Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1368 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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:






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




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:


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:




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 ??
 
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.
 
Reactions: Merckx index
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

 
Last edited:
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.
The logic pretzels some are willing to twist themselves into never cease to amaze...
 
You're assuming you know the theraputic need of Froome's asthma in one season at Barloworld when not competing to win races. Nobody knows what it was in 2009. My wife has asthma, she has had periods of high stress and required Salbutomol every race. She's has periods where she hasn't needed the inhaler at all for months. All I'm saying is theraputic need is not known to be a constant and simply not knowing what it was for Froome because he hasn't a TUE, doesn't mean he hasn't had asthma as he states all his life. My wife would say she's has asthma all her life, but she hasn't used an inhaler for several years now, but she still carries her inhaler with her and has it besides her bed. Nobody at her work would know she has asthma, it's just not a topic.

It's like Wiggins asthma. Nobody believes he suffered from it from allergies and so assumed he doesn't have it, then Fancybears show he's had TUEs for it going all the way back to his time at FdeJ and before that with IOC. Do some research and he was on the cover of Asthma UK magazine in 2004. Nobody knew he has asthma unless you were at a track and seen him use his inhaler, he didn;t mention it, because like my wife, it's probably just not an issue.
 
My wife has asthma, she has had periods of high stress and required Salbutomol every race. She's has periods where she hasn't needed the inhaler at all for months. All I'm saying is theraputic need is not known to be a constant...My wife would say she's has asthma all her life, but she hasn't used an inhaler for several years now, but she still carries her inhaler with her and has it besides her bed. Nobody at her work would know she has asthma, it's just not a topic.
Why does she carry the inhaler with her? Because she might need it, and can't predict when. Why would you get a TUE? Because you might need it, and don't know when.

Nobody knew he has asthma unless you were at a track and seen him use his inhaler, he didn;t mention it, because like my wife, it's probably just not an issue.
It was enough of an issue to get three TUEs that would cover him in the 2009 season.

Like Froome, Wiggins wrote a book about his racing, in which he never mentioned asthma. Given how his own later statements revealed that he had a desperate need for certain medications, that is quite curious.

If a rider has some medical condition that can be treated without substances that are known or thought to be performance-enhancing, then that is his business, and maybe he doesn't want to talk about it. But when you are a TDF winner, and writing a book about how remarkable and inspiring your life has been, and you have a condition that is treated with a drug that is potentially performance enhancing, how can you not mention this?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
You're assuming you know the theraputic need of Froome's asthma in one season at Barloworld when not competing to win races. Nobody knows what it was in 2009. My wife has asthma, she has had periods of high stress and required Salbutomol every race. She's has periods where she hasn't needed the inhaler at all for months. All I'm saying is theraputic need is not known to be a constant and simply not knowing what it was for Froome because he hasn't a TUE, doesn't mean he hasn't had asthma as he states all his life. My wife would say she's has asthma all her life, but she hasn't used an inhaler for several years now, but she still carries her inhaler with her and has it besides her bed. Nobody at her work would know she has asthma, it's just not a topic.

It's like Wiggins asthma. Nobody believes he suffered from it from allergies and so assumed he doesn't have it, then Fancybears show he's had TUEs for it going all the way back to his time at FdeJ and before that with IOC. Do some research and he was on the cover of Asthma UK magazine in 2004. Nobody knew he has asthma unless you were at a track and seen him use his inhaler, he didn;t mention it, because like my wife, it's probably just not an issue.
would your wife lose her job, damage the reputation of her colleagues and her profession and get worldwide press coverage for just not bothering? lols You're great btw...please coninue ;):p
 
would your wife lose her job, damage the reputation of her colleagues and her profession and get worldwide press coverage for just not bothering? lols You're great btw...please coninue ;):p
What are you on about?
Why does she carry the inhaler with her? Because she might need it, and can't predict when. Why would you get a TUE? Because you might need it, and don't know when.



It was enough of an issue to get three TUEs that would cover him in the 2009 season.

Like Froome, Wiggins wrote a book about his racing, in which he never mentioned asthma. Given how his own later statements revealed that he had a desperate need for certain medications, that is quite curious.

If a rider has some medical condition that can be treated without substances that are known or thought to be performance-enhancing, then that is his business, and maybe he doesn't want to talk about it. But when you are a TDF winner, and writing a book about how remarkable and inspiring your life has been, and you have a condition that is treated with a drug that is potentially performance enhancing, how can you not mention this?
Why does she carry the inhaler with her? Because she might need it, and can't predict when. Why would you get a TUE? Because you might need it, and don't know when.



It was enough of an issue to get three TUEs that would cover him in the 2009 season.

Like Froome, Wiggins wrote a book about his racing, in which he never mentioned asthma. Given how his own later statements revealed that he had a desperate need for certain medications, that is quite curious.

If a rider has some medical condition that can be treated without substances that are known or thought to be performance-enhancing, then that is his business, and maybe he doesn't want to talk about it. But when you are a TDF winner, and writing a book about how remarkable and inspiring your life has been, and you have a condition that is treated with a drug that is potentially performance enhancing, how can you not mention this?
My wife carries an inhaler, because she once ended up in hospital from an allergic reaction to something we don't know wha,t as tests were inconclusive, but it triggered a really bad asthma attack & she didn't have an inhaler with her because she only used to use it when running and we lived in the city. 15 years later out of the city in the country again, it's simply precautionary in case she has an allergic reaction again and triggers an asthma attack.

As for Froomes prednisolone TUES you have no medical justification with each one because Fancy Bears omitted it. From what I remember, it was dealing with a chest infection that was triggering his asthma. Seems pretty acceptable to use a TUE for that to carry on racing to me?

AS for him announcing it. Has Nibali, Uran or Dumoulin made a big song and dance making sure everyone knows they have or have had Asthma? We know Freeman applied for a TUE for Uran for his asthma being triggered in 2011, it's part of sport and good medical care, I have zero issue with it.
 
What are you on about?


My wife carries an inhaler, because she once ended up in hospital from an allergic reaction to something we don't know wha,t as tests were inconclusive, but it triggered a really bad asthma attack & she didn't have an inhaler with her because she only used to use it when running and we lived in the city. 15 years later out of the city in the country again, it's simply precautionary in case she has an allergic reaction again and triggers an asthma attack.

As for Froomes prednisolone TUES you have no medical justification with each one because Fancy Bears omitted it. From what I remember, it was dealing with a chest infection that was triggering his asthma. Seems pretty acceptable to use a TUE for that to carry on racing to me?

AS for him announcing it. Has Nibali, Uran or Dumoulin made a big song and dance making sure everyone knows they have or have had Asthma? We know Freeman applied for a TUE for Uran for his asthma being triggered in 2011, it's part of sport and good medical care, I have zero issue with it.
Nibali and Dumoulin don't have asthma. Uran got asthma when he went to Sky.
 
Dumoulin said he used to have asthma and takes salbutomol earlier in his career. He also said he would have no hesitation in using a TUE if it returned to being an issue for him again during Froomegate.

Nibali uses an inhaler, I've seen him using it lol! He explains here:

Have you evidence Uran's asthma began at Sky?
 
Reactions: pastronef
Nibali has problems with pollen and doesn't need ventolin when it rains so rarely needs or uses it in the giro or a wet vuelta like the one in question.
Dumo doesn't have exercise induced asthma (lol) anymore. You can check the records on Uran and please try to be objective, Sam, it would be a breath of fresh air.
 
Sounds like Nibali has a similar asthma issue to Wiggins and allergy-triggered. Can deal with it without Salbutomol on wet days, same as any asthmatic with pollen allergies can.

I bet you ask 10 cycling fans does Nibali have asthma, they won't know he does. Same for Dumoulin's history saying he had it in the past but grew out of it..
 
Reactions: pastronef
Quite a few athletes escaped Fancy Bears and all the TUEs they did hack, they removed all the medical justification, or left it on ADAMS, so I wouldn't use them to try and know anything about anyone by filling the gaps with speculation and anecdote. Without the medical notes, it's just a certificate without any context imo.
 
Reactions: pastronef
The entirety of what you know about TUEs is down to the Fancy Bears. Now, they are not official auditors. They weren't given full access to all documents. That's the problem with hackers. Much as you love them, they're comprehensive.
(I think you mean not comprehensive).

No, that isn't the entirety of what I know. It's one piece of evidence. It's not proof, but it is evidence. Just as Froome's urine level wasn't considered proof that he took a non-legal dose, but was evidence. Which is why it had to be followed up, by anyone to whom it actually mattered whether he was clean.

And when we follow up the FB evidence (those of us, unlike you and Sam, who believe possible discrepancies should be followed up), we also learn that Froome said he never had any TUEs prior to 2013. That is much stronger evidence that he didn't have a TUE in 2009, as the only likely alternative is that he was lying. You and Sam keep ignoring your hero's own words.

AS for him announcing it. Has Nibali, Uran or Dumoulin made a big song and dance making sure everyone knows they have or have had Asthma?
How many books have they written? Books that actually sold a few copies?

Quite a few athletes escaped Fancy Bears and all the TUEs they did hack, they removed all the medical justification, or left it on ADAMS, so I wouldn't use them to try and know anything about anyone by filling the gaps with speculation and anecdote.
Quite a few athletes escaped WADA positive tests and sanctions, they removed all the exculpatory evidence, or left it with a few researchers, so I wouldn't use them to try and (sic) know anything about anyone by filling the gaps with speculation and anecdote.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY