Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1050 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
samhocking said:
topcat said:
samhocking said:
I thought you had to take Salbutomol with another two substances to begin seeing performance benefits in non-asthmatics within a race? On its own, it would be an out-of-competition poor mans fat moving muscle building anabolic.
what two substances?
I can't remember where I read it. The study i'm thinking of was a swimming study iirc. Like nearly all other double-blind studies, they couldn't find any ergoneric effects of salbutomol, but did with the subjects taking two other asthma drugs alongside it iirc.

One of the most recent studies is probably Michael Koehle's 48 cyclists study. 14 tested as having EIA in the lab. Lung function did improve in both the asthma and non-asthma group, but that didn't translate into any improvements in time-trial performances whatsoever. His conclusion was the diffusion of oxygen from the lungs into the blood is the limiting performance factor in endurance athletes, not getting more air into the lungs and improving lung function.
used to hang out with a bodybuilder in late 80s just after i finished racing...there was a quantum difference in the diets and knowledge of nutrution between the bodybuilders who seemed to know all about long chain amino acids and the cyclist who were still eating frozen pizzas...despite the cyclist I knew performing at a far higher level than said bodybuilders...
salbutomol is used by these guys for a reason and will be done so in conjunction with other substances - which Cound through the mother will know all about...
it perhaps not surprising there's not lab/academic studies on this but the locker rooms or hardcore gyms and the bars of Flanders will be where you get the low down on the effectiveness of PEDS...rather, than say, the rarefied atmosphere of the Scottish Centre of respiratory illness
 
samhocking said:
topcat said:
samhocking said:
I thought you had to take Salbutomol with another two substances to begin seeing performance benefits in non-asthmatics within a race? On its own, it would be an out-of-competition poor mans fat moving muscle
building anabolic.
salbutomol definitely improves sprinting and acceleration which Froome excels at.
anyway, he broke the rules, has been exposed.the last 5 years have been a farce
what two substances?
I can't remember where I read it. The study i'm thinking of was a swimming study iirc. Like nearly all other double-blind studies, they couldn't find any ergoneric effects of salbutomol, but did with the subjects taking two other asthma drugs alongside it iirc.

One of the most recent studies is probably Michael Koehle's 48 cyclists study. 14 tested as having EIA in the lab. Lung function did improve in both the asthma and non-asthma group, but that didn't translate into any improvements in time-trial performances whatsoever. His conclusion was the diffusion of oxygen from the lungs into the blood is the limiting performance factor in endurance athletes, not getting more air into the lungs and improving lung function.
 
RobbieCanuck said:
To show you are not a one horse pony Lance! What a loser!
How many horses can a pony be?

LaFlorecita said:
I am wondering how exercise-induced asthma is diagnosed? Would it be possible to rig the test to make the doctor think you have EIA?
There are substances that you can take that will basically trigger an asthmatic-type response. That seems like a pretty extreme thing to do, but then these are people who dope freely, then look at the press and angrily say they’re innocent, so who knows? Or as John suggests, depending on the doctor, maybe you don’t even have to do that much.

King Boonen said:
Robert5091 said:
So has he always had asthma or is it EIA? :confused:
I'm not sure why you are confused? Maybe he has always had EIA?
I think it’s a valid question. I thought EIA was the result of long hours of training. You might be genetically predisposed to the condition, but it wouldn’t manifest itself unless/until you lived the exercise-intense life of the pro.

“It basically means they have an asthma response to doing high-intensity exercise,” Dickinson said. “It’s not necessarily the exercise that’s the problem, but rather the volume of air that they breathe and the amount of time that they stay at that level.”
Dickinson says 70% of GB’s swimmers have EIA. I swam competitively when I was younger, and I don’t recall a single member of my team who had asthma. Now you could argue that we didn’t practice long enough hours, but that’s my point, you wouldn’t expect teen-agers to develop EIA, at least not until recently, when even pre-teens like Phelps spent most of their lives in the pool. If Froome’s asthma is a result of heavy exercise, he wouldn’t have manifested it until he was doing some serious racing. He turned pro at age 22, but I’m not sure how much racing he was doing as an amateur in his teens. Maybe someone here knows.

You also sense that somewhere David Walsh is smarting. The man who brought down Lance Armstrong has been embedded with Sky for the previous year or so and has given us what he and his publishers claim to be the “definitive story” of both Sky (Inside Team Sky) and, now, Froome.

But not once has the ghostwriter of The Climb mentioned Froome’s asthma. And that either puts a beloved patriot in Walsh’s journalistic armour, or makes it look as if both Sky and Froome were pretty keen on keeping this one under wraps.
I guess the charitable explanation is that Froome just didn’t want people to know. But I’ll wait till actual evidence is produced before I buy the asthma-since-childhood story. As I’ve said before, it should be pretty easy to produce the TUE that was necessary before 2010.

And by the way, KB, this story is an example illustrating that Froome’s asthma was a big deal even in 2014, and that obtaining proof of his history probably would have been well rewarded.

LaFlorecita said:
Does Salbutamol not have any effect in non-asthmatics - regardless of the dose? What about inhalation vs tablet form vs injections?
There seems to be no evidence of PE effects via inhalation, IOW, it doesn’t seem to improve non-asthmatics by acting in the lungs. Orally or via injection, which allows it to get to other parts of the body, many studies indicate it can increase muscle strength and anaerobic power, though there are a lot of negative studies, so the question is somewhat unsettled. The studies that do show effects indicate it's more of a sprinter’s drug, hence Petacchi.

But as a b2-agonist, salbutamol should have many other, potentially PE effects, e.g., vaso-dilation, increasing blood flow, particularly to the heart and the extremities, and promoting muscle growth. There is some research suggesting weight loss, like clenbuterol, with which it has some structural resemblance, and indeed, they interact with the same class of receptors. In principle, salbutamol should have the same effects as clenbuterol. It doesn’t, exactly, for several reasons, one being that it has a much shorter half-life.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2439523/#bib104

samhocking said:
I can't remember where I read it. The study i'm thinking of was a swimming study iirc. Like nearly all other double-blind studies, they couldn't find any ergoneric effects of salbutomol, but did with the subjects taking two other asthma drugs alongside it iirc.
Maybe this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23834392

One of the most recent studies is probably Michael Koehle's 48 cyclists study. 14 tested as having EIA in the lab. Lung function did improve in both the asthma and non-asthma group, but that didn't translate into any improvements in time-trial performances whatsoever. His conclusion was the diffusion of oxygen from the lungs into the blood is the limiting performance factor in endurance athletes, not getting more air into the lungs and improving lung function.
Thanks for that. I’ve been puzzled why inhaled salbutamol has little or no effect in non-asthmatics.

gillan1969 said:
it perhaps not surprising there's not lab/academic studies on this but the locker rooms or hardcore gyms and the bars of Flanders will be where you get the low down on the effectiveness of PEDS...rather, than say, the rarefied atmosphere of the Scottish Centre of respiratory illness
Yes, these guys do their homework, and of course have the advantage of actually doing experiments on themselves. They follow the literature, but test everything. I'm impressed that don't simply seek to get certain effects from drugs, but when they do, make an effort to explain why it works.
 
Merckx index said:
King Boonen said:
Robert5091 said:
So has he always had asthma or is it EIA? :confused:
I'm not sure why you are confused? Maybe he has always had EIA?
I think it’s a valid question. I thought EIA was the result of long hours of training. You might be genetically predisposed to the condition, but it wouldn’t manifest itself unless/until you lived the exercise-intense life of the pro.
Then you might want to spend a few seconds on pubmed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7793107


You also sense that somewhere David Walsh is smarting. The man who brought down Lance Armstrong has been embedded with Sky for the previous year or so and has given us what he and his publishers claim to be the “definitive story” of both Sky (Inside Team Sky) and, now, Froome.

But not once has the ghostwriter of The Climb mentioned Froome’s asthma. And that either puts a beloved patriot in Walsh’s journalistic armour, or makes it look as if both Sky and Froome were pretty keen on keeping this one under wraps.
I guess the charitable explanation is that Froome just didn’t want people to know. But I’ll wait till actual evidence is produced before I buy the asthma-since-childhood story. As I’ve said before, it should be pretty easy to produce the TUE that was necessary before 2010.

And by the way, KB, this story is an example illustrating that Froome’s asthma was a big deal even in 2014, and that obtaining proof of his history probably would have been well rewarded.
It really isn't. It's asthma. He's not a haemophiliac or anything else that is uncommon and hence reported. It's hardly such a serious disease that there's going to be a huge discussion about it. It's curious it's missing but it's not really evidence of anything. I would wager that we all have several friends who are asthmatic that we don't know about because it's so common it's hardly ever mentioned.
 
King Boonen said:
Merckx index said:
King Boonen said:
Robert5091 said:
So has he always had asthma or is it EIA? :confused:
I'm not sure why you are confused? Maybe he has always had EIA?
I think it’s a valid question. I thought EIA was the result of long hours of training. You might be genetically predisposed to the condition, but it wouldn’t manifest itself unless/until you lived the exercise-intense life of the pro.
Then you might want to spend a few seconds on pubmed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7793107


You also sense that somewhere David Walsh is smarting. The man who brought down Lance Armstrong has been embedded with Sky for the previous year or so and has given us what he and his publishers claim to be the “definitive story” of both Sky (Inside Team Sky) and, now, Froome.

But not once has the ghostwriter of The Climb mentioned Froome’s asthma. And that either puts a beloved patriot in Walsh’s journalistic armour, or makes it look as if both Sky and Froome were pretty keen on keeping this one under wraps.
I guess the charitable explanation is that Froome just didn’t want people to know. But I’ll wait till actual evidence is produced before I buy the asthma-since-childhood story. As I’ve said before, it should be pretty easy to produce the TUE that was necessary before 2010.

And by the way, KB, this story is an example illustrating that Froome’s asthma was a big deal even in 2014, and that obtaining proof of his history probably would have been well rewarded.
It really isn't. It's asthma. He's not a haemophiliac or anything else that is uncommon and hence reported. It's hardly such a serious disease that there's going to be a huge discussion about it. It's curious it's missing but it's not really evidence of anything. I would wager that we all have several friends who are asthmatic that we don't know about because it's so common it's hardly ever mentioned.
....then lets multiply that curiousness by the curiousness of the badzilla also being missing ...then multiply that by froome's numbers being that of a multiple GT winner and struggling with chest related issues.....if he was running to form then no reason for his health to be discussed at all...when he was under-performing to such a massive degree then you would really have thought that this may have been discussed as a potential contributory factor...so more like curious cubed
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
pastronef said:
this has beet tweeted by @irishpeloton Cillian Kelly

And now begins a game of chicken played out by Team Sky and the UCI, all the while dragging the entire sport of cycling through the mud.

Chris Froome is still preparing as though he will be taking part in the Giro and the Tour.

Meanwhile his legal minions prepare whatever defence they are preparing to explain his positive test.

Preposterously, WADA have no provisions in their rules for a timescale by which Froome needs to provide such evidence.

Consequently, Froome and his lawyers can take as long as they like.

So Froome is headed for the Giro, unwilling to swerve and concede that a speedy resolution is what’s best for the sport.

And the UCI are sticking to their ‘due process’ unwilling to swerve because thems the rules.

But at some point the UCI will start to mutter amongst themselves “this is bloody dragging on isn’t it?”

While every race that Froome takes part in and/or wins is potentially brought into disrepute by the prospect of having to strip the winner.

Race organisers start putting pressure on the UCI to “get this all wrapped up for ****’s sake, you’re ruining our race”.

Froome’s lawyers are still dragging their heels ‘evidence gathering’.

The UCI begin to cave. Lappartient can’t afford for this one positive test to mire his entire presidency before it has even begun.

So the UCI begin to soften their stance. They blink first.

Froome has played his trump card which is being the biggest name in cycling and not being officially banned.

In doing so he makes the UCI look weak and stupid and Lappartient can’t allow that.

A compromise is reached. A solution is found. The evidence is accepted. Froome is off the hook despite the inexplicable levels of Salbutamol. And we all go back to thinking we’re in the clean era of cycling again.
Yep

Froome and Sky just brazen it out. Just like they've done with every other mess

UCI caves. The all too likely endgame
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Alpe73 said:
movingtarget said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
As a Froome's fan, I will wait for UCI/WADA verdict.
But if he is finally banned I will place him between his great rivals, i.e. Contador and Valverde, in a Big Trash of Cycling Dopers and erase his palmaries from my memory.
Trouble with that is it's the racing that is remembered not so much the bans. The bans have become like water off a duck's back........barely noticeable. Just one race in the last 20 years the Tour, if it is used as a guide re the winners and podiums it makes for depressing reading and then you have the Menchov's in the Giro and Vuelta, Pantani and Heras, Rumsas, Gotti,Hesjedal and so on. A cast of many and if the most talented riders are doping what are the others doing ? If no one doped at all would a Contador still be winning, I think he would.

Many drug enforcement officials think the war on recreational drugs was lost year's ago, what governments see as a win is playing around the edges of the problem. I think sport is the same, sport is big business like drugs if nothing else and fame and winning are all the matters especially for the people at the top. There is no doubt that what has been found in Russia with doping is also being done in other countries. And if it is this bad now what was it like 40 years ago when drug authorities were so less vigilant ? If drugs in sport worried people that much they would not watch at all. Some people may do that but not many. Unfortunately people have accepted cheating in sport and that is the only way to keep watching.
Bada bing, bada boom.

Last spring, had the pleasure of visiting The Kingdom of the United. Most pleasant and most interesting. On entering a Public House one afternoon, saw a sign that read ... "No Team Colors Allowed." How tribal, I thought. WTF, I thought. Now, I know that depending on the pub, the town, the teams and colors and eras ... that there is a broad variance in the manifestation of this particular, peculiar phenomena.

As Dylan Casey suggested on the Dawg Stages podcast, today, whyTF ... do people care so much about Chris Froome and his apparent indiscretion? Why do people want him buried? Why is the sport of cycling so self-flagellating. FFS, don't say it's because you all want to do your small bit to clean up the sport? That's the same *** you all offered about Armstrong.
I'll answer your question. First I'll ask my own one.

Why do you pretend to come from outside the United Kingdom and to not be British?

To answer your question, very simply put I don't like Chris Froome and I don't like Team Sky. I also didn't like Armstrong and Brunyeel. Because I think they are liars and I don't like liars. I didn't like them taking credit for what other people had done.
So I wanted him to get caught.

And now he has and I am happy. :)

But go ahead. Put false motivations on us to make yourself feel superior, all you want.
Hitch, who's work did/do you think they're taking the credit for? Or did you mean simply taking the glory from clean (or at least less dirty) athletes?

Just curious, not looking to argue with your view which is fair enough when you present your reasons so clearly
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
pastronef said:
this has beet tweeted by @irishpeloton Cillian Kelly

And now begins a game of chicken played out by Team Sky and the UCI, all the while dragging the entire sport of cycling through the mud.

Chris Froome is still preparing as though he will be taking part in the Giro and the Tour.

Meanwhile his legal minions prepare whatever defence they are preparing to explain his positive test.

Preposterously, WADA have no provisions in their rules for a timescale by which Froome needs to provide such evidence.

Consequently, Froome and his lawyers can take as long as they like.

So Froome is headed for the Giro, unwilling to swerve and concede that a speedy resolution is what’s best for the sport.

And the UCI are sticking to their ‘due process’ unwilling to swerve because thems the rules.

But at some point the UCI will start to mutter amongst themselves “this is bloody dragging on isn’t it?”

While every race that Froome takes part in and/or wins is potentially brought into disrepute by the prospect of having to strip the winner.

Race organisers start putting pressure on the UCI to “get this all wrapped up for ****’s sake, you’re ruining our race”.

Froome’s lawyers are still dragging their heels ‘evidence gathering’.

The UCI begin to cave. Lappartient can’t afford for this one positive test to mire his entire presidency before it has even begun.

So the UCI begin to soften their stance. They blink first.

Froome has played his trump card which is being the biggest name in cycling and not being officially banned.

In doing so he makes the UCI look weak and stupid and Lappartient can’t allow that.

A compromise is reached. A solution is found. The evidence is accepted. Froome is off the hook despite the inexplicable levels of Salbutamol. And we all go back to thinking we’re in the clean era of cycling again.
No it won't happen, it is a matter of terminal credibility for cycling, and even if the UCI were to feel too weak to strike, ASO, for whom this is a bottom line issue, would never allow Froome to ride the Tour de France. No I don't see how this can go away without a ban.
 
I just remember there were a bunch of posters who played the - "Froome is innocent, y'all are losers" card while pretending to be foreigners - martinvickers and Joachim being 2 notable examples.

So everytime someone comes in here playing that card while going out of their way to make clear "btw im not english i just happen to love froome for no reason" I let them know that I don't buy it
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
movingtarget said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
As a Froome's fan, I will wait for UCI/WADA verdict.
But if he is finally banned I will place him between his great rivals, i.e. Contador and Valverde, in a Big Trash of Cycling Dopers and erase his palmaries from my memory.
Trouble with that is it's the racing that is remembered not so much the bans. The bans have become like water off a duck's back........barely noticeable. Just one race in the last 20 years the Tour, if it is used as a guide re the winners and podiums it makes for depressing reading and then you have the Menchov's in the Giro and Vuelta, Pantani and Heras, Rumsas, Gotti,Hesjedal and so on. A cast of many and if the most talented riders are doping what are the others doing ? If no one doped at all would a Contador still be winning, I think he would.

Many drug enforcement officials think the war on recreational drugs was lost year's ago, what governments see as a win is playing around the edges of the problem. I think sport is the same, sport is big business like drugs if nothing else and fame and winning are all the matters especially for the people at the top. There is no doubt that what has been found in Russia with doping is also being done in other countries. And if it is this bad now what was it like 40 years ago when drug authorities were so less vigilant ? If drugs in sport worried people that much they would not watch at all. Some people may do that but not many. Unfortunately people have accepted cheating in sport and that is the only way to keep watching.
Bada bing, bada boom.

Last spring, had the pleasure of visiting The Kingdom of the United. Most pleasant and most interesting. On entering a Public House one afternoon, saw a sign that read ... "No Team Colors Allowed." How tribal, I thought. WTF, I thought. Now, I know that depending on the pub, the town, the teams and colors and eras ... that there is a broad variance in the manifestation of this particular, peculiar phenomena.

As Dylan Casey suggested on the Dawg Stages podcast, today, whyTF ... do people care so much about Chris Froome and his apparent indiscretion? Why do people want him buried? Why is the sport of cycling so self-flagellating. FFS, don't say it's because you all want to do your small bit to clean up the sport? That's the same *** you all offered about Armstrong.
because he's an interloper.....not in terms of geography, in terms of he's not one of the greats...you know the greats because the win races as juniors and the old men in the bars say to watch out for that one, then they win at U23 and the old men say watch that and we told you...then that start winning smaller races and the old men look forward to having witnessed the growth of what they see before them...Froome (and Wiggins before him) entered GT world stage left with nobody having any investment in them emotionally and them literally not being able to believe what they saw....everybody knows the speeds that (all) these guys achieve are 'not normal' in terms of the amateur but then expecting to suspend belief twice over is too much....

....and that's without the sky marginal gains bullsh*t, the health problems, the train, the looking down and the gangly styleee...

forza Vincenzo
 
Yeah the disproportionate focus on Froome, like on Armstrong before him, is pretty simple. Success + hubris + people being sick of being lied to and having the broader casual fanbase accept those lies uncritically. That is a recipe that is on a different scale of egregiousness than if, say, Aru or Quintana or Simon Yates (oh wait, that's not a hypothetical) tested positive and banned as an open-and-shut case. That would be just another doper, this is a crack in the dominant narrative in cycling, the gravitational pull of which the bulk of money and power in cycling has circled around for the last 5 years. It's just particularly galling that Team Sky came onto the scene with much pomp and $$$ and has preached transparency while practicing obfuscation, preached zero tolerance while practicing 'get away with every advantage in every grey area possible', has preached a new start to clean sport while backing the most suspicious performance transformation since the heyday of EPO, has preached diligence and attention to detail while losing crucial medical records and somehow not being able to tell Jonathan Tiernan-Locke was glowing red hot for an entire year they decided his magical performance was worthy of a contract.

So there's a bit more to it than not liking a rider.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
From Seth Davidson, Amercian Lawyer and author of 'Cycling in the South Bay' website.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/the-truth-about-chris-froomes-doping-part-2/

Last paragraph

Whatever you want to say about Salbutamol, Froome has got to be considering the reality that if he can’t reproduce a massive 2,000 ng/mL test result with a few measly puffs from an inhaler, he’s looking at a minimum suspension of nine months, the loss of his Vuelta title, and the potential destruction of Team Sky, a cycling team already stinking of dope to high heaven. Worst case scenario is two years sitting on the bench, wondering where it all went wrong.
Good article.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
I just remember there were a bunch of posters who played the - "Froome is innocent, y'all are losers" card while pretending to be foreigners - martinvickers and Joachim being 2 notable examples.

So everytime someone comes in here playing that card while going out of their way to make clear "btw im not english i just happen to love froome for no reason" I let them know that I don't buy it
I swear I am not english, I am italian and cheer for team sky. I am maybe the only italian sky fan in the forum/clinic ;)
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
The Hitch said:
I just remember there were a bunch of posters who played the - "Froome is innocent, y'all are losers" card while pretending to be foreigners - martinvickers and Joachim being 2 notable examples.

So everytime someone comes in here playing that card while going out of their way to make clear "btw im not english i just happen to love froome for no reason" I let them know that I don't buy it
I swear I am not english, I am italian and cheer for team sky. I am maybe the only italian sky fan in the forum/clinic ;)
I don't know if that guy is english or not (most likely is), but calling UK as "The Kingdom of the United" is definitely obnoxious. And, it is really hard to take him seriously while all his points is "leave britney/froome alone".
 
Benotti69 said:
From Seth Davidson, Amercian Lawyer and author of 'Cycling in the South Bay' website.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/the-truth-about-chris-froomes-doping-part-2/

Last paragraph

Whatever you want to say about Salbutamol, Froome has got to be considering the reality that if he can’t reproduce a massive 2,000 ng/mL test result with a few measly puffs from an inhaler, he’s looking at a minimum suspension of nine months, the loss of his Vuelta title, and the potential destruction of Team Sky, a cycling team already stinking of dope to high heaven. Worst case scenario is two years sitting on the bench, wondering where it all went wrong.
Good article.
Yes but too bad it was only Salbutamol. We may never find out what was really going on.
 
Cookster15 said:
Benotti69 said:
From Seth Davidson, Amercian Lawyer and author of 'Cycling in the South Bay' website.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/the-truth-about-chris-froomes-doping-part-2/

Last paragraph

Whatever you want to say about Salbutamol, Froome has got to be considering the reality that if he can’t reproduce a massive 2,000 ng/mL test result with a few measly puffs from an inhaler, he’s looking at a minimum suspension of nine months, the loss of his Vuelta title, and the potential destruction of Team Sky, a cycling team already stinking of dope to high heaven. Worst case scenario is two years sitting on the bench, wondering where it all went wrong.
Good article.
Yes but too bad it was only Salbutamol. We may never find out what was really going on.
read part 1: https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

even just on its own it's a potent drug for cyclists, both in training and in competition. if he doesn't get the full 2 year ban plus loss of his Vuelta win it will be an outrage.
 
zlev11 said:
Cookster15 said:
Benotti69 said:
From Seth Davidson, Amercian Lawyer and author of 'Cycling in the South Bay' website.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/the-truth-about-chris-froomes-doping-part-2/

Last paragraph

Whatever you want to say about Salbutamol, Froome has got to be considering the reality that if he can’t reproduce a massive 2,000 ng/mL test result with a few measly puffs from an inhaler, he’s looking at a minimum suspension of nine months, the loss of his Vuelta title, and the potential destruction of Team Sky, a cycling team already stinking of dope to high heaven. Worst case scenario is two years sitting on the bench, wondering where it all went wrong.
Good article.
Yes but too bad it was only Salbutamol. We may never find out what was really going on.
read part 1: https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

even just on its own it's a potent drug for cyclists, both in training and in competition. if he doesn't get the full 2 year ban plus loss of his Vuelta win it will be an outrage.
Ulissi had 1920ng/ml (got 9 months) Froome had 2000. he gets 9-12 months.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Cookster15 said:
Benotti69 said:
From Seth Davidson, Amercian Lawyer and author of 'Cycling in the South Bay' website.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/the-truth-about-chris-froomes-doping-part-2/

Last paragraph

Whatever you want to say about Salbutamol, Froome has got to be considering the reality that if he can’t reproduce a massive 2,000 ng/mL test result with a few measly puffs from an inhaler, he’s looking at a minimum suspension of nine months, the loss of his Vuelta title, and the potential destruction of Team Sky, a cycling team already stinking of dope to high heaven. Worst case scenario is two years sitting on the bench, wondering where it all went wrong.
Good article.
Yes but too bad it was only Salbutamol. We may never find out what was really going on.
I think we will find out in many years time. But common use of Salbutamol is with steroids. Whether Froome was old school about it we wont know till he, his Wife (possibly ex when she spills) or Mother in Law tells us in a book, which by then no one will care.
 
Benotti69 said:
Cookster15 said:
Benotti69 said:
From Seth Davidson, Amercian Lawyer and author of 'Cycling in the South Bay' website.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/the-truth-about-chris-froomes-doping-part-2/

Last paragraph

Whatever you want to say about Salbutamol, Froome has got to be considering the reality that if he can’t reproduce a massive 2,000 ng/mL test result with a few measly puffs from an inhaler, he’s looking at a minimum suspension of nine months, the loss of his Vuelta title, and the potential destruction of Team Sky, a cycling team already stinking of dope to high heaven. Worst case scenario is two years sitting on the bench, wondering where it all went wrong.
Good article.
Yes but too bad it was only Salbutamol. We may never find out what was really going on.
I think we will find out in many years time. But common use of Salbutamol is with steroids. Whether Froome was old school about it we wont know till he, his Wife (possibly ex when she spills) or Mother in Law tells us in a book, which by then no one will care.
:rolleyes:
I am always baffled at how people wish the worst, not only in cycling/clinic related stuff but also in personal/private life.
think of a moment if they split, they have a young child, would you wish that to people you know?
ffs
 
pastronef said:
Benotti69 said:
Cookster15 said:
Benotti69 said:
From Seth Davidson, Amercian Lawyer and author of 'Cycling in the South Bay' website.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/the-truth-about-chris-froomes-doping-part-2/

Last paragraph

Whatever you want to say about Salbutamol, Froome has got to be considering the reality that if he can’t reproduce a massive 2,000 ng/mL test result with a few measly puffs from an inhaler, he’s looking at a minimum suspension of nine months, the loss of his Vuelta title, and the potential destruction of Team Sky, a cycling team already stinking of dope to high heaven. Worst case scenario is two years sitting on the bench, wondering where it all went wrong.
Good article.
Yes but too bad it was only Salbutamol. We may never find out what was really going on.
I think we will find out in many years time. But common use of Salbutamol is with steroids. Whether Froome was old school about it we wont know till he, his Wife (possibly ex when she spills) or Mother in Law tells us in a book, which by then no one will care.
:rolleyes:
I am always baffled at how people wish the worst, not only in cycling/clinic related stuff but also in personal/private life.
think of a moment if they split, they have a young child, would you wish that to people you know?
ffs
:rolleyes:
Eh the guy doesnt wish that to froome but merely sees it as one of several things that could happen later on.
I m always baffled at froome fans reading skills
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS