Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[macbindle]

If you cant detail what the "stuff we don't know" is (which of course you cant) , then you can't cite it as evidence, or claim that it strengthens your case. It doesn't. It weakens it.

There probably is 'other stuff', in fact I'd actually bet my house on it, but that isnt the point.

 

[Scarponi]

Will we ever see on SUCH A CONSISTENT SCALE a rider who can be dropped with anywhere between 5-20 cyclists to go on a mountain stage yet consistently finish between 1st and 5th and maybe a rare 10th (if breakaway). I never found his outright displays of strength weird just because what we had seen in the past with armstrong, hearas, pantani and contador but his Veulta and smaller stage race yo-yo exploits will always be the weirdest part of his dominnance and likely doping experince in my opinion. No one else has shown anything close to this outside of rare one off experiences in grand tours yet Froome did it over 10 times, i just find it an extremely weird thing never to be replicated.

 

[Merckx index]

Froome wouldn't technically need a TUE if the amount he was inhaling wouldn't risk taking him over 1000 ng/ml in his urine. AFAIK 1000 ng/ml threshold has never been omitted from the WADA Code, only the requirement for a TUE has been added or removed.

Sam, the WADA rules in 2009 state pretty clearly that a TUE is required:

Inhaled formoterol, salbutamol, salmeterol and terbutaline require a Therapeutic Use Exemption in accordance with the new International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_Summary_of_Modifications_2009_EN.pdf

The following passage does state that a urine level of more than 1000 will be taken as an AAF, but given the preceding passage, the logical interpretation of this is that even if you have a TUE, it will not save you from a high level, unless you can prove with a pharmacokinetic study that this resulted from a legal dose. If you don't have a TUE, any level will be an AAF, and you will get flagged following a test, whereas if you have an AAF, any test < 1000 will result in no case.

My interpretation is confirmed in a review article on salbutamol and WADA:

Due to concerns over unnecessary β-2 agonist use in elite sport [20], the prohibited list was updated in 2009 resulting in all forms of β-2 agonists prohibited without an authorised TUE [21]. Since this point, athletes have been required to provide comprehensive medical history with supporting objective evidence of asthma via bronchodilator reversibility or bronchoprovocation challenge testing to obtain a TUE [22]

Anti-doping Policy, Therapeutic Use Exemption and Medication Use in Athletes with Asthma: A Narrative Review and Critical Appraisal of Current Regulations - PubMed

Asthma is prevalent in athletes and when untreated can impact both respiratory health and sports performance. Pharmacological inhaler therapy currently forms the mainstay of treatment; however, for elite athletes competing under the constraints of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code), a number of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There seem to be just three possibilities:

1. Froome never took salbutamol in 2009, and if he didn't then, i would be suspicious that he ever took it until the 2011 Vuelta, or even beginning later. As i noted earlier, oral salbutamol could have helped with that dramatic weight loss. He may or may not have had asthma from a very early age, I'm not sure anyone has actually confirmed that (and again, why would he not mention it in his book?), but even if he did, he might not have had it to a degree that required an inhaler when he began his racing career. He has said in interviews that some of his asthma is exercise-induced. Maybe in 2009 that wasn't a problem, and only became so later. But that doesn't sound very likely.
2. He did have a TUE in 2009, but Fancy Bear couldn't find the document. I can't remember what i posted on this earlier, but I believe they did find a TUE for another Barlo rider at that time, so this possibility doesn't seem very likely. Again, Froome himself never said he had a TUE in 2009; on the contrary, his statements explicitly rule this out.
3. Froome took salbutamol in 2009, without a TUE, IOW , against the rules. If that was the case, he certainly wouldn't have inhaled during a race, that would have been suicide. So if he had needed it to control asthma, there would be no reason not to have a TUE. He could have been taking it orally, in doses in which he realized a TUE wouldn't help him if he got caught. When TUEs were discontinued in 2010, and riders could use salbutamol within limits, he may have felt he could stay within those limits. But unauthorized use in 2009 seems unlikely. Even if he was taking doses that would have put him over the limit, he would have nothing to lose by having a TUE.

The bottom line is that either Froome did not have a significant problem with asthma in 2009--in contrast to his story about having it from childhood on--or he lied (or suffered from a very poor memory) when he said he had no TUEs prior to 2013, or he was using salbutamol against the rules in 2009. People can try to argue around these possibilities, but anyone ought to be able to see that Froome's continued lack of transparency is of course going to make lots of people extremely suspicious. It shouldn't even be necessary to have a discussion like this. If Froome had a TUE in 2009, why not produce it? If he didn't, why doesn't he provide an explanation for why not?

The degree to which Froome is given a pass by the cycling media staggers me. It's not just the TUE issue. He has never released his power data prior to 2011, except for that FAX that mysteriously turned up in the course of the 2013 study. Why not? After his salbutamol case was dismissed just prior to the TDF in 2018, he promised that all the details of the decision would be published. they never were. Why not? I'm not even going to get into the schisto story, which has been thoroughly criticized here--all the inconsistencies, the results even experts in the area can't explain, and on and on and on.

 

[CTQ]

Sam, the WADA rules in 2009 state pretty clearly that a TUE is required:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_Summary_of_Modifications_2009_EN.pdf

The following passage does state that a urine level of more than 1000 will be taken as an AAF, but given the preceding passage, the logical interpretation of this is that even if you have a TUE, it will not save you from a high level, unless you can prove with a pharmacokinetic study that this resulted from a legal dose. If you don't have a TUE, any level will be an AAF, and you will get flagged following a test, whereas if you have an AAF, any test < 1000 will result in no case.

My interpretation is confirmed in a review article on salbutamol and WADA:

Anti-doping Policy, Therapeutic Use Exemption and Medication Use in Athletes with Asthma: A Narrative Review and Critical Appraisal of Current Regulations - PubMed

Asthma is prevalent in athletes and when untreated can impact both respiratory health and sports performance. Pharmacological inhaler therapy currently forms the mainstay of treatment; however, for elite athletes competing under the constraints of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code), a number of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There seem to be just three possibilities:

1. Froome never took salbutamol in 2009, and if he didn't then, i would be suspicious that he ever took it until the 2011 Vuelta, or even beginning later. As i noted earlier, oral salbutamol could have helped with that dramatic weight loss. He may or may not have had asthma from a very early age, I'm not sure anyone has actually confirmed that (and again, why would he not mention it in his book?), but even if he did, he might not have had it to a degree that required an inhaler when he began his racing career. He has said in interviews that some of his asthma is exercise-induced. Maybe in 2009 that wasn't a problem, and only became so later. But that doesn't sound very likely.
2. He did have a TUE in 2009, but Fancy Bear couldn't find the document. I can't remember what i posted on this earlier, but I believe they did find a TUE for another Barlo rider at that time, so this possibility doesn't seem very likely. Again, Froome himself never said he had a TUE in 2009; on the contrary, his statements explicitly rule this out.
3. Froome took salbutamol in 2009, without a TUE, IOW , against the rules. If that was the case, he certainly wouldn't have inhaled during a race, that would have been suicide. So if he had needed it to control asthma, there would be no reason not to have a TUE. He could have been taking it orally, in doses in which he realized a TUE wouldn't help him if he got caught. When TUEs were discontinued in 2010, and riders could use salbutamol within limits, he may have felt he could stay within those limits. But unauthorized use in 2009 seems unlikely. Even if he was taking doses that would have put him over the limit, he would have nothing to lose by having a TUE.

The bottom line is that either Froome did not have a significant problem with asthma in 2009--in contrast to his story about having it from childhood on--or he lied (or suffered from a very poor memory) when he said he had no TUEs prior to 2013, or he was using salbutamol against the rules in 2009. People can try to argue around these possibilities, but anyone ought to be able to see that Froome's continued lack of transparency is of course going to make lots of people extremely suspicious. It shouldn't even be necessary to have a discussion like this. If Froome had a TUE in 2009, why not produce it? If he didn't, why doesn't he provide an explanation for why not?

The degree to which Froome is given a pass by the cycling media staggers me. It's not just the TUE issue. He has never released his power data prior to 2011, except for that FAX that mysteriously turned up in the course of the 2013 study. Why not? After his salbutamol case was dismissed just prior to the TDF in 2018, he promised that all the details of the decision would be published. they never were. Why not? I'm not even going to get into the schisto story, which has been thoroughly criticized here--all the inconsistencies, the results even experts in the area can't explain, and on and on and on.

fluticasone: in 2009, wouldn't he just have to complete the declaration of use ?

 

[Merckx index]

fluticasone: in 2009, wouldn't he just have to complete the declaration of use ?

So he was using fluticasone all his life, and just switched to salbutamol in 2010? Or had been using salbutamol, but switched to fluti in 2009? If fluti worked so well, why did he switch to salbutamol?

Fluti is supposed to help prevent asthma attacks, but won't be sufficient if the attack starts. So it seems pretty unlikely to me that someone with asthma would be able to get by an entire year on just fluti. Someone with asthma can weigh in here, but it seems to me that regardless of how much fluti would help, you would need the option to take salbutamol, or you would be helpless if you had an attack.

i just don't understand why a lifelong asthmatic would not get a TUE if it were required. There's nothing to lose.

 

[Parker]

He did have a TUE in 2009, but Fancy Bear couldn't find the document. I can't remember what i posted on this earlier, but I believe they did find a TUE for another Barlo rider at that time, so this possibility doesn't seem very likely. Again, Froome himself never said he had a TUE in 2009; on the contrary, his statements explicitly rule this out.

Fancy Bear hacked the Adams system, which wasn't universally used at the time. Would a pro conti rider be on Adams in 2009. Probably not. A team doctor would have just sent the paper work to the UCI and got a conformation e-mail. I knew someone from a different sport who had to send his whereabouts in around that time. He had to fax it to the authorities.

The Barloworld rider who was on the Adams system was Steve Cummings who had been on the GB track program, who were most likely early Adams users.

Do ever step back and read your stuff and see desperate it is? A doping programme based on ventolin inhalers? Damning evidence that brave heroic Putin hackers couldn't find some paperwork. There are Republican lawyers in the US right now, with more credible arguments than your straw clutching.

 

[Merckx index]

Do ever step back and read your stuff and see desperate it is?

I'd say that comment should be directed at yourself. Froome himself is on record as denying he ever had a TUE before 2013. FB couldn't find it. Yet you work hard to explain how FB might not have found it, still ignoring Froome's own statements.

To repeat: we shouldn't even be having this discussion. It would be the easiest thing in the world for Froome to put the issue to rest, by furnishing the TUE, and saying that he forgot about it. Or claiming he didn't need it, or whatever. It would be a lot easier than submitting to a lab test of his power, which I assume you think he never should have done, and that anyone who called for it was desperate.

A generational talent, in an age where there is widespread suspicion that any elite rider is clean, and he refuses to provide very simple acts of transparency. Because he knows there are a lot of fans like you out there who think if he hasn't been slam-dunk nailed, he must be innocent. People who throw a hissy fit when others don't accept questionable stories.

A doping programme based on ventolin inhalers?

Obviously, you didn't read any of my other posts, or just skimmed, found a buzz word that annoyed you, and went on from there. i already emphasized that this wouldn't have been enough. Just as Floyd didn't use only testosterone, or Contador only clenbuterol. But again, Froome's own words point to weight loss as a major factor.

 

[Parker]

I'd say that comment should be directed at yourself. Froome himself is on record as denying he ever had a TUE before 2013. FB couldn't find it. Yet you work hard to explain how FB might not have found it, still ignoring Froome's own statements.

To repeat: we shouldn't even be having this discussion. It would be the easiest thing in the world for Froome to put the issue to rest, by furnishing the TUE, and saying that he forgot about it. Or claiming he didn't need it, or whatever. It would be a lot easier than submitting to a lab test of his power, which I assume you think he never should have done, and that anyone who called for it was desperate.

A generational talent, in an age where there is widespread suspicion that any elite rider is clean, and he refuses to provide very simple acts of transparency. Because he knows there are a lot of fans like you out there who think if he hasn't been slam-dunk nailed, he must be innocent. People who throw a hissy fit when others don't accept questionable stories.

You seem to think that getting a TUE is some sort of career defining event. It's not. It's a minor piece of paperwork which the doctor could file without Froome even knowing. Remember Simon Yates didn't seem to know anything about his TUE status in 2016 as it was the doctor's job. Froome possibly didn't even know what a TUE was in 2008.

What exactly is your point anyway? That he's faking asthma to use an inhaler. He is perfectly aloud to use it, asthma or no asthma.

No he has been 'slam dunked nailed', but after ten years I'd expect something substantial. But you just cling to the Fancy Bears not finding a TUE and the results sheet to the Tour of Poland

You demand transparency, but the only ones interested are those who don't actually want it. They just want to twist it their own prejudices. Look at the WCC fax which was allegedly photoshopped from a different version. Although the only difference was a hole punch. It was madness.

You don't want transparency. If you were presented with a button which if pressed revealed to the world whether Froome had doped would you press it? I've asked this on this forum before and the answer was almost universally to dispute the credibility of this made up button. And I understand this. Who would want their decade long obsession exposed as wrong?

 

[King Boonen]

You seem to think that getting a TUE is some sort of career defining event. It's not. It's a minor piece of paperwork which the doctor could file without Froome even knowing. Remember Simon Yates didn't seem to know anything about his TUE status in 2016 as it was the doctor's job. Froome possibly didn't even know what a TUE was in 2008.

What exactly is your point anyway? That he's faking asthma to use an inhaler. He is perfectly aloud to use it, asthma or no asthma.

No he has been 'slam dunked nailed', but after ten years I'd expect something substantial. But you just cling to the Fancy Bears not finding a TUE and the results sheet to the Tour of Poland

You demand transparency, but the only ones interested are those who don't actually want it. They just want to twist it their own prejudices. Look at the WCC fax which was allegedly photoshopped from a different version. Although the only difference was a hole punch. It was madness.

You don't want transparency. If you were presented with a button which if pressed revealed to the world whether Froome had doped would you press it? I've asked this on this forum before and the answer was almost universally to dispute the credibility of this made up button. And I understand this. Who would want their decade long obsession exposed as wrong?

Athletes have to sign TUE application forms...

 

[Parker]

Athletes have to sign TUE application forms...

Ok. So the doctor asks him to sign a form for his inhaler. This is not a major event. You wouldn't remember it several years later

 

[King Boonen]

Ok. So the doctor asks him to sign a form for his inhaler. This is not a major event. You wouldn't remember it several years later

flippantly referring to it as a "form for his inhaler" does any discussion a disservice. The section an athlete is required to sign allows for the release of personal medical data to the relevant bodies and release of the decision regarding the TUE. The athlete is supposed to fill out the majority of the form, including details on previous TUEs and submit it. The athlete is also supposed to keep a copy of the form for their records.

Asthma TUEs require a specific set of diagnostic tests. Treatment monitoring is required and any incidents that require intervention with prohibited substances (like prednisolone) need to be documented. Retroactive TUEs would require an athlete signature and would be linked to their diagnosis of asthma. Renewal of a TUE would also require specific testing and an athletes signature I believe. I'm pretty certain the guidelines haven't changed much over the years but my documentation doesn't go back that far.

It's perfectly possible that Froome didn't mention it before because he thought it wasn't important. I find it very hard to believe that he would forget about it, particularly because he should have included it on the forms submitted in 2013 and 2014 and he should have a copy of it.

 

[Parker]

flippantly referring to it as a "form for his inhaler" does any discussion a disservice. The section an athlete is required to sign allows for the release of personal medical data to the relevant bodies and release of the decision regarding the TUE. The athlete is supposed to fill out the majority of the form, including details on previous TUEs and submit it. The athlete is also supposed to keep a copy of the form for their records.

Asthma TUEs require a specific set of diagnostic tests. Treatment monitoring is required and any incidents that require intervention with prohibited substances (like prednisolone) need to be documented. Retroactive TUEs would require an athlete signature and would be linked to their diagnosis of asthma. Renewal of a TUE would also require specific testing and an athletes signature I believe. I'm pretty certain the guidelines haven't changed much over the years but my documentation doesn't go back that far.

It's perfectly possible that Froome didn't mention it before because he thought it wasn't important. I find it very hard to believe that he would forget about it, particularly because he should have included it on the forms submitted in 2013 and 2014 and he should have a copy of it.

It was 2008/09. A doctor's note with a medical history would have been enough. It's funny how clinic posters have long gone on about how easy it is to abuse TUEs, especially back then, but when it's Froome he must have gone through a thorough demanding examination, and a barrage of tests just to use a ventolin. You can't have it both ways.

"I'm pretty certain the guidelines haven't changed much over the years but my documentation doesn't go back that far." You're sure but I bet you have no actual experience of the subject at all or any evidence that this is the case. The massive drop in TUEs since then suggests something has changed.

The forms for 2013 where TUE applications for a completely different drug. Why would he disclose it on those. It would be in accompanying documents.

 

[TheSpud]

Prednisone 2014 Tour of Romandie

TUE

 

[TheSpud]

Yeah well technically the UCI stuffed his positive test and wiped their hands of it with no rational explanation. Not sure what calling it an AAF does for ya, but fact is he was caught dead to rights with double the legal limit of Salbutamol in his veins.

As for the rest, there are many and it’s all in the thread. Not going to rekindle all of that in detail.

Suffice it to say the team and Froome are both awash in doping scandals, and that’s just the stuff we know about.

Urine actually

 

[red_flanders]

Urine actually

So it was only in his bladder? I get your point, but I wasn't referring to the testing method.

 

[Merckx index]

What exactly is your point anyway? That he's faking asthma to use an inhaler. He is perfectly aloud to use it, asthma or no asthma.

No, as KB pointed out, he isn't allowed to use the drug without proof that he needs it. My point is that when a generational talent returns an over the limit level for salbutamol, and claims that he has used the drug for asthma for most of his life, we have a right to demand proof that he was using it in 2009.

And it's not just that. He wrote an entire book about his life and career, and never mentioned having asthma. When called on that, he said he didn't think it was important. Really? You're one of the best ever at an endurance sport , and the fact that you have asthma isn't relevant or important? This is someone who has documented a host of other medical issues.

No he has been 'slam dunked nailed', but after ten years I'd expect something substantial. But you just cling to the Fancy Bears not finding a TUE and the results sheet to the Tour of Poland

I don't cling to the FB non-finding, I point that out as one example of a long history of non-transparency. You are the one who appears desperate, when you claim his performance in the TdS was in any way suggestive of the Froome who showed up for the Vuelta. It isn't just the Tour of Poland, it's freaking everything, his entire career, up to that point.

You demand transparency, but the only ones interested are those who don't actually want it. They just want to twist it their own prejudices. Look at the WCC fax which was allegedly photoshopped from a different version. Although the only difference was a hole punch. It was madness.

i wasn't one who was arguing about a hole punch. I haven't even claimed that the FAX was fake. On the contrary, assuming it was genuine raises all sorts of other questions, beginning with, how could someone with such a big engine be ignored by a team that brags about its attention to detail? If all that was keeping Froome from being an elite rider was shedding a few kilos, why did it take so long for him to do that?

You don't want transparency. If you were presented with a button which if pressed revealed to the world whether Froome had doped would you press it? I've asked this on this forum before and the answer was almost universally to dispute the credibility of this made up button. And I understand this. Who would want their decade long obsession exposed as wrong?

Sure, press away. I know that you will never, ever, ever understand this, but there are people who are highly critical of Froome, and seek the facts, not answers that will support some personal bias. If tomorrow, some study reported that Froome had an absolutely unique genetic makeup that accounted for his performance since 2011, and could also explain why he couldn't perform like that prior to 2011, I would welcome it. I would welcome anything that could clear up this mystery. I welcomed my discussion with the scientist who cleared Froome, and thanked him for it, but he wouldn't give me all the facts that would be needed to come to the conclusion that UCI/WADA accepted, so i remain critical.

 

[Parker]

No, as KB pointed out, he isn't allowed to use the drug without proof that he needs it. My point is that when a generational talent returns an over the limit level for salbutamol, and claims that he has used the drug for asthma for most of his life, we have a right to demand proof that he was using it in 2009.

And it's not just that. He wrote an entire book about his life and career, and never mentioned having asthma. When called on that, he said he didn't think it was important. Really? You're one of the best ever at an endurance sport , and the fact that you have asthma isn't relevant or important? This is someone who has documented a host of other medical issues.

You have right to proof do you? Who the hell are you? That's some immense self entitlement. From where do you derive that? Is it your 5000 posts. Or maybe you have 70 followers on twitter. Maybe he has the right to know name of his accusers. So what is yours?

Anyone can use an asthma inhaler. They don't even have to have asthma, as you say yourself. So why the demands?

As for it not being important. That's because it's not. Has any other rider talked about 'their struggle with asthma'. Of course not. But loads have exercise induced asthma.

Here's the most high profile sportsman in British sporting history, spotted using an inhaler. At the end of his career. Never mentioned it before. Because it's not a big deal. He'd had three books out by then

'I've got asthma': David Beckham reveals his biggest secret

The football world's most high-profile star suffers with asthma, and has done since he was a small boy.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I literally didn't know one of my best friends who I have played sports with a lot was asthmatic for about 8 years

Having asthma is not a big deal. It's easily controlled for most. You think it's a big deal, like having cancer or stroke, because after a decade of obsession it's all you have. It's pathetic

Sure, press away. I know that you will never, ever, ever understand this, but there are people who are highly critical of Froome, and seek the facts, not answers that will support some personal bias.

But you really don't want facts. You want facts to support your prejudices and all you after a decade is an asthma inhaler and a Tour of Poland results sheet.

Here some other facts.
Froome comes from a country that has not produced any other top level pro.
He was only the second sub-Saharan African to ride the Tour.
At 20 he was a University student.
He didn't do a single standard u23 season. Just a half at the WCC
He started out with a shoestring budget Pro Conti team
That folded in his second year.
Sky made lots of mistakes in their first year, neglecting most riders bar Wiggins
Froome was injured and ill in 2010
In 2011 he got proper coaching and some opportunities while in good health and amazingly he got better
His threshold power hasn't really changed much since his WCC days

But no, Ventolin isn't it.

 

[King Boonen]

It was 2008/09. A doctor's note with a medical history would have been enough.

So we've gone from athletes having no idea about their TUE status, which is demonstrably false, to a doctors note with medical history being enough. So let's look at that. Froome would have required an abbreviated TUE form in 2008 (where a doctors note would be sufficient and he would still have to fill out the form, submit it and keep a copy), but in 2009 the rules around Salbutamol changed and he would have required a full TUE form with the appropriate medical history and testing. No one has to take my word for this, the change is detailed in the introduction here:

http://pilarmartinescudero.es/MarzoAbril2014/clinjsportsmed2013asmawada.pdf

...inhaled b2-agonists (IBAs)... included for clarity

The WADA guidelines on asthma, however, have changed in recent years. Before 2009, an abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (aTUE), which did not require objective evidence of asthma, accompanied by a physician’s report of asthma, was sufficient for requesting permission to use inhaled corti- costeroids (ICS) and inhaled formoterol, salbutamol, salme- terol, and terbutaline. In 2009, however, aTUEs were withdrawn and replaced by a Declaration of Use (DoU) for ICS and a full Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) requiring objective evidence for the same 4 IBAs.

Luckily WADA keep archived documents and this 2010 version of the TUE guiidelines shows what was removed from the 2009 version:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_ISTUE_2010_redlined_ISTUE_2009_EN.pdf

Annex 1 details the testing required to obtain a TUE for asthma:

Minimal requirements for the medical file to be used for the

TUE process in the case of asthma and its clinical variants

The file must reflect current best medical practice to include: 1) A complete medical history

2) A comprehensive report of the clinical examination with specific focus on the respiratory system

3) A report of spirometry with the measure of the Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1)

4) If airway obstruction is present, the spirometry will be repeated after

inhalation of a short acting Beta-2 Agonist to demonstrate the reversibility of bronchoconstriction

5) In the absence of reversible airway obstruction, a bronchial provocation test is required to establish the presence of airway hyper-responsiveness

6) Exact name, speciality, address (including telephone, e-mail, fax) of examining physician.

If Froome had a TUE for Salbutamol in 2009 issued after these changes, this is the minimal requirements that would have had to be satisfied for it to be granted. That's something I thnk most people would remember. If he didn't have one issued once the more rigorous testing was introduced, this would either be because the testing showed he didn't actually have asthma, or they decided not to test him. Again, that is something that, I think, most people would remember.

It's funny how clinic posters have long gone on about how easy it is to abuse TUEs, especially back then, but when it's Froome he must have gone through a thorough demanding examination, and a barrage of tests just to use a ventolin. You can't have it both ways.

I know people love to group posters together, but I've been on the opposite sides of discussions within the clinic many times and I think I've probably been on the "anti-doping" side of such discussions more times than I've been on the "doping" side. So how about you address a post without creating strawmen arguments?

"I'm pretty certain the guidelines haven't changed much over the years but my documentation doesn't go back that far." You're sure but I bet you have no actual experience of the subject at all or any evidence that this is the case. The massive drop in TUEs since then suggests something has changed.

This ignores the fact that we are talking about a time period where full TUEs were required for IBAs and those are clearly the guidelines I'm referring to. As can be seen from the reference above, there was a drop off in athletes claiming TUEs for asthma by approximately 1/2 (unless you think Portugal wouldn't be representative...), when these guidelines were brought in. My actual experience, whatever that might be, is irrelevant, because I can back up what I've said with documentation easily accessible online. Any experience I may or may not have just lets me post initially from knowledge. Again, lets have a look at the current guidelines for asthma related TUEs:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/tuec_asthma_version6.1.pdf

These discuss things in more depth but essentially ask for the same things that were asked for in 2009. Again, my experience is irrelevant, because the documents exist to back up my assertions. So yes, there's the evidence.

The forms for 2013 where TUE applications for a completely different drug. Why would he disclose it on those. It would be in accompanying documents.

Because the form, literally, asks if the athlete has applied for a TUE in the past and what it was for. Again, I'll refer you to the referenced WADA documents above (it's in Annex 2), but I'll also refer you to the current form template from WADA. It's section 6, on page 3:

TUE Application Form

www.wada-ama.org

So, as I stated before, Froome not previously mentioning a TUE for salbutamol because he didn't think it was at all a big deal? Yeah, I can buy that.

Froome forgetting he had a TUE for Salbutamol, neglecting to maintain his own records, not declaring it on future TUEs and not remembering any of that when his own team mate from that time period, Steve Cummings, has his Salbutamol TUE released by Fancy Bears? I don't believe that.

 

[CTQ]

So we've gone from athletes having no idea about their TUE status, which is demonstrably false, to a doctors note with medical history being enough. So let's look at that. Froome would have required an abbreviated TUE form in 2008 (where a doctors note would be sufficient and he would still have to fill out the form, submit it and keep a copy), but in 2009 the rules around Salbutamol changed and he would have required a full TUE form with the appropriate medical history and testing. No one has to take my word for this, the change is detailed in the introduction here:

http://pilarmartinescudero.es/MarzoAbril2014/clinjsportsmed2013asmawada.pdf

Luckily WADA keep archived documents and this 2010 version of the TUE guiidelines shows what was removed from the 2009 version:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_ISTUE_2010_redlined_ISTUE_2009_EN.pdf

If Froome had a TUE for Salbutamol in 2009 issued after these changes, this is the minimal requirements that would have had to be satisfied for it to be granted. That's something I thnk most people would remember. If he didn't have one issued once the more rigorous testing was introduced, this would either be because the testing showed he didn't actually have asthma, or they decided not to test him. Again, that is something that, I think, most people would remember.




I know people love to group posters together, but I've been on the opposite sides of discussions within the clinic many times and I think I've probably been on the "anti-doping" side of such discussions more times than I've been on the "doping" side. So how about you address a post without creating strawmen arguments?




This ignores the fact that we are talking about a time period where full TUEs were required for IBAs and those are clearly the guidelines I'm referring to. As can be seen from the reference above, there was a drop off in athletes claiming TUEs for asthma by approximately 1/2 (unless you think Portugal wouldn't be representative...), when these guidelines were brought in. My actual experience, whatever that might be, is irrelevant, because I can back up what I've said with documentation easily accessible online. Any experience I may or may not have just lets me post initially from knowledge. Again, lets have a look at the current guidelines for asthma related TUEs:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/tuec_asthma_version6.1.pdf

These discuss things in more depth but essentially ask for the same things that were asked for in 2009. Again, my experience is irrelevant, because the documents exist to back up my assertions. So yes, there's the evidence.



Because the form, literally, asks if the athlete has applied for a TUE in the past and what it was for. Again, I'll refer you to the referenced WADA documents above (it's in Annex 2), but I'll also refer you to the current form template from WADA. It's section 6, on page 3:

TUE Application Form

www.wada-ama.org

So, as I stated before, Froome not previously mentioning a TUE for salbutamol because he didn't think it was at all a big deal? Yeah, I can buy that.

Froome forgetting he had a TUE for Salbutamol, neglecting to maintain his own records, not declaring it on future TUEs and not remembering any of that when his own team mate from that time period, Steve Cummings, has his Salbutamol TUE released by Fancy Bears? I don't believe that.

In the interview with Kimmage, he said he also takes fluticasone. Maybe that was enough in 2009. No need for TUE, only the declaration of use ??

 

[King Boonen]

In the interview with Kimmage, he said he also takes fluticasone. Maybe that was enough in 2009. No need for TUE, only the declaration of use ??

That's very different to the discussion I entered.

Corticosteroids are preventative treatment , IBAs are acute treatment. I would guess that, if someone needs corticosteroids to control asthma, it would be best practice to ensure they have an IBA available, no matter how well controlled it is, but that’s just supposition.

 

[70kmph]

The salbutamol riders who set big records- Petacchi, Froome, Indurain
Honorable mention Chris Horner https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/horner-blasts-uci-for-denying-asthma-tue/

 

[topcat]

The salbutamol riders who set big records- Petacchi, Froome, Indurain
Honorable mention Chris Horner https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/horner-blasts-uci-for-denying-asthma-tue/

Back of the net!!

 

[samhocking]

nd his outright displays of strength weird just because what we had seen in the past with armstrong, hearas, pantani and contador but his Veulta and smaller stage race yo-yo exploits will always be the weirdest part of his dominnance and likely doping experince in my opinion

That's very different to the discussion I entered.

Corticosteroids are preventative treatment , IBAs are acute treatment. I would guess that, if someone needs corticosteroids to control asthma, it would be best practice to ensure they have an IBA available, no matter how well controlled it is, but that’s just supposition.

For Froome ranked 479th in 2009, he probably simply didn't need to address his asthma to complete his job as a domestique that never was at the cutting edge of the race. In 2010 onwards he just addressed it with what was permitted in the code. Like Uran with his asthma in 2011 Tour, Freeman applied for a TUE for corticosteroids to get the chest infection under control to sort out his asthma. That's the purpose of TUE system used properly.

 

[samhocking]

Sam, the WADA rules in 2009 state pretty clearly that a TUE is required:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA_Summary_of_Modifications_2009_EN.pdf

The following passage does state that a urine level of more than 1000 will be taken as an AAF, but given the preceding passage, the logical interpretation of this is that even if you have a TUE, it will not save you from a high level, unless you can prove with a pharmacokinetic study that this resulted from a legal dose. If you don't have a TUE, any level will be an AAF, and you will get flagged following a test, whereas if you have an AAF, any test < 1000 will result in no case.

My interpretation is confirmed in a review article on salbutamol and WADA:

Anti-doping Policy, Therapeutic Use Exemption and Medication Use in Athletes with Asthma: A Narrative Review and Critical Appraisal of Current Regulations - PubMed

Asthma is prevalent in athletes and when untreated can impact both respiratory health and sports performance. Pharmacological inhaler therapy currently forms the mainstay of treatment; however, for elite athletes competing under the constraints of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code), a number of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There seem to be just three possibilities:

1. Froome never took salbutamol in 2009, and if he didn't then, i would be suspicious that he ever took it until the 2011 Vuelta, or even beginning later. As i noted earlier, oral salbutamol could have helped with that dramatic weight loss. He may or may not have had asthma from a very early age, I'm not sure anyone has actually confirmed that (and again, why would he not mention it in his book?), but even if he did, he might not have had it to a degree that required an inhaler when he began his racing career. He has said in interviews that some of his asthma is exercise-induced. Maybe in 2009 that wasn't a problem, and only became so later. But that doesn't sound very likely.
2. He did have a TUE in 2009, but Fancy Bear couldn't find the document. I can't remember what i posted on this earlier, but I believe they did find a TUE for another Barlo rider at that time, so this possibility doesn't seem very likely. Again, Froome himself never said he had a TUE in 2009; on the contrary, his statements explicitly rule this out.
3. Froome took salbutamol in 2009, without a TUE, IOW , against the rules. If that was the case, he certainly wouldn't have inhaled during a race, that would have been suicide. So if he had needed it to control asthma, there would be no reason not to have a TUE. He could have been taking it orally, in doses in which he realized a TUE wouldn't help him if he got caught. When TUEs were discontinued in 2010, and riders could use salbutamol within limits, he may have felt he could stay within those limits. But unauthorized use in 2009 seems unlikely. Even if he was taking doses that would have put him over the limit, he would have nothing to lose by having a TUE.

The bottom line is that either Froome did not have a significant problem with asthma in 2009--in contrast to his story about having it from childhood on--or he lied (or suffered from a very poor memory) when he said he had no TUEs prior to 2013, or he was using salbutamol against the rules in 2009. People can try to argue around these possibilities, but anyone ought to be able to see that Froome's continued lack of transparency is of course going to make lots of people extremely suspicious. It shouldn't even be necessary to have a discussion like this. If Froome had a TUE in 2009, why not produce it? If he didn't, why doesn't he provide an explanation for why not?

The degree to which Froome is given a pass by the cycling media staggers me. It's not just the TUE issue. He has never released his power data prior to 2011, except for that FAX that mysteriously turned up in the course of the 2013 study. Why not? After his salbutamol case was dismissed just prior to the TDF in 2018, he promised that all the details of the decision would be published. they never were. Why not? I'm not even going to get into the schisto story, which has been thoroughly criticized here--all the inconsistencies, the results even experts in the area can't explain, and on and on and on.

I really don't think you're correct on the 2009 TUE logic there Merckx. Where the code reads 'The presence of salbutamol in urine in excess of 1000 ng/mL will be considered an Adverse Analytical Finding' is a threshold for the AAF. The purpose of a TUE is so the lab's AAF is exempt. There's no part of the code I can see that says it's prohibited under 1000. It says the AAF is >1000 in black and white. The lab don't know what urine is being tested, the result just goes back to the results management process with UCI and reads this urine has >1000 and if UCI don't have a TUE against that athlete code, it's a presumed AAF. Essentially the 2009 code is pretty much what it is today, just that it was also possible to take more than the AAF limit with a TUE.

 

[Merckx index]

For Froome ranked 479th in 2009, he probably simply didn't need to address his asthma to complete his job as a domestique that never was at the cutting edge of the race.

Come on. This is really grasping at straws. If you've had asthma most of your life, and for one year (maybe indefinitely, no one knew in 2009 that the rules would be changed in 2010), a TUE is required for salbutamol, why wouldn't you get the TUE? What's there to lose? Everyone else and his brother-in-law was getting them. That's why WADA stopped requiring them the next year. Not because salbutamol use had been reduced, but, on the contrary, because so me many TUEs were requested that they couldn't keep up with the demand. So Froome was the one exception?

I really don't think you're correct on the 2009 TUE logic there Merckx. Where the code reads 'The presence of salbutamol in urine in excess of 1000 ng/mL will be considered an Adverse Analytical Finding' is a threshold for the AAF. The purpose of a TUE is so the lab's AAF is exempt. There's no part of the code I can see that says it's prohibited under 1000. It says the AAF is >1000 in black and white.

In the first place, as I just noted, the new rules resulted in a mass movement of riders to apply for TUEs. Why would they do this if they didn't need one for < 1000? And even if they didn't, why wouldn't someone get the TUE, just in case he did exceed 1000? You have nothing to lose by having a TUE, what would be the point of not getting it?

Froome's own case illustrates the situation. Officially, he didn't dope, i.e., he didn't inhale more than the maximum allowed. But his urine level very definitely was over the limit. So if you accept the official decision, it's clearly possible to stay within the rules, and still go over the urine limit. That being the case, of course you want to get a TUE. If nothing else, it's a form of insurance. Most people don't think they will get in an auto accident, or that their house will burn down, but even if the law didn't require them to do so, they would go to considerable expense to make sure that if the unthinkable happens, they aren't financially ruined. If Froome didn't have a TUE, even if, according to you, he didn't need one if he stayed under 1000, he was gambling with a suspension that could seriously damage his career. And all because he wouldn't take a simple step, far cheaper than insurance.

Second, if you look at Ken Fitch's review on salbutamol, he notes, first, as I said before, that a TUE was necessary in 2009. He says salbutamol was "prohibited" without a TUE, which was not the case in 2010, when it was characterized as "permitted". He says that no justification for the prohibition was ever presented, when there would be no need for any justification if you didn't need a TUE for levels < 1000. He reinforces this point when discussing 2010: "No reason was ever provided why inhaled salbutamol was prohibited for just one year". Again, if you don't need a TUE unless you exceed a certain level, why would you characterize the rule as prohibited? Nothing was being prohibited except the ability to take a controlled study.

Fitch also says, in his discussion of the following year, 2010, when the rules were changed, "no sanction imposed if athlete failed to declare use of salbutamol on doping control form". This contrasts with 2009, IOW, if you have a TUE, and test positive for salbutamol, there is no AAF if
you don't exceed a certain level. There would be an AAF if you don't have the TUE.

Sci-Hub | The enigma of inhaled salbutamol and sport: unresolved after 45 years. Drug Testing and Analysis, 9(7), 977–982 | 10.1002/dta.2184