• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1074 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Appears that we might never know what we don't know -
http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/ulissis-salbutamol-ruling-kept-secret-froomes-might_454257
Many have drawn comparisons between Froome and Ulissi. The Italian served a nine-month ban for high levels of Salbutamol. Both he and Froome tested for similar levels of Salbutamol — Ulissi with 1,920 ng/l to Froome’s 2,000. Both argue they suffer from asthma. So it’s natural to look at the Ulissi case to guess what might happen with Froome.

Efforts to parse documents for a comparison between the two cases have proven frustrating. Why? Because the Ulissi documents were never released.

No one in the public ever read those documents, however. Swiss Anti-Doping authorities confirmed to VeloNews that the agency does not publicly release documents involving disciplinary actions. A request to view the Ulissi documents was denied.

And just like Ulissi’s ruling, details surrounding Froome’s case might never be publicly revealed.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
Appears that we might never know what we don't know -
http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/ulissis-salbutamol-ruling-kept-secret-froomes-might_454257
Many have drawn comparisons between Froome and Ulissi. The Italian served a nine-month ban for high levels of Salbutamol. Both he and Froome tested for similar levels of Salbutamol — Ulissi with 1,920 ng/l to Froome’s 2,000. Both argue they suffer from asthma. So it’s natural to look at the Ulissi case to guess what might happen with Froome.

Efforts to parse documents for a comparison between the two cases have proven frustrating. Why? Because the Ulissi documents were never released.

No one in the public ever read those documents, however. Swiss Anti-Doping authorities confirmed to VeloNews that the agency does not publicly release documents involving disciplinary actions. A request to view the Ulissi documents was denied.

And just like Ulissi’s ruling, details surrounding Froome’s case might never be publicly revealed.

Proper thing ... you’d want, expect and deserve the same confidentiality if it were you. That the public knows all the details serves little purpose beyond a satisfied curiosity. Of course, curiosity is normal ... but accepting uncertainty can contribute to your good health.
 
Jan 6, 2017
30
0
0
Visit site
A few thoughts on the Froome case. It's very often "the topper" that gets people in trouble and its remarkable how often that topper comes from this group of drugs, Indurain, contador and now Froome. These beta 2's are obviously very important.

On Froome, it was a clever move from sky with the relaxing of the rule of Salbutamol, one has a) a powerful drug available for free use and 2) a condition to point to if you are popped. you can take Clen, but if one molecule is found you're FUBERED, with Salbutamol you have a quick clearing (1.6-5.5 hours) drug with a high bar, you can take quite a lot and ride a stage and the volume with me vastly reduced. Easy.

This of course is the where this pop gets interesting. How on earth do you get this wrong? I know there are a few theories doing the rounds, from echo positive to "metabolism". I'll address the last, first, a metabolic issue, this is a properly mad idea, Froome has taken salbutamol for much of his career, without issue, the results either side of the stage were in the 100s, stage 17 was in the thousands, so no. Just no.

Taking a ventolin for a tv interview - Then you're an absolute dumbass and you be banned on general principle.

Echo positive - I think this has historical credibility, but the dilution ratio and then half life make it unlikely, his blood would need to be 99% salbutamol when he took it, the night before.

My theory -

There's good evidence (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/55/7/595) that corticosteroids reduce the effects of beta 2s, I think that's what we are seeing, a dose of corticosteroids the night before which cause a reduction in the acute response to inhaled salbutamol. Which lead to overuse. Which lead to a positive test.

Vayerism... Out
 
Vayerism said:
A few thoughts on the Froome case. It's very often "the topper" that gets people in trouble and its remarkable how often that topper comes from this group of drugs, Indurain, contador and now Froome. These beta 2's are obviously very important.

On Froome, it was a clever move from sky with the relaxing of the rule of Salbutamol, one has a) a powerful drug available for free use and 2) a condition to point to if you are popped. you can take Clen, but if one molecule is found you're FUBERED, with Salbutamol you have a quick clearing (1.6-5.5 hours) drug with a high bar, you can take quite a lot and ride a stage and the volume with me vastly reduced. Easy.

This of course is the where this pop gets interesting. How on earth do you get this wrong? I know there are a few theories doing the rounds, from echo positive to "metabolism". I'll address the last, first, a metabolic issue, this is a properly mad idea, Froome has taken salbutamol for much of his career, without issue, the results either side of the stage were in the 100s, stage 17 was in the thousands, so no. Just no.

Taking a ventolin for a tv interview - Then you're an absolute dumbass and you be banned on general principle.

Echo positive - I think this has historical credibility, but the dilution ratio and then half life make it unlikely, his blood would need to be 99% salbutamol when he took it, the night before.

My theory -

There's good evidence (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/55/7/595) that corticosteroids reduce the effects of beta 2s, I think that's what we are seeing, a dose of corticosteroids the night before which cause a reduction in the acute response to inhaled salbutamol. Which lead to overuse. Which lead to a positive test.

Vayerism... Out

thoraxjnl_2000_July_55_7_595_F1_medium.gif

:confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Vayerism said:
A few thoughts on the Froome case. It's very often "the topper" that gets people in trouble and its remarkable how often that topper comes from this group of drugs, Indurain, contador and now Froome. These beta 2's are obviously very important.

On Froome, it was a clever move from sky with the relaxing of the rule of Salbutamol, one has a) a powerful drug available for free use and 2) a condition to point to if you are popped. you can take Clen, but if one molecule is found you're FUBERED, with Salbutamol you have a quick clearing (1.6-5.5 hours) drug with a high bar, you can take quite a lot and ride a stage and the volume with me vastly reduced. Easy.

This of course is the where this pop gets interesting. How on earth do you get this wrong? I know there are a few theories doing the rounds, from echo positive to "metabolism". I'll address the last, first, a metabolic issue, this is a properly mad idea, Froome has taken salbutamol for much of his career, without issue, the results either side of the stage were in the 100s, stage 17 was in the thousands, so no. Just no.

Taking a ventolin for a tv interview - Then you're an absolute dumbass and you be banned on general principle.

Echo positive - I think this has historical credibility, but the dilution ratio and then half life make it unlikely, his blood would need to be 99% salbutamol when he took it, the night before.

My theory -

There's good evidence (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/55/7/595) that corticosteroids reduce the effects of beta 2s, I think that's what we are seeing, a dose of corticosteroids the night before which cause a reduction in the acute response to inhaled salbutamol. Which lead to overuse. Which lead to a positive test.

Vayerism... Out

Whether your theory is right -- some kind of adverse reaction with other substances, sounds plausible to me -- the question you post is at the heart of the case -- and also why it is frustrating that Ulissi documents aren't available. Surely there's answer there, given that Sal levels were similar. I agree that what we might be seeing is the "topper," as I doubt that Salbutamol is enough to build a doping regime around.
 
Vayerism said:
A few thoughts on the Froome case. It's very often "the topper" that gets people in trouble and its remarkable how often that topper comes from this group of drugs, Indurain, contador and now Froome. These beta 2's are obviously very important.

On Froome, it was a clever move from sky with the relaxing of the rule of Salbutamol, one has a) a powerful drug available for free use and 2) a condition to point to if you are popped. you can take Clen, but if one molecule is found you're FUBERED, with Salbutamol you have a quick clearing (1.6-5.5 hours) drug with a high bar, you can take quite a lot and ride a stage and the volume with me vastly reduced. Easy.

This of course is the where this pop gets interesting. How on earth do you get this wrong? I know there are a few theories doing the rounds, from echo positive to "metabolism". I'll address the last, first, a metabolic issue, this is a properly mad idea, Froome has taken salbutamol for much of his career, without issue, the results either side of the stage were in the 100s, stage 17 was in the thousands, so no. Just no.

Taking a ventolin for a tv interview - Then you're an absolute dumbass and you be banned on general principle.

Echo positive - I think this has historical credibility, but the dilution ratio and then half life make it unlikely, his blood would need to be 99% salbutamol when he took it, the night before.

My theory -

There's good evidence (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/55/7/595) that corticosteroids reduce the effects of beta 2s, I think that's what we are seeing, a dose of corticosteroids the night before which cause a reduction in the acute response to inhaled salbutamol. Which lead to overuse. Which lead to a positive test.

Vayerism... Out

I think you are reading that paper wrong.
 
Jan 6, 2017
30
0
0
Visit site
"In a recent study by Hancoxet al 50 clear evidence of tolerance to the bronchodilator action of inhaled β agonist was seen in 34 asthmatic patients following six weeks treatment with regular inhaled terbutaline in a dose of 1 mg four times daily. After inducing bronchoconstriction with methacholine, the acute response to sequential doses of inhaled salbutamol was significantly reduced compared with placebo"

KB - I don't think I am, corticosteroids reduced the response to inhaled salbutamol, they had to give a more powerful corticosteroid to overcome this impact

"but the addition of regular budesonide to terbutaline in a dose of 400 μg twice daily did not prevent this effect. In one in vitro study some protection against the development of tolerance was achieved with the administration of dexamethasone,15 which is arguably a more potent corticosteroid"

I think consistent use of corticosteroids inhibits the response to Salbuamol.

I maintain an internal logic if nothing else ;)
 
Vayerism said:
"In a recent study by Hancoxet al 50 clear evidence of tolerance to the bronchodilator action of inhaled β agonist was seen in 34 asthmatic patients following six weeks treatment with regular inhaled terbutaline in a dose of 1 mg four times daily. After inducing bronchoconstriction with methacholine, the acute response to sequential doses of inhaled salbutamol was significantly reduced compared with placebo"

KB - I don't think I am, corticosteroids reduced the response to inhaled salbutamol, they had to give a more powerful corticosteroid to overcome this impact

Terbutaline isn't a corticosteroid, it's in the same class of drugs as Salbutamol. If you read the first part of the paper you'll see they describe a likely pathway to loss of responsiveness through uncoupling of beta receptors and G-proteins. Corticosteroids reverse this. Corticosteroids also increase the rate of gene transcription that increases the number of b receptors synthesised.

Terbutaline is, I believe, longer acting than salbutamol as it is less likely to be metabolised by COMT, which would mean it likely has a stronger binding affinity and is more likely to desensitise the beta receptor it binds to. The part quoted above indicates this. Treatment with Terbutaline reduces Salbutamol effectiveness as it's more likely to cause desensitisation.

"but the addition of regular budesonide to terbutaline in a dose of 400 μg twice daily did not prevent this effect. In one in vitro study some protection against the development of tolerance was achieved with the administration of dexamethasone,15 which is arguably a more potent corticosteroid"

I think consistent use of corticosteroids inhibits the response to Salbuamol.

I maintain an internal logic if nothing else ;)

this is saying that Budesonide (which is a corticosteroid) isn't strong enough to reverse the effects of Terbutaline, a stronger corticosteroid was required.
 
Jan 6, 2017
30
0
0
Visit site
So basically he'd need to be on another stronger beta 2, to limit the impact of sal, which would be alleviated by a strong corticosteroid.

Maybe, but less sexy
 
Jan 6, 2017
30
0
0
Visit site
"The results suggest that a β agonist facilitates the actions of inhaled corticosteroids, perhaps simply by improving airway drug deposition or, alternatively, by enhancing the anti-inflammatory effects of inhaled corticosteroids at a subcellular level.26"

That's interesting
 
Jan 6, 2017
30
0
0
Visit site
also interesting

Although the design of most of these studies may not permit final conclusions to be drawn, their results suggest that the benefits of long acting β agonists are likely to be greatest among patients already taking inhaled corticosteroids, thus raising the possibility that a positive interaction may be occurring. This seems more plausible than that long acting β agonists have intrinsic anti-inflammatory effects

On Corticosteroids and beta 2's
 
Vayerism said:
So basically he'd need to be on another stronger beta 2, to limit the impact of sal, which would be alleviated by a strong corticosteroid.

Maybe, but less sexy

This would be very disease/treatment dependent. The body produces corticosteroids (cortisol being the one people will recognise and, I believe, the route of the class name) that will do the same job as exogenous corticosteroids. This is what happens in healthy individuals. Mild asthma, or asthma that only occurs under specific, rare conditions, that can be treated with the occasional use of salbutamol might not need exogenous corticos to reverse Salbutmaol tolerance (and this tolerance will be person specific anyway). More severe asthma may require corticos due to increased use of Salbutamol or similar or other similar products. This is a fairly valid explanation for why Fancy Bears found a good few cortico TUEs (I'm not saying it's the real reason, just a very useful cover if one were needed). It's also probably a contributory factor as to why corticosteroids are only banned in competition (along with their other uses).

This is where the problems with the TUE system come in and highlight how easy it could be to game the system. It's a really difficult area to control. A move to externally funded doctors from a central pool would massively help, I've suggested that before here. But there would nee to be a will.

Vayerism said:
"The results suggest that a β agonist facilitates the actions of inhaled corticosteroids, perhaps simply by improving airway drug deposition or, alternatively, by enhancing the anti-inflammatory effects of inhaled corticosteroids at a subcellular <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">level.26</span>"

That's interesting

Vayerism said:
also interesting

Although the design of most of these studies may not permit final conclusions to be drawn, their results suggest that the benefits of long acting β agonists are likely to be greatest among patients already taking inhaled corticosteroids, thus raising the possibility that a positive interaction may be occurring. This seems more plausible than that long acting β agonists have intrinsic anti-inflammatory effects

On Corticosteroids and beta 2's

Both of those are definitely interesting. Of course, this is in relation to Salbutamol etc. as a treatment for asthma, but I think it would be reasonable to think that it could extend to the possible thermogenic effects of these drugs.
 
I don’t see that the details of Ulissi’s case are that important. The panel probably treated his arguments the same as CAS treated Petacchi’s arguments. I don’t see any important differences in their cases. His lawyer has actually said quite a bit about the case.

In any case, even all the details of the Ulissi case wouldn’t be nearly as helpful as riders like Ulissi, Petacchi and Piepoli just coming clean. They probably know exactly what happened, and why, but aren’t going to help by being honest.
 
Tim Wellens speaks out about the puffs and the grey zone:

https://www.rtbf.be/sport/cyclisme/detail_tim-wellens-anti-puff-anti-langue-de-bois-anti-omerta?id=9806517

It's an interesting interview in French, to be noted he is anti-puff and anti-TUE. He abandoned TdF refusing TUE's.

"If the public would know how many riders are on the puff"

"As a pro rider, I do a lot of tests in the hospital, I sometimes feel some discomfort in the bronchi, so I learned that with a puff I could increase my breathing capacity by 7 or 8%! The doctors told me that I could use a puff, without a certificate, but I'm against puffs, I do not want to improve my breathing by 7% that way, and I think that when we starts using puffs, after we do not know how to live without, I refuse to be dependent on this kind of things."

"When I was a beginner, five of my seven teammates had a puff! I can accept that a person needs a puff but not five out of seven."

"I would like it to be white or black and not gray. We all know that a product like cortisone - which is in the gray zone - causes a lot of benefits in terms of physical benefits. When riders use it, it's obviously annoying. It's called ... cheating! Sometimes, because we are sick, we have no choice, we must use it. But we can still decide to stop (riding) "
 
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
What is your take on the body-language and facial expressions in the Froome BBC interview from December?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42344583

If it were me, and if I had a good explanation for the drugs, I would come out on the public media stage much more animated and aggressive

Froome turning red-in-the-face immediately after saying "It's not a positive test", some stammering, vague hesitation on his answer about whether he has medical records...
Given that Froome had months to think about such an eventuality, I felt it's a pretty weak performance in the interview

It's weak alright, caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
What is your take on the body-language and facial expressions in the Froome BBC interview from December?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42344583

If it were me, and if I had a good explanation for the drugs, I would come out on the public media stage much more animated and aggressive

Froome turning red-in-the-face immediately after saying "It's not a positive test", some stammering, vague hesitation on his answer about whether he has medical records...
Given that Froome had months to think about such an eventuality, I felt it's a pretty weak performance in the interview

It's weak alright, caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Similar to when he was caught with the TUE at Romandie & the inhaler at the Dauphine, he falls apart and starts overcompensating on the offensive.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Rollthedice said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
What is your take on the body-language and facial expressions in the Froome BBC interview from December?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42344583

If it were me, and if I had a good explanation for the drugs, I would come out on the public media stage much more animated and aggressive

Froome turning red-in-the-face immediately after saying "It's not a positive test", some stammering, vague hesitation on his answer about whether he has medical records...
Given that Froome had months to think about such an eventuality, I felt it's a pretty weak performance in the interview

It's weak alright, caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Similar to when he was caught with the TUE at Romandie & the inhaler at the Dauphine, he falls apart and starts overcompensating on the offensive.[/quote]

To be fair, he's always been pretty weak when it comes to facing the media.

He's no Lance Armstrong when it comes to attacking the difficult questions and those who ask the questions.

I've often thought that's part of the tactics, to make himself look as different to Lance as he possibly can personality wise
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
thehog said:
Rollthedice said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
What is your take on the body-language and facial expressions in the Froome BBC interview from December?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42344583

If it were me, and if I had a good explanation for the drugs, I would come out on the public media stage much more animated and aggressive

Froome turning red-in-the-face immediately after saying "It's not a positive test", some stammering, vague hesitation on his answer about whether he has medical records...
Given that Froome had months to think about such an eventuality, I felt it's a pretty weak performance in the interview

It's weak alright, caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Similar to when he was caught with the TUE at Romandie & the inhaler at the Dauphine, he falls apart and starts overcompensating on the offensive.

To be fair, he's always been pretty weak when it comes to facing the media.

He's no Lance Armstrong when it comes to attacking the difficult questions and those who ask the questions.

I've often thought that's part of the tactics, to make himself look as different to Lance as he possibly can personality wise[/quote]

I'd say it's pretty obvious that is his personality, i.e. somewhat introverted.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
Rollthedice said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
What is your take on the body-language and facial expressions in the Froome BBC interview from December?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42344583

If it were me, and if I had a good explanation for the drugs, I would come out on the public media stage much more animated and aggressive

Froome turning red-in-the-face immediately after saying "It's not a positive test", some stammering, vague hesitation on his answer about whether he has medical records...
Given that Froome had months to think about such an eventuality, I felt it's a pretty weak performance in the interview

It's weak alright, caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Similar to when he was caught with the TUE at Romandie & the inhaler at the Dauphine, he falls apart and starts overcompensating on the offensive.

To be fair, he's always been pretty weak when it comes to facing the media.

He's no Lance Armstrong when it comes to attacking the difficult questions and those who ask the questions.

I've often thought that's part of the tactics, to make himself look as different to Lance as he possibly can personality wise

I'd say it's pretty obvious that is his personality, i.e. somewhat introverted.[/quote]

Froom'e acting skills don't even get close to Armstrong's Shakespearean performances. It's a very slippery slope trying to judge guilt from body language and interviews as previous performances by many have shown. Froome's image may not be a manufactured one but that doesn't mean he is telling the truth either.
 
https://daro.qub.ac.uk/team-sky-vuelta-2017
New research by Queen’s University Belfast, which features cross-training, a cycle of continuing improvement and a well-balanced Mediterranean diet, hopes to go some way in helping Team Sky make history at this year’s Vuelta a España.

Dr Mark Tully, researcher and Senior Lecturer at Queen’s added: “The infographic summarises the key information that needs to be at the forefront of the cyclist’s minds.

“Having this displayed on the tour bus for example, with reminders such as taking a glass of milk and a well-balanced meal immediately after their ride is a simple but effective measure that can go a long way in helping to keep athletes at the top of their game.”

Milk and a well-balanced Mediterranean diet - there you go. Forget all that doping talk. :D

If you too want to ride like Sky https://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/files/133684099/170016_QUB_Infographic_for_BJSM_V4.pdf
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Re:

Robert5091 said:
https://daro.qub.ac.uk/team-sky-vuelta-2017
New research by Queen’s University Belfast, which features cross-training, a cycle of continuing improvement and a well-balanced Mediterranean diet, hopes to go some way in helping Team Sky make history at this year’s Vuelta a España.

Dr Mark Tully, researcher and Senior Lecturer at Queen’s added: “The infographic summarises the key information that needs to be at the forefront of the cyclist’s minds.

“Having this displayed on the tour bus for example, with reminders such as taking a glass of milk and a well-balanced meal immediately after their ride is a simple but effective measure that can go a long way in helping to keep athletes at the top of their game.”

Milk and a well-balanced Mediterranean diet - there you go. Forget all that doping talk. :D

If you too want to ride like Sky https://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/files/133684099/170016_QUB_Infographic_for_BJSM_V4.pdf

There should be a cover charge to the Team Sky comedy club.
 
Mar 9, 2013
572
0
0
Visit site
Pretty interesting and enlightening comments. In an interview on this site. By Katie Compton. If you have followed her career. She has been an asthmatic. And has had many big races where she had sub par results due to it. She is arguably the greatest women CX rider ever. Definitely in the USA.

Really worth a read. Sheds a lot of light on what a TRUE asthmatic deals with as a PRO Rider.
IMHO
 

TRENDING THREADS