Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1367 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Salbutomol TUE was replaced by the inhalation Threshold in 2009 Merckx
Not now. It did, earlier, when Froome was racing, and there still is no evidence that he had a TUE for it.
You didn't need a TUE from 2010 onwards. maccbindel's timeline is out as the 1600 inhalation threshold has been running continually since 1997. Basically no TUE required since 2010 unless you need to inhale, or did inhale more than the allowed inhalation threshold.

1972 - IOC - Prohibited
1975 - IOC - Prohibited without prior notification
1986 - IOC - Permitted without restriction
1993 - IOC - Permitted with notification introduced
1997 - IOC - 1600 μg inhaled in 24 hours limit established
2000 - IOC - Maximum urinary concentration(threshold) of 1000 ng/mL established
2001 - IOC - TUE Required established
2004 - IOC - Prior abbreviated therapeutic use exemption (ATUE) had to be submitted. No stated maximum dose; if urinary concentration > 1000 ng/mL athlete must demonstrate was due to necessary therapy
2009 - WADA - Prohibited without TUE. Pharmokenetic study replaced need for athlete to demonstrate therapy use
2010 - WADA - Now permitted with declaration of use on doping control form. Maximum dose of 1600 μg in 24 hours reintroduced and added as a guide for the pharmacokinetic study
2011 - WADA - Unchanged except that declaration of use was now omitted
2017 - WADA - Inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 μg over 24 hours; not to exceed 800 μg every 12 hours
 
Last edited:
Salbutomol TUE was replaced by the inhalation Threshold in 2009 Merckx
I'm well aware of that, I discussed all of this in the Froome thread several years ago. Froome was racing during the period when a TUE was required. He never even stated that he was taking salbutamol until 2014. It wasn't mentioned in his book, not considered as important for the reader to know as feeding snakes.

Fancy Bears found lots of TUEs for Froome and many other riders, but they never found a TUE for salbutamol in 2009. In fact, when Froome was outed by FB, he said he had had a TUE for asthma only twice, and did not mention 2009 at all.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Koronin
That's not my words you've quoted Mercks, that's macs.

The only year Froome as a pro rider would have required a TUE to inhale Salbutomol (of any inhalation amount over the the urine threshold) was 2009 at Barloworld.
 
Last edited:
That's not my words you've quoted Mercks, that's macs.
If those aren't your words, that something is wrong with the post function. I read those words in your post, and your post is the only one that follows my post that those words refer to.

The only year Froome as a pro rider would have required a TUE to inhale Salbutomol (of any inhalation amount or upto the threshold) was 2009 at Barloworld.
Yes, that was my point. And there is no record of that TUE.
 
Sorry, my mistake, I meant it wasn't 2009 as quoted, I thought mac thought it was.

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.
 
2009 Salbutomol Code:

Despite the granting of a Therapeutic Use Exemption, the presence of salbutamol in urine in excess of 1000 ng/mL will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of a therapeutic dose of inhaled salbutamol.
So essentially <1000 you wouldn't AAF, so wouldn't need a TUE, but if you had a TUE & read above 1000, you would then have to prove you you didn't inhale more than 1600 via pharmacokinetic study for that TUE to cover an ADRV for >1000 in your urine.
 
Worth remembering that Salbutamol does not require a TUE for its use in or out of competition. It is not EPO ;) It is hardly anything.
It's not EPO. It was however a clear doping violation that was suppressed by the UCI. If they don't want it to be a doping infraction, don't have it be a doping infraction. I'm sure he didn't take it for no reason, it happened on a day he recovered quite dramatically from the previous day. I won't pretend to know exactly what the dose he took did for him, but I also won't pretend he took it thinking it doesn't do anything.

To be fair, that last clause in your final sentence casts a shadow over your point. What "we dont know about" resides purely in our imagination. It doesnt add weight to an argument, it delegitimises it.

Im scratching my head to recall doping scandals involving Froome. There is the Salbutamol, and if that is a scandal it revolves around the UCI response rather than Froome. I dont see Salbutamol as being of any significance at all with regards to performance. The significance is the gulf between the treatment of Froome, and that of Ulissi, and the damage the case did to anti-doping.

The only other incident I can recall is the 2014 Romandie prednisolone TUE, and again what I find most discomfitting is the behaviour of the UCI.

Froome is annoying precisely because there is so little evidence to explain such an utterly bizarre career trajectory. Prednisolone in 2014 doesnt explain 2011, 2012, 2013...etc, Just as numerous riders' use of prednisolone in the 80's, 90's, 2000's doesnt explain Froome's stratospheric rise.
Yeah, a lot there I don't agree with. He's been caught on camera taking inhalers during a race, thee's the Prednisone. Denying that Salbutamol was a thing is your right, but it holds no weight for me.
I do agree none of it explains his absurd rise, which is of course why I mention what we don't know about. It wasn't magic, it wasn't badzilla, it wasn't him training harder. There is enough noise around him and the Sky team with testosterone, laptops, dodgy doctors, ridiculous transformations, etc, and on and on that it would be absurd to suggest there wasn't a lot else we don't know about.
 
Reactions: JosefK
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.
 
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.
 
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
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.

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]

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.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: SHAD0W93
Sam, the WADA rules in 2009 state pretty clearly that a TUE is required:




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:




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 ?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
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?
 
Reactions: pastronef
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...
 
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 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.
 
Last edited:
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:


...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:


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:


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:




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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY