Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[TrackCynic]

I wondered how long it would be before we saw a high profile inhaler doping case.

Even IF is this is a grey area, I have seen first hand how this trickles down: 4 or 5 years ago I watched a well-know California-based junior development team warming up pre-race - it was amazing how many of them were puffing on inhalers. Is asthma really such an epidemic in sports or is it just like low-T (you can find a doc who will give you a prescription for anything)?

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.

Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.

I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.

So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:

1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.

2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.

3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).

4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.

I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.

Spud

Is getting a TUE on false pretences doping or "just" immoral for you? Just to know how you define "grey area"

 

[heartsnotinit]

Re:

You can tell Froome is full of it. He's obviously willing to talk to the media about this, but has avoided mentioning any facts that could be checked and disputed. For example, the story is that a doctor told him to up his dosage of his puffer. Why not just say that doctor Jones (or whatever) advised me to take an extra 4 (or whatever) puffs when I woke up and another two before the start of the stage. It would put all the onus on the good doctor to defend himself rather than Froome looking dumb and sounding dumber.

John Swanson

Matt Lawton is reporting it was Doctor Derick Macleod with three more puffs. Although it's sources close to the rider given as the source, and they seemingly weren't good enough to pass on the dosage per puff or what his regular number is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5176703/Chris-Froome-hires-anti-doping-lawyers-bid-clear-him.html

 

[jilbiker]

its your responsibility as a sportsperson to manage what chemicals and amount goes into your body. The various bodies have not accepted the excuse from the athletes "He told me to take it" or "I bought it over the counter" or "I did not know what i was taking". You should know and you should check every chemical that goes into your body and its the permissible level. Its part of being a professional athlete, part of your trade. Contador said "I innocently ate some meat" it was not accepted. I would like to see how they would accept this. Not impossible given the way Sky has covered a lot of junk over the years. But this is an obvious punishable offence.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

You can tell Froome is full of it. He's obviously willing to talk to the media about this, but has avoided mentioning any facts that could be checked and disputed. For example, the story is that a doctor told him to up his dosage of his puffer. Why not just say that doctor Jones (or whatever) advised me to take an extra 4 (or whatever) puffs when I woke up and another two before the start of the stage. It would put all the onus on the good doctor to defend himself rather than Froome looking dumb and sounding dumber.

John Swanson

Matt Lawton is reporting it was Doctor Derick Macleod with three more puffs. Although it's sources close to the rider given as the source, and they seemingly weren't good enough to pass on the dosage per puff or what his regular number is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5176703/Chris-Froome-hires-anti-doping-lawyers-bid-clear-him.html

Froome doesn’t hire a lawyer after the A or B sample positive, only when the story leaks and he knows he is f£*&ed.

 

[jilbiker]

ABOUT Time!!......It really was getting ridiculous, including a talk of a winning all grand tours next year

 

[Craigee]

So we are really finding out just exactly what Brailsford means by his infamous Marginal Gains Policy.

The jiffy bag, the TUE's okayed by one doctor (obviously in their pocket) instead of the legal requirement of three doctors now this can only be the tip of the Iceberg. These are just the things they've been caught doing. Just imagine how many they have gotten away with. Most of us call it cheating.

 

[Craigee]

Re: Re:

You can tell Froome is full of it. He's obviously willing to talk to the media about this, but has avoided mentioning any facts that could be checked and disputed. For example, the story is that a doctor told him to up his dosage of his puffer. Why not just say that doctor Jones (or whatever) advised me to take an extra 4 (or whatever) puffs when I woke up and another two before the start of the stage. It would put all the onus on the good doctor to defend himself rather than Froome looking dumb and sounding dumber.

John Swanson

Matt Lawton is reporting it was Doctor Derick Macleod with three more puffs. Although it's sources close to the rider given as the source, and they seemingly weren't good enough to pass on the dosage per puff or what his regular number is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5176703/Chris-Froome-hires-anti-doping-lawyers-bid-clear-him.html

Froome doesn’t hire a lawyer after the A or B sample positive, only when the story leaks and he knows he is f£*&ed.

He was going to get away with it, that's why. Sky is protected. They have enjoyed a massive advantage over all other teams. Let's hope things are more even from now on.

 

[Craigee]

Just realise people. The Tue's, the jiffy bag and now this were only exposed because of leaks. It's shocking.

 

[masking_agent]

Does anyone know if David Walsh has spoken about this ? or is another investigative journalist pursuing this story , Sky's story ? so I can follow to see if the take down will occur ?

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

You can tell Froome is full of it. He's obviously willing to talk to the media about this, but has avoided mentioning any facts that could be checked and disputed. For example, the story is that a doctor told him to up his dosage of his puffer. Why not just say that doctor Jones (or whatever) advised me to take an extra 4 (or whatever) puffs when I woke up and another two before the start of the stage. It would put all the onus on the good doctor to defend himself rather than Froome looking dumb and sounding dumber.

John Swanson

Matt Lawton is reporting it was Doctor Derick Macleod with three more puffs. Although it's sources close to the rider given as the source, and they seemingly weren't good enough to pass on the dosage per puff or what his regular number is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5176703/Chris-Froome-hires-anti-doping-lawyers-bid-clear-him.html

Froome doesn’t hire a lawyer after the A or B sample positive, only when the story leaks and he knows he is f£*&ed.

He was going to get away with it, that's why. Sky is protected. They have enjoyed a massive advantage over all other teams. Let's hope things are more even from now on.

The team is likely screwed no matter what, Disney will probably liquidate it as a cost cutting measure once this Fox deal goes through.

 

[jilbiker]

Wiggins has Asthma issues, Nibali has Asthma issues...anyone see a pattern here...its sounds like a cooked up cover to me. All these awesome athletes suffer the same physical ailment?? awesome with an Asterix!

 

[bewildered]

Can't believe people are on here saying it's a terrible day for cycling when a 4 time TDF champ has an AAF. If that champ is cheating then he needs to be outed and it's 6 years too late already.

It's been a terrible 6 years for cycling since Froome morphed into a racehorse and we've had to watch the most boring TDFs for the last 6 years (he'd have won the last 5 if he hadn't crashed out, make no mistake). When Armstrong finished up and was later outed, we all presumed that we'd never have to go through watching a team bus at the front of every stage and one rider dominate the TDF every year using the exact same 'tactics' that he and his team did. It's been like groundhog day, like the Gods have it in for cycling fans putting them through it all again.

It would be a great day for cycling if this was the end of it. But it's a terrible day for cycling because it won't be and he'll largely get away with it. He will produce some sort of excuse or legal argument to muddy the waters enough, probably something ridiculous along the lines of what Daryll Impey produced, and avoid a full sanction and we'll have to watch them do it all again like a bunch of Hell's Angels at the front in the TDF 2018 and beyond.

The Festina affair was a good day for cycling, as was the end of Armstrong and his eventual outing. The fact that those events changed nothing and that it was allowed to happen all over again was the tragedy or bad day. This is not going to be the same opportunity for cycling to change. This is not complete disgrace for the cheats like those events were. Nothing will change and he'll put us through it all again next Summer but I won't be watching.

 

[spetsa]

I wondered how long it would be before we saw a high profile inhaler doping case.

Even IF is this is a grey area, I have seen first hand how this trickles down: 4 or 5 years ago I watched a well-know California-based junior development team warming up pre-race - it was amazing how many of them were puffing on inhalers. Is asthma really such an epidemic in sports or is it just like low-T (you can find a doc who will give you a prescription for anything)?

Bingo. Anyone with real experience in the sport that is over 40 years old knows what a cesspool it is. Unfortunately "we" make up the majority of the "mentors" for the future. Really F'd up.

 

[Tonton]

The "never tested positive" line is now out of the window.

 

[Kretch]

My understanding is that Froome was "tested" each day after Stage 3. Anyone know what exactly was he tested for? In particular, was analysis for Salbutamol done each day?

 

[MikeS369]

I'm wondering if Froome over used the salbutamol to mask something else. Sky knew he was glowing and threw caution to the wind. Over do the salbutamol and hope the UCI lets Froome slide if he is popped for it. If not, the hit Froome will take will not be as bad as getting popped for taking xxx drug. Sky will come up with some bs story to keep the fanboys happy.

Salbutamol?
It is a brochodilator and used in common anti-asthma treatments like Ventolin puffers. No Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is required for small inhaled doses but the UCI requires one for larger doses or if it is to be consumed by other means, like tablet form. It is considered a stimulant in small doses and can have an anabolic, muscle-building effect in larger doses (an online search will bring up stories of bodybuilders injecting it) and can be a masking agent too. It is a “specified substance” under the WADA Code, essentially a category which allows for thresholds and reduced bans rather than the automatic imposition of a four year ban.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

You can tell Froome is full of it. He's obviously willing to talk to the media about this, but has avoided mentioning any facts that could be checked and disputed. For example, the story is that a doctor told him to up his dosage of his puffer. Why not just say that doctor Jones (or whatever) advised me to take an extra 4 (or whatever) puffs when I woke up and another two before the start of the stage. It would put all the onus on the good doctor to defend himself rather than Froome looking dumb and sounding dumber.

John Swanson

Matt Lawton is reporting it was Doctor Derick Macleod with three more puffs. Although it's sources close to the rider given as the source, and they seemingly weren't good enough to pass on the dosage per puff or what his regular number is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5176703/Chris-Froome-hires-anti-doping-lawyers-bid-clear-him.html

Froome doesn’t hire a lawyer after the A or B sample positive, only when the story leaks and he knows he is f£*&ed.

If he was innocent this would have been so super easy to get in front of with the facts. Especially given a 3 month head start.

John Swanson

 

[The Hegelian]

Re:

I'm wondering if Froome over used the salbutamol to mask something else. Sky knew he was glowing and threw caution to the wind. Over do the salbutamol and hope the UCI lets Froome slide if he is popped for it. If not, the hit Froome will take will not be as bad as getting popped for taking xxx drug. Sky will come up with some bs story to keep the fanboys happy.

Salbutamol?
It is a brochodilator and used in common anti-asthma treatments like Ventolin puffers. No Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is required for small inhaled doses but the UCI requires one for larger doses or if it is to be consumed by other means, like tablet form. It is considered a stimulant in small doses and can have an anabolic, muscle-building effect in larger doses (an online search will bring up stories of bodybuilders injecting it) and can be a masking agent too. It is a “specified substance” under the WADA Code, essentially a category which allows for thresholds and reduced bans rather than the automatic imposition of a four year ban.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

I've always had asthma - and the medical science has shifted a lot on salbutamol use. In the 90's one was encouraged to take it whenever/as much as one needed. Then in the 00's, evidence came out that it could have adverse effects on the heart, so ever since doctors (and chemists) have been extremely vigilant in asking how many puffs I would be taking in a given week. The basic idea being that one should not be relying on it at all - if more than 3 puffs a week are needed, that implies a necessary change in preventative medications (i.e. steroids).

So I do not buy the excuses of Ulissi, Froome etc. They are using a seriously large amount during racing: why? It's a stimulant. Full stop.

 

[thehook]

Re: Re:

I'm wondering if Froome over used the salbutamol to mask something else. Sky knew he was glowing and threw caution to the wind. Over do the salbutamol and hope the UCI lets Froome slide if he is popped for it. If not, the hit Froome will take will not be as bad as getting popped for taking xxx drug. Sky will come up with some bs story to keep the fanboys happy.

Salbutamol?
It is a brochodilator and used in common anti-asthma treatments like Ventolin puffers. No Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is required for small inhaled doses but the UCI requires one for larger doses or if it is to be consumed by other means, like tablet form. It is considered a stimulant in small doses and can have an anabolic, muscle-building effect in larger doses (an online search will bring up stories of bodybuilders injecting it) and can be a masking agent too. It is a “specified substance” under the WADA Code, essentially a category which allows for thresholds and reduced bans rather than the automatic imposition of a four year ban.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

I've always had asthma - and the medical science has shifted a lot on salbutamol use. In the 90's one was encouraged to take it whenever/as much as one needed. Then in the 00's, evidence came out that it could have adverse effects on the heart, so ever since doctors (and chemists) have been extremely vigilant in asking how many puffs I would be taking in a given week. The basic idea being that one should not be relying on it at all - if more than 3 puffs a week are needed, that implies a necessary change in preventative medications (i.e. steroids).

So I do not buy the excuses of Ulissi, Froome etc. They are using a seriously large amount during racing: why? It's a stimulant. Full stop.

Being that this is Broncho Dilator. What affect would it have on heart rate? Would it increase? Or Lower at Higher Efforts? AKA: Froome-Dogs Ventoux Files. Where my man is spinning 110 rpm and the Heart Rate Remains the SAME?
Love the Dog!........Has anyone seen David Walsh? And while we are looking. Has anybody seen the Henao Blood Altitude study??? LMAO.
Long Live Team SKY, Wiggo, & Froome-Dog/Froomey/Va Va Froome.....They truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Alpe73]

All three grand tours were conceived as business ventures ... to "increase sales" (of newspapers). A century-or-so/century/scores of decades later ... we have the professional sport of cycling, which generates billions of dollars and generates employment, entertainment and enjoyment in many countries.

If Chris Froome's AAF eventually turns into a ban and loss of titles because of a rule violation ... fine. If the sporting authorities don't ban him ... fine. Professional cycling, like other sports, will roll on.

Don't confuse romance (legacies, heroes, villains, beloved sport) with business and competition.

Of course, you have every right to push your morality of sport as an issue, but you better shore up your numbers before you storm the Bastille.

 

[jilbiker]

Re:

I'm wondering if Froome over used the salbutamol to mask something else. Sky knew he was glowing and threw caution to the wind. Over do the salbutamol and hope the UCI lets Froome slide if he is popped for it. If not, the hit Froome will take will not be as bad as getting popped for taking xxx drug. Sky will come up with some bs story to keep the fanboys happy.

Salbutamol?
It is a brochodilator and used in common anti-asthma treatments like Ventolin puffers. No Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is required for small inhaled doses but the UCI requires one for larger doses or if it is to be consumed by other means, like tablet form. It is considered a stimulant in small doses and can have an anabolic, muscle-building effect in larger doses (an online search will bring up stories of bodybuilders injecting it) and can be a masking agent too. It is a “specified substance” under the WADA Code, essentially a category which allows for thresholds and reduced bans rather than the automatic imposition of a four year ban.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

Sounds very very possible. I am amazed to read how relaxed he has been since getting the news in September. Obviously Sky were going to cover it behind the scenes and they have have told him to mask with the Salbutamol. Hey remember Contador's Clen positive was hidden behind the scenes until it was exposed by some newspaper.

 

[thehog]

Tony Martin sums it up very well;

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I'm wondering if Froome over used the salbutamol to mask something else. Sky knew he was glowing and threw caution to the wind. Over do the salbutamol and hope the UCI lets Froome slide if he is popped for it. If not, the hit Froome will take will not be as bad as getting popped for taking xxx drug. Sky will come up with some bs story to keep the fanboys happy.

Salbutamol?
It is a brochodilator and used in common anti-asthma treatments like Ventolin puffers. No Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is required for small inhaled doses but the UCI requires one for larger doses or if it is to be consumed by other means, like tablet form. It is considered a stimulant in small doses and can have an anabolic, muscle-building effect in larger doses (an online search will bring up stories of bodybuilders injecting it) and can be a masking agent too. It is a “specified substance” under the WADA Code, essentially a category which allows for thresholds and reduced bans rather than the automatic imposition of a four year ban.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

I've always had asthma - and the medical science has shifted a lot on salbutamol use. In the 90's one was encouraged to take it whenever/as much as one needed. Then in the 00's, evidence came out that it could have adverse effects on the heart, so ever since doctors (and chemists) have been extremely vigilant in asking how many puffs I would be taking in a given week. The basic idea being that one should not be relying on it at all - if more than 3 puffs a week are needed, that implies a necessary change in preventative medications (i.e. steroids).

So I do not buy the excuses of Ulissi, Froome etc. They are using a seriously large amount during racing: why? It's a stimulant. Full stop.

Correct and I’ve been the same since around 1998.

Froome has already stated he takes a daily spray of Fluticasone as his preventive asthma treatment which does not contain Salbutamol. So for him to be at 2000mcg post stage for Salbutamol is an insane amount, it’s blantent abuse which I seriously doubt he got through an inhaler. Orally most likely to maintain weight post Tour before the Vuelta when he was in recovery and came back to haunt him from a blood bag infusion.

 

[hfer07]

Tony Martin sums it up very well;

+10000000000

about damn time someone finally stood up & spoke properly on the real matter!! Hope many follow his example, otherwise is Omerta 2.0