day on a regular basis, she does need a new doctor :D
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
We all know that there is only one eventual solution to all of this : ban Asthma meds and corticoids from the sport. Make them forbidden in competition and impose TUEs for non-competition use with mandatory temporary work disability, ie you are not allowed to train either.

That's it. Many will find it outrageous because it bans asthmatic from the sport, well that's life. Otherwise there will always be marginal gain chasers going as far as possible in putting non-forbidden susbstances in the shaker for whatever boost you can get. That's what Sharapova did. You need to prevent this.

I you are ill, don't race nor train, rest and get treated. If you race or train, don't get treated. Punkt.
 
Re: Re:

Eyeballs Out said:
MartinGT said:
armchairclimber said:
A couple of things. I suspect that this will be seen, in the long run, as a minor infraction and it distracts from more major issues with Froome (Pred for a start).

Secondly, I just can't see Froome/Sky taking double the legal dose when he is inevitably going to be tested. That would be stupid ... and they may be a lot of things but they aren't stupid. My bet is that they will "find" a reason for the high concentration in the urine ... dehydration for instance.

That said, he should lose the Vuelta even if there is ultimately no ban.
They're not stupid? No, but they think the general cycling fan is and will aim their excuses at them.
I'd say they have been pretty stupid repeatedly. Have they blamed this on Emma Pooley yet ?
Ha Ha
 
None cycling friends of mine are treating this as another cycling doping slam dunk.

They dont see past the word doping. He failed a doping control.

Same technicality they used to argue they were clean because their riders hadnt actually tested positive. Now they have.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
LaFlorecita said:
Lol I just woke up to this. Normally, looking at precedents, he should lose his Vuelta win and get a 9 months to 12 month ban at least, am I right? Let's see if he can wriggle his way out of this one...
Really not sure if I should get my hopes up
Me neither, but I'm hoping WADA will be strict. UCI with Lappartient instead of Cookson gives me more hope as well. That we even found out about the test is a good at least, and this also means there isn't some doctor's note that was left in the mail, IMO, otherwise it would have been resolved behind closed doors.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Red Rick said:
LaFlorecita said:
Lol I just woke up to this. Normally, looking at precedents, he should lose his Vuelta win and get a 9 months to 12 month ban at least, am I right? Let's see if he can wriggle his way out of this one...
Really not sure if I should get my hopes up
Me neither, but I'm hoping WADA will be strict. UCI with Lappartient instead of Cookson gives me more hope as well. That we even found out about the test is a good at least, and this also means there isn't some doctor's note that was left in the mail, IMO, otherwise it would have been resolved behind closed doors.
There's definitely precedent for this being a ban. The timing is as suspect as can be. If he goes with "I needed it cause asthma attacks were so bad", then he shouldn't be racing at all.

Also, a lot less zero's in 1 microgram.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Could the high reading be because the Froome Dog took salbutamol by another method (injection, orally) for performance benefit under cover of the asthma excuse BS?
 
Jul 21, 2015
30
0
0
For the team's sake they need to have medical records that have already been turned over and stand up to forensic scrutiny.

To a layman, double concentration seems somewhat high even if he was puffing to the limit. Looking at the WADA code that's 8 puffs of a 100 mcg inhaler in a 12 hour period (and 16 puffs in a 24 hour period). If he was using a 200 mcg inhaler by accident, or didn't realise the 8-in-12 part then that could explain it. Other forms still seem to be banned. I wonder now if there's some trick with a spacer to get maximum uptake of salbutamol from 800 mcg.

If I needed that many puffs of an inhaler, I don't think medical advice would be to cycle up a hill.
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Could the high reading be because the Froome Dog took salbutamol by another method (injection, orally) for performance benefit under cover of the asthma excuse BS?
Froome supposedy had 2000mg. Maximum concentration found after inhalation was 1400mg. Definitely not inhalation by Froome
 
Jun 21, 2012
146
0
0
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
Red Rick said:
LaFlorecita said:
Lol I just woke up to this. Normally, looking at precedents, he should lose his Vuelta win and get a 9 months to 12 month ban at least, am I right? Let's see if he can wriggle his way out of this one...
Really not sure if I should get my hopes up
A big chance for Lapartient and French cycling. He can't miss it.
One must strike while the inhaler is hot.
 
No wonder he said he was doing the giro knowing full well he wouldn't ... this is a weird one, either rank stupidity or perhaps he thought it being the vuelta he would get away with it. They will probably blame Spanish salbutamol asthma medication.
 
Re:

heartsnotinit said:
For the team's sake they need to have medical records that have already been turned over and stand up to forensic scrutiny.

To a layman, double concentration seems somewhat high even if he was puffing to the limit. Looking at the WADA code that's 8 puffs of a 100 mcg inhaler in a 12 hour period (and 16 puffs in a 24 hour period). If he was using a 200 mcg inhaler by accident, or didn't realise the 8-in-12 part then that could explain it. Other forms still seem to be banned. I wonder now if there's some trick with a spacer to get maximum uptake of salbutamol from 800 mcg.

If I needed that many puffs of an inhaler, I don't think medical advice would be to cycle up a hill.
Sorry but there's no way i'm buying that this was any kind of mistake/accident. This isn't a medication that's new to Froome. As one of the most tested athletes on the planet (stop laughing at the back) you/your medical team simply do not make such fundamental errors.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
42x16ss said:
MartinGT said:
armchairclimber said:
A couple of things. I suspect that this will be seen, in the long run, as a minor infraction and it distracts from more major issues with Froome (Pred for a start).

Secondly, I just can't see Froome/Sky taking double the legal dose when he is inevitably going to be tested. That would be stupid ... and they may be a lot of things but they aren't stupid. My bet is that they will "find" a reason for the high concentration in the urine ... dehydration for instance.

That said, he should lose the Vuelta even if there is ultimately no ban.
They're not stupid? No, but they think the general cycling fan is and will aim their excuses at them.
Bingo. I suspect that Sky will do two things if Froome gets a provisional suspension:

Dredge up previous Salbutamol positives where the subject has gotten off very lightly or altogether and claim Froome is a victim.

Be relieved that Froome doesn’t have to attempt the double and can focus on the Tour.


Eh??

Why would they be 'relieved' about this? They never 'had' to attempt the double. They chose to.

Wait. Let me preempt a response with my own tin hat theory.....

Sky only announced they were going to go for the double when they knew already they were going to be suspended and therefore not able to do it. That way, they could always respond to the critics who said Froome should have gone for the Giro to be recognised as a true great by saying that they were going to but were prevented from doing so by those meanies at the UCI who unfairly suspended him....

I guess that's how it goes right?
I doubt it was pre-planned but the bolded is pretty much my thoughts...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY