Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Merckx index]

Then you might want to spend a few seconds on pubmed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7793107

Did you even read the abstract? The kids were not aware they had EIA until they were tested. If young Froome was like one of those kids, he wouldn’t know he had EIA, wouldn’t have used an inhaler, and wouldn’t years later be able to say he did. In fact, Froome has specifically said he uses it only for “great efforts”, implying that is the only time he has a problem. If he didn’t make such great efforts as a youth, how would he know?

A compromise is reached. A solution is found. The evidence is accepted. Froome is off the hook despite the inexplicable levels of Salbutamol. And we all go back to thinking we’re in the clean era of cycling again.

I think this is overly pessimistic. If a deal is made, it might be for, say, a six month back-dated suspension, as Benotti notes. He would lose the Vuelta, but return in early March, in time to prepare for the double. I think if Froome knows he can’t pass the lab test, he would accept that. A Giro-TDF would be a bigger deal than a Tour-Vuelta double, and he could always go for the Vuelta again in 2019.

More generally, I see only three reasons why this doesn’t go directly to CAS:

1) Froome is able to pass the lab test (unlikely)
2) WADA/UCI don’t agree to go directly to CAS (I can’t remember if both parties have to agree*)
3) A deal like the one suggested above is struck.

As corollaries, if there is an announcement soon that Froome wants to go to CAS directly, take that as meaning almost with certainty that he knows he can't pass the test. And conversely, if he goes ahead with the test, it very likely means a deal has been struck that Froome thinks is light enough to be worth taking.

*Edit: As far as I can tell, the athlete can appeal directly to CAS. While WADA or UCI can object, CAS itself rules on the objection. So at the very least, if Froome were to appeal directly to CAS and there was resistance, there would be a period of some time before it was decided the case could not go there.

When an objection to CAS jurisdiction is raised, the CAS Court Office or the Panel, if already constituted, shall invite the opposing party (parties) to file written submissions on jurisdiction. The Panel may rule on its jurisdiction either in a preliminary decision or in an award on the merits.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/code-procedural-rules.html

Would WADA/UCI object? On the one hand, Froome's being the biggest name in the sport, they would probably want the matter resolved at the highest level, with all possible arguments for and against entertained. OTOH, it will look bad if Froome goes for the Giro/Tour double with his status uncertain. Other contenders will be racing knowing that a second place might turn out to be a win, a fourth place a podium.

Wrt distinguishing inhaled vs. oral, to repeat, there’s no established test AFAIK. There are ways in principle to do it, but since some of any inhaled dose will probably be swallowed, it’s difficult. If you search through the WADA website, you will find projects of this kind, which means researchers are actively trying to devise a test, but have not yet created one that is accepted as WADA protocol. The bottom line is if there were a simple, approved test to distinguish the two, then it would be used routinely whenever an athlete exceeded the threshold, just as, e.g., when an athlete’s T/E ratio exceeds a threshold, the isotope test is applied.

That said, if the case does go to CAS, there will certainly be some attempt to apply a test of this kind to Froome’s samples. It's not necessary at CAS to refer only to accepted protocols, any evidence can be put on the table, with the arbiters being left to judge its value.

 

[70kmph]

Ullissi was provisionally suspended which counted toward the 9 months ban he received. He had a TUE, failed the controlled excretion study which means he supplemented his inhaler using injections/pills- he was found negligent. He was 1900 nanograms after 2 puffs before the stage- impossible

 

[zlev11]

Re: Re:

Thing is, putting any performance enhancement reasons for treatment for asthma to one side, is that taking corticosteroids for a legitimate asthma sufferer, is always purely a preventative one. You don't take it when you are suffering and ill with asthma side effects. You take it to stop you getting ill and having to suffer with it in the first place. For Collins to say that, he also then has to accept that any legitimate asthma sufferer will probably not be wise to choose sport as a career, even if they are very talented, because although they can win when not suffering, they cannot be legally treated when suffering. That is a huge human rights and freedom to work can of worms he's opening up if you ask me. Sometimes you just got to accept things can't be perfect.

Probably the most inane post on the topic. Froome already takes preventive medicine which does not contain Salbutamol. On top of that, he supposedly took 32 puffs on his reactive inhaler. Human Rights issue?!!! Strike me down.

Froome injected or took a pill of Salbutamol to enhance his performance. There is no other explanation for having 2000ng/ml of it in your system. "human rights" are already covered by allowing you to take 1000ng/ml, he was double that. How anyone can argue this is hilarious. It would be fun to go back and find out what the Sky apologists thought about Ulissi when he tested positive, probably a lot of "typical Italian doper, so glad they caught him" posts.

 

[DanielSong39]

Let's just fast forward to the part where Froome loses his Vuelta title and is suspended until the 2018 Vuelta.

These investigations and legal proceedings take way too long and is a major turn-off for sports fans.

 

[70kmph]

Petacchi sample the Barcelona lab found it to be oral dosage

In his witness statement, Prof. Segura, the Director of the Barcelona Laboratory, stated his
opinion that,
“The results of the sample coded A926245, which I have been told belongs to Mr. Petacchi, are not compatible
with an “accidental” swallowing of a portion of the product in the course of a therapeutic use of Salbutamol by
inhalation, i.e within the dosage indicated above.
Possible explanations of the results of the test obtained through the enantiomers method indicate that such results
have been caused by a direct oral administration of Salbutamol or the “accidental” swallowing of a part of the
product administered by inhalation at a supra therapeutic dose, i.e. a dose, which clearly exceeds the dosage
indicated above”.
https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/1362, 1393.pdf

 

[Kretch]

Re:

Wrt distinguishing inhaled vs. oral, to repeat, there’s no established test AFAIK. There are ways in principle to do it, but since some of any inhaled dose will probably be swallowed, it’s difficult. If you search through the WADA website, you will find projects of this kind, which means researchers are actively trying to devise a test, but have not yet created one that is accepted as WADA protocol. The bottom line is if there were a simple, approved test to distinguish the two, then it would be used routinely whenever an athlete exceeded the threshold, just as, e.g., when an athlete’s T/E ratio exceeds a threshold, the isotope test is applied.That said, if the case does go to CAS, there will certainly be some attempt to apply a test of this kind to Froome’s samples. It's not necessary at CAS to refer only to accepted protocols, any evidence can be put on the table, with the arbiters being left to judge its value.

While the technique might not be rigorous enough to convict on alone (due to the confounding issue of swallowing some of the inhaled substance), this paper http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/46/9/1365 clearly shows that it's possible to distinguish between oral and inhaled readily enough to be able to "know" what was going on.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Petacchi sample the Barcelona lab found it to be oral dosage

In his witness statement, Prof. Segura, the Director of the Barcelona Laboratory, stated his opinion that, “The results of the sample coded A926245, which I have been told belongs to Mr. Petacchi, are not compatible with an “accidental” swallowing of a portion of the product in the course of a therapeutic use of Salbutamol by inhalation, i.e within the dosage indicated above.

Possible explanations of the results of the test obtained through the enantiomers method indicate that such results have been caused by a direct oral administration of Salbutamol or the “accidental” swallowing of a part of the product administered by inhalation at a supra therapeutic dose, i.e. a dose, which clearly exceeds the dosage indicated above”.
https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/1362, 1393.pdf

Grazie mille! This is a great find. It’s exactly what I wanted to see, but I was unable to open the Petacchi case at the CAS website on my computer.

On 26 May 2007 the Rome Laboratory issued its report. It recorded the concentration of Salbutamol in Sample A as 1352 ng/ml. The urine specific gravity was stated to be 1.033.

This is really interesting. If the correction had been applied, his level would have been reduced to 819 ng/ml. But the panel didn’t accept this. Why not? Read on.

Mr. Petacchi stated that he took two puffs of his Ventolin inhaler before the race, two puffs before finishing the race, and two or three puffs after the race had finished, about an hour before he gave the sample in total 600-700 mcg of Salbutamol.

None of the studies I’ve seen report that an inhaled dose of that size would result in a urine concentration (corrected) of 819 ng/ml, even if the dose were taken all at once, and urine submitted at peak, about one hour later. Given Petacchi’s actual description of the events, which indicate only 2-3 puffs were taken within an hour or so of providing the sample, it’s even more improbable.

And note what the prosecution’s experts say:

Dr Botré, who had been Director of the Rome Laboratory since 1999 and Director of the Olympic Laboratory at the 2006 Turin Olympics, gave evidence of the rarity of finding a Salbutamol concentration as high as that found in the present case. He stated that in the last nine years at the Rome Laboratory he had had overall responsibility for checking 60-70,000 samples for Salbutamol, of which about 80% were from athletes in competition. Only about five or six samples had been found to contain a concentration of more than 1000 ng/ml of Salbutamol. At the 2006 Turin Olympics, he had tested about 1,450 samples from athletes and found Salbutamol in about 16 or 17 samples. All of these had contained less than 300 ng/ml of Salbutamol.

Dr Todaro stated that in over 20 years of activity in asthma treatment and as a consultant at the Olympic Games he had never seen a case in which, after a therapeutic use of inhaled Salbutamol, the concentration of Salbutamol in an athlete’s urine exceeded 1000 ng/ml. He considered that a concentration of 1352 ng/ml would indicate that an athlete had taken at least 12 puffs of Ventolin (1200 mcg of Salbutamol), if that was the only route used to administer it.

This is really devastating to Froome’s case. I’ll only add that 12 puffs would be enough to reach 1352 ng/ml only if all of the dose were taken at once, which is not allowed under WADA rules (maximum of 800 ug/12 hr).

Petacchi’s team brings up some points that surely Froome will also try to make:

1) high urine concentration;
2) several puffs after the finish
3) may have swallowed some of the inhaled dose

I’ve already addressed 2). Why does the final decision reject 1) and 3)? Wrt high urine concentration:

In response to Mr. Petacchi’s argument that the concentration of Salbutamol found in his urine should be adjusted to take into account the high specific gravity of his urine that day, WADA pointed out that the practice of adjusting results to take into account variations in specific gravity is only used by it in relation to endogenous substances. Salbutamol is not an endogenous substance. There is no WADA technical document or other guidance which recommends this practice in relation to it. Dr Rabin stated that WADA does not apply a correction for specific gravity because the 1000 ng/ml threshold is considered high enough generally to take into account all the variables mentioned by Mr. Petacchi, including urine specific gravity.

I'll just add that we don't know what Froome's sample's SG was, but since it was accepted as a valid sample, it couldn't have been too high, as I've noted before, even if the correction were allowed, it would have to be in the range of 1.036 - 1.040.

What about swallowing some of the inhaled dose? The final decision doesn’t rule this out, but argues that the amount swallowed would not be enough to account for the results of the enantiomer test that is used to distinguish inhaled vs. oral:

The results of the sample coded A926245, which I have been told belongs to Mr. Petacchi, are not compatible with an “accidental”swallowing of a portion of the product in the course of a therapeutic use of Salbutamol by inhalation, i.e within the dosage indicated above.

Possible explanations of the results of the test obtained through the enantiomers method indicate that such results have been caused by a direct oral administration of Salbutamol or the “accidental”swallowing of a part of the product administered by inhalation at a supra therapeutic dose, i.e. a dose, which clearly exceeds the dosage indicated above.

Petacchi’s team also argues that unusual metabolism or renal function may have contributed to the high level, but can’t provide any evidence for this.

Overall, this is the most relevant single document I’ve seen, and it’s really devastating to Froome’s case. Unless some new information pops up that changes everything, I think it will be very difficult for him to argue against a suspension.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

Thing is, putting any performance enhancement reasons for treatment for asthma to one side, is that taking corticosteroids for a legitimate asthma sufferer, is always purely a preventative one. You don't take it when you are suffering and ill with asthma side effects. You take it to stop you getting ill and having to suffer with it in the first place. For Collins to say that, he also then has to accept that any legitimate asthma sufferer will probably not be wise to choose sport as a career, even if they are very talented, because although they can win when not suffering, they cannot be legally treated when suffering. That is a huge human rights and freedom to work can of worms he's opening up if you ask me. Sometimes you just got to accept things can't be perfect.

Probably the most inane post on the topic. Froome already takes preventive medicine which does not contain Salbutamol. On top of that, he supposedly took 32 puffs on his reactive inhaler. Human Rights issue?!!! Strike me down.

Logically it makes no sense of course. The amount he has taken is abnormal. Even when I had full blown asthma attacks I never used that much because Ventolin ceases to be effective before getting to that point of usage and I have never taken 32 puffs in a 24 hour period in my life. I competed with other asthmatics and rarely saw them using their Ventolin either, maybe a puff after the race or during. Everyone starting using preventers and that's when asthma became more manageable when the new drugs arrived on the scene. Simply put if you need 32 puffs of Ventolin you should be in hospital or seeing a doctor because it's obviously not having the desired effect. And i don't see how he will be able to explain the reading or how his legal representative will. If you need 32 puffs of Ventolin, you are sitting in a chair with your chest heaving not riding in a five hour race with elite athletes.

 

[movingtarget]

i think this is in relation to the weight loss being attributed less to sky and more to the bodybuilding knowledge of Michelle's mum through Michelle...my money's on the combo of their nutrition and lienders's skills being behind the transformation we saw in 2011...

I'm with you on the nutrition/weight loss theory

The more I read about this the more I start to think that Sky really have just been old school doping.

Not old school blood doping, not even old school cycling doping. I never thought that it was as simple as that, watching videos of how they used to chase each other up mountains was crazy, it just looked different, nothing like the way Sky just sit at tempo, albeit a very high tempo on the mountain stages in recent times.

But I went the other way, thinking new cutting edge stuff, drugs we hadn't even heard of yet..... but I'm starting to think I was looking in completely the wrong direction.

The stuff the guy in the Wordpress article says about power to weight, losing weight but building and maintaining functional muscle. Of course we always knew that, but could it really be that simple? Put it all together with the 'Sky way'. The super skinny look within months of joining the team, but still able to produce those watts, long spells at tempo which destroy the peloton. Not just the main man, but the whole team. The watts don't go up, the weight just comes down. Same effect. If a cyclist, already lean, can lose say 5kg more doping than he ever could naturally, without losing power then that's every bit as transformational as EPO. It explains why we're seeing same speeds up mountains, without it looking as crazy as it did when Lance was chasing Pantani et al.

All this time searching for the new cutting edge programme, maybe it's just about good old fashioned physique enhancement, straight out of the weights room. I think someone said on here earlier...if you want to know how to lose fat and build muscle, ask a bodybuilder. They've got this down to a fine art.

It all seems to fit. Good old salbutamol, I'm guessing they had the protocols for masking this from the testers down to a tee. Until the one day somebody did something a little bit different.....

That would be my take on it - old school but really pushing the boundaries:

#1 OOC cortisone obviously (which we know / suspect from previous reports)
#2 And now we know - Salbutamol (ie not Clen).
Both used to kill the weight/fat whilst maintaining power.

Probably also Meldonium & Xenon in the past. Also blood pressure and thyroid drugs - although not sure if TUE needed or there are limits.

Combine those with other grey areas we haven't explored and a fanatical approach to training, etc. and maybe maybe that's it?

You forgot to mention the use of laxatives, I think Tom Dumoulin recommended them to CF after the Giro last year

Maybe Dumoulin will start recommending diapers as well.........with a quick release mechanism.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Thing is, putting any performance enhancement reasons for treatment for asthma to one side, is that taking corticosteroids for a legitimate asthma sufferer, is always purely a preventative one. You don't take it when you are suffering and ill with asthma side effects. You take it to stop you getting ill and having to suffer with it in the first place. For Collins to say that, he also then has to accept that any legitimate asthma sufferer will probably not be wise to choose sport as a career, even if they are very talented, because although they can win when not suffering, they cannot be legally treated when suffering. That is a huge human rights and freedom to work can of worms he's opening up if you ask me. Sometimes you just got to accept things can't be perfect.

Probably the most inane post on the topic. Froome already takes preventive medicine which does not contain Salbutamol. On top of that, he supposedly took 32 puffs on his reactive inhaler. Human Rights issue?!!! Strike me down.

Logically it makes no sense of course. The amount he has taken is abnormal. Even when I had full blown asthma attacks I never used that much because Ventolin ceases to be effective before getting to that point of usage and I have never taken 32 puffs in a 24 hour period in my life. I competed with other asthmatics and rarely saw them using their Ventolin either, maybe a puff after the race or during. Everyone starting using preventers and that's when asthma became more manageable when the new drugs arrived on the scene. Simply put if you need 32 puffs of Ventolin you should be in hospital or seeing a doctor because it's obviously not having the desired effect. And i don't see how he will be able to explain the reading or how his legal representative will. If you need 32 puffs of Ventolin, you are sitting in a chair with your chest heaving not riding in a five hour race with elite athletes.

Fully agree. Oh and when was so sick on Stage 17. He then decided to smash up Stage 18 putting time into Nibali, then again on Stage 20. Not content with the Vuelta in hand, Froome put his sickness to the test by sprinting for intermediate points to take the points jersey as well, up to and on the final stage. That’s how Froome was feeling, invincible.

His story of sickness as usual with Froome is total and utter bunk.

 

[sittingbison]

Re: Re:

I'll just add that we don't know what Froome's sample's SG was, but since it was accepted as a valid sample, it couldn't have been too high, as I've noted before, even if the correction were allowed, it would have to be in the range of 1.036 - 1.040...

Petacchi’s team also argues that unusual metabolism or renal function may have contributed to the high level , but can’t provide any evidence for this....

Overall, this is the most relevant single document I’ve seen, and it’s really devastating to Froome’s case. Unless some new information pops up that changes everything, I think it will be very difficult for him to argue against a suspension.

One argument might be that Dawg is an alien, somewhat like Kal El. The properties of our sunlight effect him differently from normal humans, and his home planet of Kenya has vastly different gravity than Earth allowing him to fly (up hills), so his specific gravity adjustment should be a factor of 0.49, reducing his 2000 level to 999.

Just like Clarke Kent, Dawg was only revealed to be alien after Bilharzia ate all his human red blood cells, and Michelle Counds mum fed him some organic bone broth from the local gym locker room. In August 2011.

 

[Merckx index]

Some more very interesting stuff in the Petacchi case. The Panel’s decision did not conclude that Petacchi intentionally doped. They ruled that he accidentally took too much:

The Panel is satisfied that the explanation for the concentration of Salbutamol found in his urine was that he took too many puffs of his Ventolin inhaler on that day, including some after the race…

The Panel is satisfied that Mr. Petacchi is not a cheat, and that the adverse analytical finding in this case is the result of Mr. Petacchi simply, and, possibly, accidentally, taking too much Salbutamol on the day of the test, but that the overdose was not taken with the intention of enhancing his performance. Indeed, it would be an unusual way of attempting to enhance performance to take the prohibited substance after the particular event had concluded…

In the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that Mr. Petacchi bears No Significant Fault or Negligence because his fault or negligence, when viewed in all the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for no fault or negligence, was not significant in relation to this anti-doping rule violation. It follows, therefore, that the Panel can reduce the period of ineligibility which Mr. Petacchi would otherwise have to suffer.

This is almost certainly a joke, of course, but it’s not an impossibility, and allowed them to rationalize giving him a relatively short suspension of ten months. It also allows Petacchi to present himself as an honest rider who just made a mistake, something that Froome would seize on.

But there's a much bigger implication for Froome's case. Petacchi's period of suspension began well after the Giro in which he tested positive, though of course his Giro results were also disqualified. This is intriguing, because if Froome’s case went to CAS, and was not resolved until after the Giro and TDF, it’s conceivable, based on this precedent, that he could receive a suspension that would start after those events. He would still lose the Vuelta, but he could possibly be allowed to keep Giro and TDF results even if he lost the decision. If the suspension were the same length as Petacchi's, ten months, he might even be able to race the TDF the following year (2019). If not, he could always go for the Vuelta, since at that point he still would not have won that GT.

With regard to that possibility, the Panel stated that normally a final decision would be reached within four months after an appeal is filed. That would suggest that if Froome wants to take the case to CAS, he could conceivably have the process finished before the Giro. If he lost in that case, then he would surely be suspended for both the Giro and the Tour. However, if there were delays in this case, as there often are (the Petacchi decision was not handed down until seven and half months after the appeal), or if Froome simply delayed in taking the case to CAS, he could get through both GTs before the decision.

I have to believe his lawyers are aware of that. They could possibly have the best of both worlds. By appealing to CAS fairly soon, but then making sure that the case is delayed through the summer, they could ensure that Froome is free to attempt the double, while at the same time UCI points out to everyone that they're working to resolve the case as quickly as possible. Sometime after the Tour is over, the decision is handed down, and everyone wins (ha,ha). Froome loses the Vuelta, so his critics get their pound (or is it milligrams?) of flesh. He gets to keep the Giro-TDF results, so the final standings in those races don't have to be revised. And Froome, like Contador, can sell to his fans that he just make a mistake, never cheated.

 

[Tubeless]

Re: Re:

Wrt distinguishing inhaled vs. oral, to repeat, there’s no established test AFAIK. There are ways in principle to do it, but since some of any inhaled dose will probably be swallowed, it’s difficult. If you search through the WADA website, you will find projects of this kind, which means researchers are actively trying to devise a test, but have not yet created one that is accepted as WADA protocol. The bottom line is if there were a simple, approved test to distinguish the two, then it would be used routinely whenever an athlete exceeded the threshold, just as, e.g., when an athlete’s T/E ratio exceeds a threshold, the isotope test is applied.That said, if the case does go to CAS, there will certainly be some attempt to apply a test of this kind to Froome’s samples. It's not necessary at CAS to refer only to accepted protocols, any evidence can be put on the table, with the arbiters being left to judge its value.

While the technique might not be rigorous enough to convict on alone (due to the confounding issue of swallowing some of the inhaled substance), this paper http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/46/9/1365 clearly shows that it's possible to distinguish between oral and inhaled readily enough to be able to "know" what was going on.

It's not possible to get a 2000 ng / ml of urine reading through inhaled salbutamol. The only practical explanation is that Froome was using either a nebulizer or more likely was ingesting Salbutamol tablets which can yield real anabolic benefits as eplained in this article: http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381

The general problem with the permissible Salbutamol level is that you can be on it continuously, as long as the level stays below 1000 ng / ml in a urine test. So this could be the "secret" legal doping program, and it would never be revealed as long at the levels stay within the permissible limits. If you end up using the inhaler as well, it's going to throw off the test determining the source as inhaled vs. oral - or at least make the results questionable so it could not be used to prove oral use.

Froome has said he's been on Asthma medication throughout his entire career - including his 5 Tour de France wins. At the Vuelta, he simply had an unfortunate dosing accident - a target test level of 666 ng / ml ended up being tripled due to an innocent mistake in applying the powdered Salbutamol tablets to his breakfast porridge before Stage 18.

Martin Johnsrud Sundby, a top Norwegian cross-country skier, was caught at 1360 ng / ml - and claimed this was through a nebulizer. He got a 2-month sanction, conveniently applied during the summer months for a winter sport athlete.

This CAS decision may be relevant in the Froome case as it's one of the more recent ones.

http://fasterskier.com/fsarticle/su...2015-tour-de-ski-and-overall-world-cup-titles

 

[sittingbison]

I think there is a gap in your logic MI. Historically they lose every race contested after the initial drug bust, not after a sanction or court hearing. Petacchi lost five wins, Bertie lost two GTs etc

There is no way Dawg would be allowed to keep two GTs raced after the bust but before a sanction

 

[The Hitch]

Yeah the disproportionate focus on Froome, like on Armstrong before him, is pretty simple. Success + hubris + people being sick of being lied to and having the broader casual fanbase accept those lies uncritically. That is a recipe that is on a different scale of egregiousness than if, say, Aru or Quintana or Simon Yates (oh wait, that's not a hypothetical) tested positive and banned as an open-and-shut case. That would be just another doper, this is a crack in the dominant narrative in cycling, the gravitational pull of which the bulk of money and power in cycling has circled around for the last 5 years. It's just particularly galling that Team Sky came onto the scene with much pomp and $$$ and has preached transparency while practicing obfuscation, preached zero tolerance while practicing 'get away with every advantage in every grey area possible', has preached a new start to clean sport while backing the most suspicious performance transformation since the heyday of EPO, has preached diligence and attention to detail while losing crucial medical records and somehow not being able to tell Jonathan Tiernan-Locke was glowing red hot for an entire year they decided his magical performance was worthy of a contract.

So there's a bit more to it than not liking a rider.

Can I get an amen?

 

[MartinGT]

There appears to be a high suspension rate for people who trip the 1000 limit.

I just have a feeling that the Dawg, despite having twice that is going to get off.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

I think there is a gap in your logic MI. Historically they lose every race contested after the initial drug bust, not after a sanction or court hearing. Petacchi lost five wins, Bertie lost two GTs etc

There is no way Dawg would be allowed to keep two GTs raced after the bust but before a sanction

Exactly this. The same question keeps coming up on here over the last few days.

The rules and past precedent is clear. The suspension starts on/is backdated to the day of the failed test. The only thing left to debate is the length of suspension.

If Froome races whilst awaiting ruling on the case, then any results gained which fall within any suspension handed down will be void.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Thing is, putting any performance enhancement reasons for treatment for asthma to one side, is that taking corticosteroids for a legitimate asthma sufferer, is always purely a preventative one. You don't take it when you are suffering and ill with asthma side effects. You take it to stop you getting ill and having to suffer with it in the first place. For Collins to say that, he also then has to accept that any legitimate asthma sufferer will probably not be wise to choose sport as a career, even if they are very talented, because although they can win when not suffering, they cannot be legally treated when suffering. That is a huge human rights and freedom to work can of worms he's opening up if you ask me. Sometimes you just got to accept things can't be perfect.

Probably the most inane post on the topic. Froome already takes preventive medicine which does not contain Salbutamol. On top of that, he supposedly took 32 puffs on his reactive inhaler. Human Rights issue?!!! Strike me down.

Froome injected or took a pill of Salbutamol to enhance his performance. There is no other explanation for having 2000ng/ml of it in your system. "human rights" are already covered by allowing you to take 1000ng/ml, he was double that. How anyone can argue this is hilarious. It would be fun to go back and find out what the Sky apologists thought about Ulissi when he tested positive, probably a lot of "typical Italian doper, so glad they caught him" posts.

Probably didnt know who he was or didnt care or maybe even didnt read the story ( I mean if you read stories about cycling you would know how corrupt it is and be less likely to believe in this - he trains harder!, fairytale)

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Thing is, putting any performance enhancement reasons for treatment for asthma to one side, is that taking corticosteroids for a legitimate asthma sufferer, is always purely a preventative one. You don't take it when you are suffering and ill with asthma side effects. You take it to stop you getting ill and having to suffer with it in the first place. For Collins to say that, he also then has to accept that any legitimate asthma sufferer will probably not be wise to choose sport as a career, even if they are very talented, because although they can win when not suffering, they cannot be legally treated when suffering. That is a huge human rights and freedom to work can of worms he's opening up if you ask me. Sometimes you just got to accept things can't be perfect.

Probably the most inane post on the topic. Froome already takes preventive medicine which does not contain Salbutamol. On top of that, he supposedly took 32 puffs on his reactive inhaler. Human Rights issue?!!! Strike me down.

I'm talking about Damian Collins view that corticosteroids shouldn't be in your system full-stop, not Froomes Salbutomol. Most preventers are corticosteroids.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Thing is, putting any performance enhancement reasons for treatment for asthma to one side, is that taking corticosteroids for a legitimate asthma sufferer, is always purely a preventative one. You don't take it when you are suffering and ill with asthma side effects. You take it to stop you getting ill and having to suffer with it in the first place. For Collins to say that, he also then has to accept that any legitimate asthma sufferer will probably not be wise to choose sport as a career, even if they are very talented, because although they can win when not suffering, they cannot be legally treated when suffering. That is a huge human rights and freedom to work can of worms he's opening up if you ask me. Sometimes you just got to accept things can't be perfect.

Probably the most inane post on the topic. Froome already takes preventive medicine which does not contain Salbutamol. On top of that, he supposedly took 32 puffs on his reactive inhaler. Human Rights issue?!!! Strike me down.

Froome injected or took a pill of Salbutamol to enhance his performance. There is no other explanation for having 2000ng/ml of it in your system. "human rights" are already covered by allowing you to take 1000ng/ml, he was double that. How anyone can argue this is hilarious. It would be fun to go back and find out what the Sky apologists thought about Ulissi when he tested positive, probably a lot of "typical Italian doper, so glad they caught him" posts.

Probably didnt know who he was or didnt care or maybe even didnt read the story ( I mean if you read stories about cycling you would know how corrupt it is and be less likely to believe in this - he trains harder!, fairytale)

So where is the performance enhancement in raising your level close to cardiac arrest as several doctors have now said. He would be closer to a 4000 level at the start of the stage given its half life. Even higher if he transfused the night before. Even then, why would you be transfusing whole blood withdrawn while taking salbutomol for weight loss? There's no advantage doing that other than you can DIY yourself and not need the equipment at home or visit a doctor with the equipment to spin it. The leaked result before UCI decision is I think a political game being played if you ask me. As Armstrong also said, something doesn't add up here. Not sure he ever bothered with salbutomol though lol!

 

[gillan1969]

Note the word 'possibly'.

'possibilmente'.

When people cheat in life it tends to be in lots of parts of their life.

he clinic gives, the clinic takes
the clinic judges your actions outside cycling too.
hail the clinic.

to be fair it's a brailsford-ism is it not?

 

[TourOfSardinia]

I don't think Froome in his unresolved state will be welcomed at the Giro.
If Israel pulls out for any reason - including CF's non participation -
there is already a plan B to start in southern Italy.
Source: last week's RadioCorsa
They don't want another limbo Giro - like that one Alberto "won on the road".

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Then you might want to spend a few seconds on pubmed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7793107

Did you even read the abstract? The kids were not aware they had EIA until they were tested. If young Froome was like one of those kids, he wouldn’t know he had EIA, wouldn’t have used an inhaler, and wouldn’t years later be able to say he did. In fact, Froome has specifically said he uses it only for “great efforts”, implying that is the only time he has a problem. If he didn’t make such great efforts as a youth, how would he know?

Yes, I did. Lets go back to what you said:

I think it’s a valid question. I thought EIA was the result of long hours of training. You might be genetically predisposed to the condition, but it wouldn’t manifest itself unless/until you lived the exercise-intense life of the pro.

The paper I provided showed, unequivocally, that it does manifest itself in children. I'm not making a claim that Froome was like those children or making suggestions about how active he was as a child. Im not even making a claim that Froome is telling the truth. I'm purely pointing out that EIA affects children and it is not necessary to "live the exercise-intense life of the pro" for it to manifest.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Thing is, putting any performance enhancement reasons for treatment for asthma to one side, is that taking corticosteroids for a legitimate asthma sufferer, is always purely a preventative one. You don't take it when you are suffering and ill with asthma side effects. You take it to stop you getting ill and having to suffer with it in the first place. For Collins to say that, he also then has to accept that any legitimate asthma sufferer will probably not be wise to choose sport as a career, even if they are very talented, because although they can win when not suffering, they cannot be legally treated when suffering. That is a huge human rights and freedom to work can of worms he's opening up if you ask me. Sometimes you just got to accept things can't be perfect.

Probably the most inane post on the topic. Froome already takes preventive medicine which does not contain Salbutamol. On top of that, he supposedly took 32 puffs on his reactive inhaler. Human Rights issue?!!! Strike me down.

I'm talking about Damian Collins view that corticosteroids shouldn't be in your system full-stop, not Froomes Salbutomol. Most preventers are corticosteroids.

He doesn't say that in the article though does he?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Then you might want to spend a few seconds on pubmed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7793107

Did you even read the abstract? The kids were not aware they had EIA until they were tested. If young Froome was like one of those kids, he wouldn’t know he had EIA, wouldn’t have used an inhaler, and wouldn’t years later be able to say he did. In fact, Froome has specifically said he uses it only for “great efforts”, implying that is the only time he has a problem. If he didn’t make such great efforts as a youth, how would he know?

Edited by King Boonen: Fixed your quote
edit...sorry crap at quoting...the above is from MI

The article linked perhaps gives a clue or perhaps I'm reading too much into it

"Furthermore, the British physician has objectively tested Froome and confirms the four-time Tour de France champion has asthma. Due to doctor/patient confidentiality, he is not able to divulge how severe Froome’s asthma is."
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/explainer-salbutamol-asthma-and-what-comes-next-for-froome_453676#7YEsAuqsUzfkvjL6.99

I would have thought they would be careful with the wording here and it's interesting that the word objectively is used. With an existing and previously proscribed condition of asthma (be it EIA or otherwise) that matter would not perhaps have been described that way, it, and its seriousness, already having been established by a different physician. Again not divulging the severity would suggest he owned the relationship rather than a different physician....

again I may be reading too much into it however it correlates time-wise to when we first heard about and when the puffer was first seen....