Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1170 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
"we are talking about mistakenly taking one too many puffs of an asthma inhaler, "
Who is this guy? Author is deluded, and how can he be so careless as to write such stuff at this point

Anthony Tan
A self-confessed idiot savant, Anthony Tan has spent most of his adult life in and around professional road cycling. Just don't ask him about anything else. Follow @anthony_tan on Twitter.
Seems like the definition of idiot-savant is escaping him as well
Well, he seems to be half-right....
 
Re: Re:

GraftPunk said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
"we are talking about mistakenly taking one too many puffs of an asthma inhaler, "
Who is this guy? Author is deluded, and how can he be so careless as to write such stuff at this point

Anthony Tan
A self-confessed idiot savant, Anthony Tan has spent most of his adult life in and around professional road cycling. Just don't ask him about anything else. Follow @anthony_tan on Twitter.
Seems like the definition of idiot-savant is escaping him as well
Well, he seems to be half-right....
I’m not sure if Tan has ever even owned a bike, let alone raced one. His “analysis” is frequently rooted in fantasy, most people who follow him only do so for the laughs. He makes Liggett, Walsh, Fotheringham etc almost look competent.
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
rick james said:
Wiggo's Package said:
macbindle said:
I've not seen much in the way of Froome's defence, not that I've particularly been looking. Is this genuinely what Sky have put forward?
No
The clinic is taking it as fact
Is that so? Care to back that up?
Eh no, I don’t need to, I can say what I want and claim it as fact, it’s what happens in here
 
It seems like you are clutching at straws if you criticise Anthony Tan for writing an opinion piece - A very experienced journalist who has written for this very publication, Pro Cycling, currently writes for the SBS cycling central - Keep him off cycling podcasts as he can be very negative.
 
Re:

Irondan said:
Without wishing to offend, this blog piece is highly flawed. The fat-stripping goes on before the race, not during. It's a daily battle for tour riders to get enough food down them during a 3 week race to meet their calorific needs.

Froome's tests were clear throughout the race, up until the pozzy, so are we to believe that at the tail end of a GT Froome noticed he'd been putting on a bit of flab and decided to shed it?

I've still to see any convincing science regarding the PED effects of Salbutamol. Maybe there are some, but I'm of the belief that they are nothing compared to what else is on offer and being used.
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
Irondan said:
Without wishing to offend, this blog piece is highly flawed. The fat-stripping goes on before the race, not during. It's a daily battle for tour riders to get enough food down them during a 3 week race to meet their calorific needs.

Froome's tests were clear throughout the race, up until the pozzy, so are we to believe that at the tail end of a GT Froome noticed he'd been putting on a bit of flab and decided to shed it?

I've still to see any convincing science regarding the PED effects of Salbutamol. Maybe there are some, but I'm of the belief that they are nothing compared to what else is on offer and being used.
Excatly my thoughts.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
Irondan said:
Without wishing to offend, this blog piece is highly flawed. The fat-stripping goes on before the race, not during. It's a daily battle for tour riders to get enough food down them during a 3 week race to meet their calorific needs.

Froome's tests were clear throughout the race, up until the pozzy, so are we to believe that at the tail end of a GT Froome noticed he'd been putting on a bit of flab and decided to shed it?

I've still to see any convincing science regarding the PED effects of Salbutamol. Maybe there are some, but I'm of the belief that they are nothing compared to what else is on offer and being used.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10912897

RESULTS:
Peak expiratory flow increased from 601 +/- 67 L x min(-1) to 629 +/- 64 L x min(-1) after salbutamol (P < 0.05). Peak torque was higher after salbutamol than after placebo (4.4% for the knee extensors, 4.9% for the knee flexors) (P < 0.05). Mean endurance time increased from 3,039 +/- 1,031 s after placebo to 3,439 +/- 1,287 s after salbutamol (P = 0.19). When four subjects complaining about adverse side effects were excluded from the analysis, the increase in endurance time (729 +/- 1,007 s or 29%) was statistically significant (P <-0.05). Salbutamol did not affect VO2, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate, and plasma free fatty acid and glycerol concentration during exercise; plasma lactate and potassium concentrations were increased (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:
Under the conditions of this study, oral salbutamol appears to be an effective ergogenic aid in nonasthmatic individuals not experiencing adverse side effects.


I would also add that just because someone got popped one day and not a previous day, does not in any way mean they weren't taking a drug the previous days. It could, obviously. It also could simply mean they only got the dose wrong or took it late the day he was popped, and in all other cases got it right.

That said, taking a substance which appears to increase endurance time certainly would not be crazy after suffering a bit in the previous stages. Lord knows what else he may be taking.
 
Re:

Irondan said:
That's a joke, right? That's the worst piece I've seen on it yet. The 'smoking gun' is that Froome was thin and fast on the day of the test. Riders deliberately start races overweight and then use drugs to lose the weight during the race.

Are you totally uncritical of anything that supports your side of the argument, no matter how stupid?
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
Irondan said:
Without wishing to offend, this blog piece is highly flawed. The fat-stripping goes on before the race, not during. It's a daily battle for tour riders to get enough food down them during a 3 week race to meet their calorific needs.

Froome's tests were clear throughout the race, up until the pozzy, so are we to believe that at the tail end of a GT Froome noticed he'd been putting on a bit of flab and decided to shed it?

I've still to see any convincing science regarding the PED effects of Salbutamol. Maybe there are some, but I'm of the belief that they are nothing compared to what else is on offer and being used.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10912897

RESULTS:
Peak expiratory flow increased from 601 +/- 67 L x min(-1) to 629 +/- 64 L x min(-1) after salbutamol (P < 0.05). Peak torque was higher after salbutamol than after placebo (4.4% for the knee extensors, 4.9% for the knee flexors) (P < 0.05). Mean endurance time increased from 3,039 +/- 1,031 s after placebo to 3,439 +/- 1,287 s after salbutamol (P = 0.19). When four subjects complaining about adverse side effects were excluded from the analysis, the increase in endurance time (729 +/- 1,007 s or 29%) was statistically significant (P <-0.05). Salbutamol did not affect VO2, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate, and plasma free fatty acid and glycerol concentration during exercise; plasma lactate and potassium concentrations were increased (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:
Under the conditions of this study, oral salbutamol appears to be an effective ergogenic aid in nonasthmatic individuals not experiencing adverse side effects.


I would also add that just because someone got popped one day and not a previous day, does not in any way mean they weren't taking a drug the previous days. It could, obviously. It also could simply mean they only got the dose wrong or took it late the day he was popped, and in all other cases got it right.

That said, taking a substance which appears to increase endurance time certainly would not be crazy after suffering a bit in the previous stages. Lord knows what else he may be taking.
Were the subjects of the study pro endurance athletes? Have you tried to find studies with opposite results?
 
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
Were the subjects of the study pro endurance athletes? Have you tried to find studies with opposite results?
Whenever I see someone cite a single paper, I'm reminded of the graph below. It's a summary of all the studies into whether those foods promote or prevent cancer. Obviously anyone could pick a single study to 'prove' their point while ignoring others.

I believe that the consensus on salbutamol is that it does very little unless taken in large amounts for prolonged periods. (Hence why no TUEs are needed)

 
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
Irondan said:
Without wishing to offend, this blog piece is highly flawed. The fat-stripping goes on before the race, not during. It's a daily battle for tour riders to get enough food down them during a 3 week race to meet their calorific needs.

Froome's tests were clear throughout the race, up until the pozzy, so are we to believe that at the tail end of a GT Froome noticed he'd been putting on a bit of flab and decided to shed it?

I've still to see any convincing science regarding the PED effects of Salbutamol. Maybe there are some, but I'm of the belief that they are nothing compared to what else is on offer and being used.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10912897

RESULTS:
Peak expiratory flow increased from 601 +/- 67 L x min(-1) to 629 +/- 64 L x min(-1) after salbutamol (P < 0.05). Peak torque was higher after salbutamol than after placebo (4.4% for the knee extensors, 4.9% for the knee flexors) (P < 0.05). Mean endurance time increased from 3,039 +/- 1,031 s after placebo to 3,439 +/- 1,287 s after salbutamol (P = 0.19). When four subjects complaining about adverse side effects were excluded from the analysis, the increase in endurance time (729 +/- 1,007 s or 29%) was statistically significant (P <-0.05). Salbutamol did not affect VO2, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate, and plasma free fatty acid and glycerol concentration during exercise; plasma lactate and potassium concentrations were increased (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:
Under the conditions of this study, oral salbutamol appears to be an effective ergogenic aid in nonasthmatic individuals not experiencing adverse side effects.


I would also add that just because someone got popped one day and not a previous day, does not in any way mean they weren't taking a drug the previous days. It could, obviously. It also could simply mean they only got the dose wrong or took it late the day he was popped, and in all other cases got it right.

That said, taking a substance which appears to increase endurance time certainly would not be crazy after suffering a bit in the previous stages. Lord knows what else he may be taking.
Were the subjects of the study pro endurance athletes? Have you tried to find studies with opposite results?
I’m answering a question about science, not trying to prove the science. If you have more science to add I’m sure it would be interesting.
 
Jeez, we’ve discussed all this a long time ago on the salbutamol thread. Many studies have reported it can increase muscle strength/anaerobic power, relatively few studies have shown an effect on endurance. I and others pointed out very early in that thread that you wouldn’t need a weight loss drug during a GT—that this was a valid argument against the conclusion that Froome had intentionally been doping with it--but other metabolic effects suggest it might be used for recovery. And as always, whether a substance is used for PE effects depends not so much on what those effects are as the perception of the riders of what those effects are. Even if salbutamol’s PE effects are minor compared to other substances, you have to weigh that against the fact that they’re “free”, i.e., a rider can take it up to a certain amount with no consequences. Maybe salbutamol would be worth five seconds on a climb, whereas EPO/blood doping would be worth two minutes, but if you can get those five seconds with no possibility of a positive test, why wouldn't you take them? Marginal gains, right, isn't that the mind-set?

Wrt Parker’s chart of cancer effects, data like that don’t necessarily mean studies contradict each other, they may just reflect different conditions. What was taken as an indication of cancer? What other foods were taken with the one focused on? What was the age of the cohort, lifestyle factors, etc., etc. Obviously, demonstrating that some substance or treatment is a causal factor for cancer is far more difficult that demonstrating an effect on a physiological parameter that can be measured immediately.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS