Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Wiggo's Package]

i think this is in relation to the weight loss being attributed less to sky and more to the bodybuilding knowledge of Michelle's mum through Michelle...my money's on the combo of their nutrition and lienders's skills being behind the transformation we saw in 2011...

I'm with you on the nutrition/weight loss theory

The more I read about this the more I start to think that Sky really have just been old school doping.

Not old school blood doping, not even old school cycling doping. I never thought that it was as simple as that, watching videos of how they used to chase each other up mountains was crazy, it just looked different, nothing like the way Sky just sit at tempo, albeit a very high tempo on the mountain stages in recent times.

But I went the other way, thinking new cutting edge stuff, drugs we hadn't even heard of yet..... but I'm starting to think I was looking in completely the wrong direction.

The stuff the guy in the Wordpress article says about power to weight, losing weight but building and maintaining functional muscle. Of course we always knew that, but could it really be that simple? Put it all together with the 'Sky way'. The super skinny look within months of joining the team, but still able to produce those watts, long spells at tempo which destroy the peloton. Not just the main man, but the whole team. The watts don't go up, the weight just comes down. Same effect. If a cyclist, already lean, can lose say 5kg more doping than he ever could naturally, without losing power then that's every bit as transformational as EPO. It explains why we're seeing same speeds up mountains, without it looking as crazy as it did when Lance was chasing Pantani et al.

All this time searching for the new cutting edge programme, maybe it's just about good old fashioned physique enhancement, straight out of the weights room. I think someone said on here earlier...if you want to know how to lose fat and build muscle, ask a bodybuilder. They've got this down to a fine art.

It all seems to fit. Good old salbutamol, I'm guessing they had the protocols for masking this from the testers down to a tee. Until the one day somebody did something a little bit different.....

I still think something doesn't add up. Why the leaked A & B result before a final decision by the UCI. This very rarely happens with B2 cases now. Certainly much less in last 5 years anyway. We rarely hear the result before a decision now for most riders? Also the rapid half life of Salbutomol means Froome was racing close to the levels posing a serious risk to health and cardiac arrest at the start of the stage assuming he was chaperoned to anti-doping after the stage for doping control. Perhaps there's a way to take 3-4000 with something else without risk of cardiac arrest, but i've not read that anywhere. 4-5 puffs on my wifes salbutomol is like you just drank 10 coffees in row. There's no way I would be riding a bike, my heart was already jittery and that's only at a 500 level.

Why was the Froome case leaked?

Well, the leak happened a few days after Cookson, who knew about the Froome case, said Team Sky's reputation should be restored

Not difficult to imagine that someone in the new regime at the UCI might have taken exception to that...

 

[samhocking]

He says if your'e so ill, you need corticosteroids, you shouldn't be allows to compete. Asthma is not an illness, it's a disease and you treat it before you get ill with it.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Then you might want to spend a few seconds on pubmed:

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

Did you even read the abstract? The kids were not aware they had EIA until they were tested. If young Froome was like one of those kids, he wouldn’t know he had EIA, wouldn’t have used an inhaler, and wouldn’t years later be able to say he did. In fact, Froome has specifically said he uses it only for “great efforts”, implying that is the only time he has a problem. If he didn’t make such great efforts as a youth, how would he know?

Edited by King Boonen: Fixed your quote
edit...sorry crap at quoting...the above is from MI

The article linked perhaps gives a clue or perhaps I'm reading too much into it

"Furthermore, the British physician has objectively tested Froome and confirms the four-time Tour de France champion has asthma. Due to doctor/patient confidentiality, he is not able to divulge how severe Froome’s asthma is."
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/explainer-salbutamol-asthma-and-what-comes-next-for-froome_453676#7YEsAuqsUzfkvjL6.99

I would have thought they would be careful with the wording here and it's interesting that the word objectively is used. With an existing and previously proscribed condition of asthma (be it EIA or otherwise) that matter would not perhaps have been described that way, it, and its seriousness, already having been established by a different physician. Again not divulging the severity would suggest he owned the relationship rather than a different physician....

again I may be reading too much into it however it correlates time-wise to when we first heard about and when the puffer was first seen....

I think you are reading too much into it, and the conversation between myself and MI. Basically, a poster seemed to imply exercised induced asthma was an adult disease, I pointed out it wasn't and MI said they thought it only manifested due to pro-like training loads. I supplied a paper to show this wasn't the case. I wasn't making a comment on whether I believe Froome, whether his treatment is acceptable/believable or anything like that. I was just pointing out children suffer from exercised induced asthma.

On the objectively part, I'd assume they just mean they tested him as if they had no knowledge of whether he had asthma or not and his measurements indicated he did. If they had said subjectively they might have meant that they used prior knowledge of incidents to diagnose asthma even if he didn't produce the numbers you would expect.

 

[brownbobby]

i think this is in relation to the weight loss being attributed less to sky and more to the bodybuilding knowledge of Michelle's mum through Michelle...my money's on the combo of their nutrition and lienders's skills being behind the transformation we saw in 2011...

I'm with you on the nutrition/weight loss theory

The more I read about this the more I start to think that Sky really have just been old school doping.

Not old school blood doping, not even old school cycling doping. I never thought that it was as simple as that, watching videos of how they used to chase each other up mountains was crazy, it just looked different, nothing like the way Sky just sit at tempo, albeit a very high tempo on the mountain stages in recent times.

But I went the other way, thinking new cutting edge stuff, drugs we hadn't even heard of yet..... but I'm starting to think I was looking in completely the wrong direction.

The stuff the guy in the Wordpress article says about power to weight, losing weight but building and maintaining functional muscle. Of course we always knew that, but could it really be that simple? Put it all together with the 'Sky way'. The super skinny look within months of joining the team, but still able to produce those watts, long spells at tempo which destroy the peloton. Not just the main man, but the whole team. The watts don't go up, the weight just comes down. Same effect. If a cyclist, already lean, can lose say 5kg more doping than he ever could naturally, without losing power then that's every bit as transformational as EPO. It explains why we're seeing same speeds up mountains, without it looking as crazy as it did when Lance was chasing Pantani et al.

All this time searching for the new cutting edge programme, maybe it's just about good old fashioned physique enhancement, straight out of the weights room. I think someone said on here earlier...if you want to know how to lose fat and build muscle, ask a bodybuilder. They've got this down to a fine art.

It all seems to fit. Good old salbutamol, I'm guessing they had the protocols for masking this from the testers down to a tee. Until the one day somebody did something a little bit different.....

I still think something doesn't add up. Why the leaked A & B result before a final decision by the UCI. This very rarely happens with B2 cases now. Certainly much less in last 5 years anyway. We rarely hear the result before a decision now for most riders? Also the rapid half life of Salbutomol means Froome was racing close to the levels posing a serious risk to health and cardiac arrest at the start of the stage assuming he was chaperoned to anti-doping after the stage for doping control. Perhaps there's a way to take 3-4000 with something else without risk of cardiac arrest, but i've not read that anywhere. 4-5 puffs on my wifes salbutomol is like you just drank 10 coffees in row. There's no way I would be riding a bike, my heart was already jittery and that's only at a 500 level.

Why was the Froome case leaked?

Well, the leak happened a few days after Cookson, who knew about the Froome case, said Team Sky's reputation should be restored

Not difficult to imagine that someone in the new regime at the UCI might have taken exception to that...

Good point. Damage Sky. Damage Cookson. For some, that's a win win....

 

[samhocking]

i think this is in relation to the weight loss being attributed less to sky and more to the bodybuilding knowledge of Michelle's mum through Michelle...my money's on the combo of their nutrition and lienders's skills being behind the transformation we saw in 2011...

I'm with you on the nutrition/weight loss theory

The more I read about this the more I start to think that Sky really have just been old school doping.

Not old school blood doping, not even old school cycling doping. I never thought that it was as simple as that, watching videos of how they used to chase each other up mountains was crazy, it just looked different, nothing like the way Sky just sit at tempo, albeit a very high tempo on the mountain stages in recent times.

But I went the other way, thinking new cutting edge stuff, drugs we hadn't even heard of yet..... but I'm starting to think I was looking in completely the wrong direction.

The stuff the guy in the Wordpress article says about power to weight, losing weight but building and maintaining functional muscle. Of course we always knew that, but could it really be that simple? Put it all together with the 'Sky way'. The super skinny look within months of joining the team, but still able to produce those watts, long spells at tempo which destroy the peloton. Not just the main man, but the whole team. The watts don't go up, the weight just comes down. Same effect. If a cyclist, already lean, can lose say 5kg more doping than he ever could naturally, without losing power then that's every bit as transformational as EPO. It explains why we're seeing same speeds up mountains, without it looking as crazy as it did when Lance was chasing Pantani et al.

All this time searching for the new cutting edge programme, maybe it's just about good old fashioned physique enhancement, straight out of the weights room. I think someone said on here earlier...if you want to know how to lose fat and build muscle, ask a bodybuilder. They've got this down to a fine art.

It all seems to fit. Good old salbutamol, I'm guessing they had the protocols for masking this from the testers down to a tee. Until the one day somebody did something a little bit different.....

I still think something doesn't add up. Why the leaked A & B result before a final decision by the UCI. This very rarely happens with B2 cases now. Certainly much less in last 5 years anyway. We rarely hear the result before a decision now for most riders? Also the rapid half life of Salbutomol means Froome was racing close to the levels posing a serious risk to health and cardiac arrest at the start of the stage assuming he was chaperoned to anti-doping after the stage for doping control. Perhaps there's a way to take 3-4000 with something else without risk of cardiac arrest, but i've not read that anywhere. 4-5 puffs on my wifes salbutomol is like you just drank 10 coffees in row. There's no way I would be riding a bike, my heart was already jittery and that's only at a 500 level.

Why was the Froome case leaked?

Well, the leak happened a few days after Cookson, who knew about the Froome case, said Team Sky's reputation should be restored

Not difficult to imagine that someone in the new regime at the UCI might have taken exception to that...

It got leaked 3 months after Lappartient's victory.

 

[brownbobby]

i think this is in relation to the weight loss being attributed less to sky and more to the bodybuilding knowledge of Michelle's mum through Michelle...my money's on the combo of their nutrition and lienders's skills being behind the transformation we saw in 2011...

I'm with you on the nutrition/weight loss theory

The more I read about this the more I start to think that Sky really have just been old school doping.

Not old school blood doping, not even old school cycling doping. I never thought that it was as simple as that, watching videos of how they used to chase each other up mountains was crazy, it just looked different, nothing like the way Sky just sit at tempo, albeit a very high tempo on the mountain stages in recent times.

But I went the other way, thinking new cutting edge stuff, drugs we hadn't even heard of yet..... but I'm starting to think I was looking in completely the wrong direction.

The stuff the guy in the Wordpress article says about power to weight, losing weight but building and maintaining functional muscle. Of course we always knew that, but could it really be that simple? Put it all together with the 'Sky way'. The super skinny look within months of joining the team, but still able to produce those watts, long spells at tempo which destroy the peloton. Not just the main man, but the whole team. The watts don't go up, the weight just comes down. Same effect. If a cyclist, already lean, can lose say 5kg more doping than he ever could naturally, without losing power then that's every bit as transformational as EPO. It explains why we're seeing same speeds up mountains, without it looking as crazy as it did when Lance was chasing Pantani et al.

All this time searching for the new cutting edge programme, maybe it's just about good old fashioned physique enhancement, straight out of the weights room. I think someone said on here earlier...if you want to know how to lose fat and build muscle, ask a bodybuilder. They've got this down to a fine art.

It all seems to fit. Good old salbutamol, I'm guessing they had the protocols for masking this from the testers down to a tee. Until the one day somebody did something a little bit different.....

I still think something doesn't add up. Why the leaked A & B result before a final decision by the UCI. This very rarely happens with B2 cases now. Certainly much less in last 5 years anyway. We rarely hear the result before a decision now for most riders? Also the rapid half life of Salbutomol means Froome was racing close to the levels posing a serious risk to health and cardiac arrest at the start of the stage assuming he was chaperoned to anti-doping after the stage for doping control. Perhaps there's a way to take 3-4000 with something else without risk of cardiac arrest, but i've not read that anywhere. 4-5 puffs on my wifes salbutomol is like you just drank 10 coffees in row. There's no way I would be riding a bike, my heart was already jittery and that's only at a 500 level.

Why was the Froome case leaked?

Well, the leak happened a few days after Cookson, who knew about the Froome case, said Team Sky's reputation should be restored

Not difficult to imagine that someone in the new regime at the UCI might have taken exception to that...

It got leaked 3 months after Lappartient's victory.

Yes, but only a few days after Cookson's increasingly strange looking comments. That was the very good point being made.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

He says if youre so ill, you need corticosteroids, you shouldn't be allows to compete. Asthma is not an illness, it's a disease and you treat it before you get I'll with it.

No he doesn't. This is what he says:

Where an athlete is so ill because of, say, severe asthma that it requires them to take a powerful drug with potential performance-enhancing properties, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete while that drug is active in their system.

He qualifies his comment saying that it applies to medication with potential performance-enhancing properties and he says they should not be allowed to compete while the drug is active. That is massively different from what you claim.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Then you might want to spend a few seconds on pubmed:

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

Did you even read the abstract? The kids were not aware they had EIA until they were tested. If young Froome was like one of those kids, he wouldn’t know he had EIA, wouldn’t have used an inhaler, and wouldn’t years later be able to say he did. In fact, Froome has specifically said he uses it only for “great efforts”, implying that is the only time he has a problem. If he didn’t make such great efforts as a youth, how would he know?

Edited by King Boonen: Fixed your quote
edit...sorry crap at quoting...the above is from MI

The article linked perhaps gives a clue or perhaps I'm reading too much into it

"Furthermore, the British physician has objectively tested Froome and confirms the four-time Tour de France champion has asthma. Due to doctor/patient confidentiality, he is not able to divulge how severe Froome’s asthma is."
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/explainer-salbutamol-asthma-and-what-comes-next-for-froome_453676#7YEsAuqsUzfkvjL6.99

I would have thought they would be careful with the wording here and it's interesting that the word objectively is used. With an existing and previously proscribed condition of asthma (be it EIA or otherwise) that matter would not perhaps have been described that way, it, and its seriousness, already having been established by a different physician. Again not divulging the severity would suggest he owned the relationship rather than a different physician....

again I may be reading too much into it however it correlates time-wise to when we first heard about and when the puffer was first seen....

I think you are reading too much into it, and the conversation between myself and MI. Basically, a poster seemed to imply exercised induced asthma was an adult disease, I pointed out it wasn't and MI said they thought it only manifested due to pro-like training loads. I supplied a paper to show this wasn't the case. I wasn't making a comment on whether I believe Froome, whether his treatment is acceptable/believable or anything like that. I was just pointing out children suffer from exercised induced asthma.

On the objectively part, I'd assume they just mean they tested him as if they had no knowledge of whether he had asthma or not and his measurements indicated he did. If they had said subjectively they might have meant that they used prior knowledge of incidents to diagnose asthma even if he didn't produce the numbers you would expect.

sorry...yes the reply wasn't necessarily directed at you and MIs exchange....just the asthma timeline really and then if there were any clues about the history via the wording. As Tucker has provided on his twitter account, and probably across on salbutomol thread is a control vs non-control study (asthmatics and non-asthmatics) and so if the Dr Dickinson had been doing a 'proper' study then he perhaps might have split the sky riders into those with and those without asthma? And if it were less formal and just some testing then presumably would have asked subjects if they had it or not? Either way I would have assumed the doc would have prior knowledge of froome's asthma before test and results confirmed or denied? Not sure its of import, just interested in the fact that there was no public knowledge of his asthma until 2014...

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

He says if youre so ill, you need corticosteroids, you shouldn't be allows to compete. Asthma is not an illness, it's a disease and you treat it before you get I'll with it.

No he doesn't. This is what he says:

Where an athlete is so ill because of, say, severe asthma that it requires them to take a powerful drug with potential performance-enhancing properties, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete while that drug is active in their system.

He qualifies his comment saying that it applies to medication with potential performance-enhancing properties and he says they should not be allowed to compete while the drug is active. That is massively different from what you claim.

But all asthma sufferers will have corticosteroids in their system. That is its treatment to prevent you having an attack. Salbutomol to relieve an attack. Both are argued here to be performance enhancing.

 

[yaco]

Re:

Thing is, putting any performance enhancement reasons for treatment for asthma to one side, is that taking corticosteroids for a legitimate asthma sufferer, is always purely a preventative one. You don't take it when you are suffering and ill with asthma side effects. You take it to stop you getting ill and having to suffer with it in the first place. For Collins to say that, he also then has to accept that any legitimate asthma sufferer will probably not be wise to choose sport as a career, even if they are very talented, because although they can win when not suffering, they cannot be legally treated when suffering. That is a huge human rights and freedom to work can of worms he's opening up if you ask me. Sometimes you just got to accept things can't be perfect.

We must differentiate between normal asthma and exercise induced asthma - Apparently a majority of asthma sufferers in the peleton ( suffer EIA ) which would apply in other sports - Apparently to be diagnosed with EIA you need to have your breathing reduced by 10% - Now I am no medico but for the purposes of professional sport you want this figure to be 20 to 25% - It's interesting Thomas has had another crack about asthma sufferers riding in the peleton - On reflection, possibly Thomas is referring to EIA - Reckon he's on the money.

My theory about the UCI leak is a negotiated settlement broke down between the UCI and Froome - Maybe Sky and Froome wanted to be totally CLEAR of charges, whereas the UCI is happy to strip Froome of the Vuelta and add on a slap on the wrists or a token suspension.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

He says if youre so ill, you need corticosteroids, you shouldn't be allows to compete. Asthma is not an illness, it's a disease and you treat it before you get I'll with it.

No he doesn't. This is what he says:

Where an athlete is so ill because of, say, severe asthma that it requires them to take a powerful drug with potential performance-enhancing properties, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete while that drug is active in their system.

He qualifies his comment saying that it applies to medication with potential performance-enhancing properties and he says they should not be allowed to compete while the drug is active. That is massively different from what you claim.

But all asthma sufferers will have corticosteroids in their system. That is its treatment to prevent you having an attack. Salbutomol to relieve an attack. Both are argued here to be performance enhancing.

If you could please like the part of the article where Collins specifically states all corticosteroids should be completely banned that'd be great.

 

[samhocking]

I agree, it's easy to diagnose EIA or not. The point is ,Collins is under the impression, if you are so Ill from asthma and need Corticosteroids,you shouldn't be competing and should take corticosteroids, get over your asthma like it's a broken leg and return to racing when well again. That is simply not how asthma is dealt with in the real world.You wake up fine, you take your corticosteroids to prevent a possible attack that day. You might go for weeks without any attack, EIA or not, but you still take your brown inhaler with steroids in it, or a pill or an injection in extreme cases and carry on with life as normal.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

i think this is in relation to the weight loss being attributed less to sky and more to the bodybuilding knowledge of Michelle's mum through Michelle...my money's on the combo of their nutrition and lienders's skills being behind the transformation we saw in 2011...

I'm with you on the nutrition/weight loss theory

The more I read about this the more I start to think that Sky really have just been old school doping.

Not old school blood doping, not even old school cycling doping. I never thought that it was as simple as that, watching videos of how they used to chase each other up mountains was crazy, it just looked different, nothing like the way Sky just sit at tempo, albeit a very high tempo on the mountain stages in recent times.

But I went the other way, thinking new cutting edge stuff, drugs we hadn't even heard of yet..... but I'm starting to think I was looking in completely the wrong direction.

The stuff the guy in the Wordpress article says about power to weight, losing weight but building and maintaining functional muscle. Of course we always knew that, but could it really be that simple? Put it all together with the 'Sky way'. The super skinny look within months of joining the team, but still able to produce those watts, long spells at tempo which destroy the peloton. Not just the main man, but the whole team. The watts don't go up, the weight just comes down. Same effect. If a cyclist, already lean, can lose say 5kg more doping than he ever could naturally, without losing power then that's every bit as transformational as EPO. It explains why we're seeing same speeds up mountains, without it looking as crazy as it did when Lance was chasing Pantani et al.

All this time searching for the new cutting edge programme, maybe it's just about good old fashioned physique enhancement, straight out of the weights room. I think someone said on here earlier...if you want to know how to lose fat and build muscle, ask a bodybuilder. They've got this down to a fine art.

It all seems to fit. Good old salbutamol, I'm guessing they had the protocols for masking this from the testers down to a tee. Until the one day somebody did something a little bit different.....

I still think something doesn't add up. Why the leaked A & B result before a final decision by the UCI. This very rarely happens with B2 cases now. Certainly much less in last 5 years anyway. We rarely hear the result before a decision now for most riders? Also the rapid half life of Salbutomol means Froome was racing close to the levels posing a serious risk to health and cardiac arrest at the start of the stage assuming he was chaperoned to anti-doping after the stage for doping control. Perhaps there's a way to take 3-4000 with something else without risk of cardiac arrest, but i've not read that anywhere. 4-5 puffs on my wifes salbutomol is like you just drank 10 coffees in row. There's no way I would be riding a bike, my heart was already jittery and that's only at a 500 level.

Why was the Froome case leaked?

Well, the leak happened a few days after Cookson, who knew about the Froome case, said Team Sky's reputation should be restored

Not difficult to imagine that someone in the new regime at the UCI might have taken exception to that...

It got leaked 3 months after Lappartient's victory.

Irrelevant to the point I was making. Deflection tactic fail

The Froome leak happened a few days after Cookson (who knew about the Froome AAF) said Sky's reputation should be restored

Cookson brazen's BS was the motive for someone in Lappartient's new regime to leak the Froome story. Those few days the timeline for the journos to line their stories up. Simples

I wonder if Dave is sending Brian a Christmas card this year...

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

He says if youre so ill, you need corticosteroids, you shouldn't be allows to compete. Asthma is not an illness, it's a disease and you treat it before you get I'll with it.

No he doesn't. This is what he says:

Where an athlete is so ill because of, say, severe asthma that it requires them to take a powerful drug with potential performance-enhancing properties, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete while that drug is active in their system.

He qualifies his comment saying that it applies to medication with potential performance-enhancing properties and he says they should not be allowed to compete while the drug is active. That is massively different from what you claim.

But all asthma sufferers will have corticosteroids in their system. That is its treatment to prevent you having an attack. Salbutomol to relieve an attack. Both are argued here to be performance enhancing.

If you could please like the part of the article where Collins specifically states all corticosteroids should be completely banned that'd be great.

I think the 'potential performance enhancing properties' covers all corticosteroids doesn't it? Are there Corticosteroids that do not have any? What's the measurement of what is not performance enhancing going to be?

 

[samhocking]

i think this is in relation to the weight loss being attributed less to sky and more to the bodybuilding knowledge of Michelle's mum through Michelle...my money's on the combo of their nutrition and lienders's skills being behind the transformation we saw in 2011...

I'm with you on the nutrition/weight loss theory

The more I read about this the more I start to think that Sky really have just been old school doping.

Not old school blood doping, not even old school cycling doping. I never thought that it was as simple as that, watching videos of how they used to chase each other up mountains was crazy, it just looked different, nothing like the way Sky just sit at tempo, albeit a very high tempo on the mountain stages in recent times.

But I went the other way, thinking new cutting edge stuff, drugs we hadn't even heard of yet..... but I'm starting to think I was looking in completely the wrong direction.

The stuff the guy in the Wordpress article says about power to weight, losing weight but building and maintaining functional muscle. Of course we always knew that, but could it really be that simple? Put it all together with the 'Sky way'. The super skinny look within months of joining the team, but still able to produce those watts, long spells at tempo which destroy the peloton. Not just the main man, but the whole team. The watts don't go up, the weight just comes down. Same effect. If a cyclist, already lean, can lose say 5kg more doping than he ever could naturally, without losing power then that's every bit as transformational as EPO. It explains why we're seeing same speeds up mountains, without it looking as crazy as it did when Lance was chasing Pantani et al.

All this time searching for the new cutting edge programme, maybe it's just about good old fashioned physique enhancement, straight out of the weights room. I think someone said on here earlier...if you want to know how to lose fat and build muscle, ask a bodybuilder. They've got this down to a fine art.

It all seems to fit. Good old salbutamol, I'm guessing they had the protocols for masking this from the testers down to a tee. Until the one day somebody did something a little bit different.....

I still think something doesn't add up. Why the leaked A & B result before a final decision by the UCI. This very rarely happens with B2 cases now. Certainly much less in last 5 years anyway. We rarely hear the result before a decision now for most riders? Also the rapid half life of Salbutomol means Froome was racing close to the levels posing a serious risk to health and cardiac arrest at the start of the stage assuming he was chaperoned to anti-doping after the stage for doping control. Perhaps there's a way to take 3-4000 with something else without risk of cardiac arrest, but i've not read that anywhere. 4-5 puffs on my wifes salbutomol is like you just drank 10 coffees in row. There's no way I would be riding a bike, my heart was already jittery and that's only at a 500 level.

Why was the Froome case leaked?

Well, the leak happened a few days after Cookson, who knew about the Froome case, said Team Sky's reputation should be restored

Not difficult to imagine that someone in the new regime at the UCI might have taken exception to that...

It got leaked 3 months after Lappartient's victory.

Irrelevant to the point I was making. Deflection tactic fail

The Froome leak happened a few days after Cookson (who knew about the Froome AAF) said Sky's reputation should be restored

Cookson brazen's BS was the motive for someone in Lappartient's new regime to leak the Froome story. Those few days the timeline for the journos to line their stories up. Simples

I wonder if Dave is sending Brian a Christmas card this year...

Cookson knew about the A sample. The B sample results he did not, because they came back after Lappartient's victory. Then Lappartient sat on it for 3 months, we assume because Froome provided medical documents etc, but someone at UCI leaked the AAF before UCI has made a decision based on those documents etc, which is not how these things are usually dealt with today. They are meant to be complying with anti-doping protocol, not going back to how things were leaked traditionally before CADF.
A big part of Froomes defence is now going to be UCI leaked AAF results before they made a final decision I would imagine. UCI are not even adhering to the very protocol they said they would adhere to in such cases playing Cookson politics or not, they've screwed up from a legal defence that's for sure.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

He says if youre so ill, you need corticosteroids, you shouldn't be allows to compete. Asthma is not an illness, it's a disease and you treat it before you get I'll with it.

No he doesn't. This is what he says:

Where an athlete is so ill because of, say, severe asthma that it requires them to take a powerful drug with potential performance-enhancing properties, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete while that drug is active in their system.

He qualifies his comment saying that it applies to medication with potential performance-enhancing properties and he says they should not be allowed to compete while the drug is active. That is massively different from what you claim.

But all asthma sufferers will have corticosteroids in their system. That is its treatment to prevent you having an attack. Salbutomol to relieve an attack. Both are argued here to be performance enhancing.

If you could please like the part of the article where Collins specifically states all corticosteroids should be completely banned that'd be great.

I think the 'potential performance enhancing properties' covers all corticosteroids doesn't it? Are there Corticosteroids that do not have any? What's the measurement of what is not performance enhancing going to be?

So he doesn't then? And now you want to read even more into the interview and try and make determinations that likely weren't even discussed?

 

[gillan1969]

to the above but one

presumably they are...a leak is a leak...it not part of the process anyone is following

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

I agree, it's easy to diagnose EIA or not. The point is ,Collins is under the impression, if you are so Ill from asthma and need Corticosteroids,you shouldn't be competing and should take corticosteroids, get over your asthma like it's a broken leg and return to racing when well again. That is simply not how asthma is dealt with in the real world.You wake up fine, you take your corticosteroids to prevent a possible attack that day. You might go for weeks without any attack, EIA or not, but you still take your brown inhaler with steroids in it, or a pill or an injection in extreme cases and carry on with life as normal.

Again, please give a quote where he states this.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

I think the 'potential performance enhancing properties' covers all corticosteroids doesn't it? Are there Corticosteroids that do not have any? What's the measurement of what is not performance enhancing going to be?

So he doesn't then? And now you want to read even more into the interview and try and make determinations that likely weren't even discussed?

OK, that's fine then. Some substances with potential performance enhancing properties will be allowed, but not others lol! Doesn't sound like he's thought it through to me because that's exactly what we have at the moment!

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

I think the 'potential performance enhancing properties' covers all corticosteroids doesn't it? Are there Corticosteroids that do not have any? What's the measurement of what is not performance enhancing going to be?

So he doesn't then? And now you want to read even more into the interview and try and make determinations that likely weren't even discussed?

OK, that's fine then. Some substances with potential performance enhancing properties will be allowed, but not others lol! Doesn't sound like he's thought it through to me because that's exactly what we have at the moment!

Sounds like we've finally got to the point where we can agree.

 

[veji11]

Re:

I agree, it's easy to diagnose EIA or not. The point is ,Collins is under the impression, if you are so Ill from asthma and need Corticosteroids,you shouldn't be competing and should take corticosteroids, get over your asthma like it's a broken leg and return to racing when well again. That is simply not how asthma is dealt with in the real world.You wake up fine, you take your corticosteroids to prevent a possible attack that day. You might go for weeks without any attack, EIA or not, but you still take your brown inhaler with steroids in it, or a pill or an injection in extreme cases and carry on with life as normal.

Except that this makes it incompatible with professional endurance sports, because by allowing it you open the door to all sorts of possible abuse.

Basically we shouldn't think in a "healthy/sick/treatable" way in terms of athletes and professionnal sports, we should have more of an "organic label" approach, which is that basically athletes should be chemicals free when training or competing. If an athlete has to take medication for something, he needs to stop training or competing. Simple as that. no stigma attached to it, just plain old "sorry, doctor told me I have to take medication and take the day / weeks off from work".

If an athlete needs long term chemicals, he cannot be a pro anymore.

It sounds awfully extreme, but it is actually quite simple, sane and would work very well. I'd wager that performances would vary a lot more, many riders would see theirs decrease massively, but for the immense majority it wouldn't make them suddenly physically unfit to compete, just not as good. That's life.

 

[samhocking]

What he really means King Boonen, is the TUE framework should be abolished because it allows substances with potential performance enhancing properties to be used with authorisation.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

I agree, it's easy to diagnose EIA or not. The point is ,Collins is under the impression, if you are so Ill from asthma and need Corticosteroids,you shouldn't be competing and should take corticosteroids, get over your asthma like it's a broken leg and return to racing when well again. That is simply not how asthma is dealt with in the real world.You wake up fine, you take your corticosteroids to prevent a possible attack that day. You might go for weeks without any attack, EIA or not, but you still take your brown inhaler with steroids in it, or a pill or an injection in extreme cases and carry on with life as normal.

Except that this makes it incompatible with professional endurance sports, because by allowing it you open the door to all sorts of possible abuse.

Basically we shouldn't think in a "healthy/sick/treatable" way in terms of athletes and professionnal sports, we should have more of an "organic label" approach, which is that basically athletes should be chemicals free when training or competing. If an athlete has to take medication for something, he needs to stop training or competing. Simple as that. no stigma attached to it, just plain old "sorry, doctor told me I have to take medication and take the day / weeks off from work".

If an athlete needs long term chemicals, he cannot be a pro anymore.

It sounds awfully extreme, but it is actually quite simple, sane and would work very well. I'd wager that performances would vary a lot more, many riders would see theirs decrease massively, but for the immense majority it wouldn't make them suddenly physically unfit to compete, just not as good. That's life.

I think it's a big can of worms abolishing TUE. Biggest issue in cycling is illegal performance enhancement, not the number of TUE authorisations. Worrying about 15 TUEs across the whole of cycling last year just seems pointless. Would 15 less cyclists across every UCI cycling discipline having a TUE last year make any difference really? I think you just have to focus on perhaps making the TUE process viewable in realtime to the public. If you're so ill you need a TUE and you keep dominating races and the public knows that you have that TUE beforehand, it would at least allow perspective.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

What he really means King Boonen, is the TUE framework should be abolished because it allows substances with potential performance enhancing properties to be used with authorisation.

I don't know if he does. I think he's under the impression that we know exactly what can enhance performance, what can't and, if there is a therapeutic dose, how this correlates with performance enhancement. I'm not hugely against a refinement of the TUE system and possibly removing in-competition TUEs, but it would take more research than is currently funded.

 

[gillan1969]

we should perhaps move to a system where we see whats in a sample rather than what is not