Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I’m unsure how not having an erection will hinder a cyclist..? I’d have thought it the opposite.

In the other two cases, people being treated at that point ain’t going to be riding bikes.


It’s possible many of them have independent verification, Callum Skinner went the whole hog to prove it for example.

Callum Skinner is the only rider to prove they had asthma as a child, that i am aware of.

Tells us a lot.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

It's only performance enhancing if you believe asthmatics don't belong in sport as part of some sort of aerian-style, disease-free medically sterile peloton. That is your opinion. WADA believe asthmatics do belong and therefore 'enable' those athletes performance using Salbutomol. Write to WADA as many times as you complain here anonymously and you might change WADA's thinking if its such a good idea perhaps?

WTH?! Everyone is welcome, but you gotta race what you were born with. Just answer my question from above: if someone with asthma can use meds to "get back to normal", why can't another use CERA or T or HGH to "get back to normal"?

Could you give an example of a case where these drugs would be relevant?

CERA/EPO: kidney disease (hi Chris!)
Testosterone: erectile dysfunction
HGH: muscle-wasting disease

Note that I don't think asthmatics shouldn't be allowed to use their inhalers during competition, but I think we need some truly independent doctors to establish that all these athletes are asthmatic.

Well Simon Yates during his issue, allowed some info released that showed he's had asthma since he was a child. But he also take asthma medicine that he needs a TUE for and not ones that are legal with a limit.

 

[topt]

Re: Re:

I've had this discussion in several threads over the years, but Froome's quote:
"And it is also worth pointing out that there is no performance benefit from using an asthma inhaler. It is purely a medical treatment."
got me going again. Asthma meds. are performance enhancing. Hey I'm sorry you have a lung issue, but that's the way it goes. You got screed by genetics. Where do you draw the line? Your lungs are constricted so take a med to open them up, my hematocrit is low so take some CERA to boost RBC/hemoglobin?

How well can CF perform without asthma meds.? Not as well as with them. Therefore, those meds. are performance enhancing.

I'm not arguing the rules here, I know that certain amounts of certain things are OK.

it doesn't give you 75% more capacity in your lungs, all it does it makes an asthmatic lungs work to a normal level, if you'd rather see people die, and people can die with asthma attacks then that's up to you......it just shows how little you know

Really? Froome is going to die? Really?

Bollix!!!

i'm sure you'd love to see it really happen, but people do die from asthma attacks, its not all made up rubbish you know, just because you don't want to believe it...

so why take chances by riding a bike; he should find a nice place somewhere in the native Kenyan mountains to rest

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

The difference is jmdirt, is you are born with asthma or develop it, it is a permanent disease without known cure wether you race a bike or not. Racing a bike and your haematocrit falling over 3 weeks is not a disease without known cure. The two are not comparable theraputically. One is self-induced and part of the sport, one is nature and not part of the sport.

What are you talking about? Self induced?! We are all born with or without things, you have asthma, someone else has lower hematocrit, someone else has lower T, someone recovers more slowly, etc. If the argument is to "get back to normal" everyone should be able to "get to normal levels".

Also, don't use "weather you race a bike or not" because we are talking about bike pro racing.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

It's only performance enhancing if you believe asthmatics don't belong in sport as part of some sort of aerian-style, disease-free medically sterile peloton. That is your opinion. WADA believe asthmatics do belong and therefore 'enable' those athletes performance using Salbutomol. Write to WADA as many times as you complain here anonymously and you might change WADA's thinking if its such a good idea perhaps?

WTH?! Everyone is welcome, but you gotta race what you were born with. Just answer my question from above: if someone with asthma can use meds to "get back to normal", why can't another use CERA or T or HGH to "get back to normal"?

Could you give an example of a case where these drugs would be relevant?

You have a 49 hematocrit and I have a 40. I should be able to use something to "get to your normal".
I recover more slowly than you so I should be able to use something to "get to normal".

To be clear, I'm not advocating doping, my point is race what you were born with.

 

[ngent41]

Re: Re:

It's only performance enhancing if you believe asthmatics don't belong in sport as part of some sort of aerian-style, disease-free medically sterile peloton. That is your opinion. WADA believe asthmatics do belong and therefore 'enable' those athletes performance using Salbutomol. Write to WADA as many times as you complain here anonymously and you might change WADA's thinking if its such a good idea perhaps?

WTH?! Everyone is welcome, but you gotta race what you were born with. Just answer my question from above: if someone with asthma can use meds to "get back to normal", why can't another use CERA or T or HGH to "get back to normal"?

Could you give an example of a case where these drugs would be relevant?

You have a 49 hematocrit and I have a 40. I should be able to use something to "get to your normal".
I recover more slowly than you so I should be able to use something to "get to normal".

To be clear, I'm not advocating doping, my point is race what you were born with.

The difference in your scenario of you getting to his normal hematocrit of 49 is this: That is not normal for you. So when a rider gets sick/asthma attacks or whatever, he can use his legal medicine to return to his normal, not someone else's normal.

 

[Ripper]

Re:

Performance enhancing and performance enabling isn’t semantics. It’s the reason things like NSAIDS aren’t banned. You can disagree with it of course, it’s a discussion that is certainly worth having, although I reckon at the moment it wouldn’t be much of a discussion.

KB, you are correct in that it would not be much of a discussion.

I use enhancing in the very straightforward definition of the word. As in, improve or increase performance. I know from first hand experience that if I am struggling with breathing issues, that ventolin has increased my performance, sometimes right back to my baseline. I am not saying it is not enabling. I am saying it is perfectly fine to also say it is enhancing, at least when it works (it doesn't always work and is not always needed)!

 

[Ripper]

I find this massive jump that some folks are making when they insinuate the use of the word enhancing means you are OK with riders dying, or you think people with asthma should be banned, is just plain silliness!

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

It's only performance enhancing if you believe asthmatics don't belong in sport as part of some sort of aerian-style, disease-free medically sterile peloton. That is your opinion. WADA believe asthmatics do belong and therefore 'enable' those athletes performance using Salbutomol. Write to WADA as many times as you complain here anonymously and you might change WADA's thinking if its such a good idea perhaps?

WTH?! Everyone is welcome, but you gotta race what you were born with. Just answer my question from above: if someone with asthma can use meds to "get back to normal", why can't another use CERA or T or HGH to "get back to normal"?

Could you give an example of a case where these drugs would be relevant?

You have a 49 hematocrit and I have a 40. I should be able to use something to "get to your normal".
I recover more slowly than you so I should be able to use something to "get to normal".

To be clear, I'm not advocating doping, my point is race what you were born with.

What absolute nonsense

There is no such thing as 'normal' hematocrit. There's a range. If you were outside what is considered to be the normal range to the point that you needed EPO, then you'd be undergoing treatment for some potentially life threatening/limiting underlying condition. You almost certainly wouldn't be riding bikes competitively.

There is however such a thing as being able to breathe 'normally'.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

It's only performance enhancing if you believe asthmatics don't belong in sport as part of some sort of aerian-style, disease-free medically sterile peloton. That is your opinion. WADA believe asthmatics do belong and therefore 'enable' those athletes performance using Salbutomol. Write to WADA as many times as you complain here anonymously and you might change WADA's thinking if its such a good idea perhaps?

WTH?! Everyone is welcome, but you gotta race what you were born with. Just answer my question from above: if someone with asthma can use meds to "get back to normal", why can't another use CERA or T or HGH to "get back to normal"?

Could you give an example of a case where these drugs would be relevant?

You have a 49 hematocrit and I have a 40. I should be able to use something to "get to your normal".
I recover more slowly than you so I should be able to use something to "get to normal".

To be clear, I'm not advocating doping, my point is race what you were born with.

As others have pointed out, this isn’t a disease. Now, if someone where to have a haematocrit that dropped from 40 to 10 very suddenly and there was a drug that returned it to 40 and no more it would be similar.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Performance enhancing and performance enabling isn’t semantics. It’s the reason things like NSAIDS aren’t banned. You can disagree with it of course, it’s a discussion that is certainly worth having, although I reckon at the moment it wouldn’t be much of a discussion.

KB, you are correct in that it would not be much of a discussion.

I use enhancing in the very straightforward definition of the word. As in, improve or increase performance. I know from first hand experience that if I am struggling with breathing issues, that ventolin has increased my performance, sometimes right back to my baseline. I am not saying it is not enabling. I am saying it is perfectly fine to also say it is enhancing, at least when it works (it doesn't always work and is not always needed)!

That’s fine, but I don’t believe that’s the definition WADA use or most anti-doping scientists. Returning you to your baseline is enabling, taking you above your baseline is enhancing.

I honestly don’t know where I stand on this. There is of course a natural deterioration over a race that some medications may mitigate, but I don’t think salbutamol is one of them, when used within guidelines.

 

[MartinGT]

Whenever you see the Dawg putting an effort in on the flat he's sketchy as anything and all over the place.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

It's only performance enhancing if you believe asthmatics don't belong in sport as part of some sort of aerian-style, disease-free medically sterile peloton. That is your opinion. WADA believe asthmatics do belong and therefore 'enable' those athletes performance using Salbutomol. Write to WADA as many times as you complain here anonymously and you might change WADA's thinking if its such a good idea perhaps?

WTH?! Everyone is welcome, but you gotta race what you were born with. Just answer my question from above: if someone with asthma can use meds to "get back to normal", why can't another use CERA or T or HGH to "get back to normal"?

Could you give an example of a case where these drugs would be relevant?

You have a 49 hematocrit and I have a 40. I should be able to use something to "get to your normal".
I recover more slowly than you so I should be able to use something to "get to normal".

To be clear, I'm not advocating doping, my point is race what you were born with.

Deluded. Where do you end this disease-free peloton? No contact lenses for you Alberto Contador, you gonna have to just crash into them lamposts and race with what mamma born you!

 

[Cycle Chic]

Re:

Whenever you see the Dawg putting an effort in on the flat he's sketchy as anything and all over the place.

thats because its a motorised bike...not that i,m watching this tour de farce

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

The Froome decision wasn't because he/Sky had loads of money and got lawyered up.

Guess who? 'I had more money and better lawyers'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX098Ru9OJU&t=483s

From 7:49

 

[samhocking]

I listened to that podcast. If Armstrong's saying you can't out-lawyer WADA with more money, that's good-enough for me. He was right at the start of this leak too. Frrst thing he said was "Salbutomol? Is that it"? and laughed and then said something like "This AAF just doesn't look right"

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

Re:

I listened to that podcast. If Armstrong's saying you can't out-lawyer WADA with more money, that's good-enough for me. He was right at the start of this leak too. Frrst thing he said was "Salbutomol? Is that it"? and laughed and then said something like "This AAF just doesn't look right"

He's using himself as the example that it can't be done. But it wasn't WADA or the UCI that took him down. That needed the Feds with their bottomless pockets and 'means of persuasion'.

 

[samhocking]

I'd argue via Ferrari he already knew you can't fight proven science with better lawyers, that's why it was all controlled via UCI.

 

[Ripper]

Re: Re:

That’s fine, but I don’t believe that’s the definition WADA use or most anti-doping scientists. Returning you to your baseline is enabling, taking you above your baseline is enhancing.

I honestly don’t know where I stand on this. There is of course a natural deterioration over a race that some medications may mitigate, but I don’t think salbutamol is one of them, when used within guidelines.

Ah, I see one of the issues is we are using different definitions. Like I noted before, I am using the dictionary definition. The reason why is because I don't see the typical use of ventolin as an issue. All Froome-ness aside, I don't see any issue with intermittent use of ventolin (within limits) to assist when there is an exacerbation of symptoms. I've used it, I know many peers who have, and I've read the data on it, at least up to a certain point!

I also know it can be abused, and for multiple reasons. I know some people find it a bit of a stimulant, while others will take it chronically, and sometimes at high doses, to assist with weight management. The science of course points to a range of effects, so individual impact has variability, like all drugs/medications. And of course there is also a placebo impact.

Cheers!

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

right that's it i'm out, I want to enjoy the next 3 weeks of racing no matter if froome wins or not, because unlike some it seems I actually want to watch bike racing....see you if froome breaks the internet and that will happen if he's dropped and the last tours catch up with him or he decides he has the legs and attacks...


happy bitching folks

Last visited:08 Jul 2018 13:56

:lol:

 

[jmdirt]

I'm actually OK with him using a motor since he has asthma and all.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

It's only performance enhancing if you believe asthmatics don't belong in sport as part of some sort of aerian-style, disease-free medically sterile peloton. That is your opinion. WADA believe asthmatics do belong and therefore 'enable' those athletes performance using Salbutomol. Write to WADA as many times as you complain here anonymously and you might change WADA's thinking if its such a good idea perhaps?

WTH?! Everyone is welcome, but you gotta race what you were born with. Just answer my question from above: if someone with asthma can use meds to "get back to normal", why can't another use CERA or T or HGH to "get back to normal"?

Could you give an example of a case where these drugs would be relevant?

You have a 49 hematocrit and I have a 40. I should be able to use something to "get to your normal".
I recover more slowly than you so I should be able to use something to "get to normal".

To be clear, I'm not advocating doping, my point is race what you were born with.

The difference in your scenario of you getting to his normal hematocrit of 49 is this: That is not normal for you. So when a rider gets sick/asthma attacks or whatever, he can use his legal medicine to return to his normal, not someone else's normal.

OK, I have a 37 hematocrit, that's below the normal range so I should be able to use meds to at least get into the normal range...and why not max it out while I'm at it?! I shouldn't have used "your normal" like that because I didn't mean 49 necessarily, I meant the established range.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

37 is quite low but it's not abnormal or unhealthy....unless you have an underlying medical condition that's suddenly caused it to drop that low. In that case you could probably get treatment for that underlying condition....but it wouldn't be EPO.

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

right that's it i'm out, I want to enjoy the next 3 weeks of racing no matter if froome wins or not, because unlike some it seems I actually want to watch bike racing....see you if froome breaks the internet and that will happen if he's dropped and the last tours catch up with him or he decides he has the legs and attacks...


happy bitching folks

Last visited:08 Jul 2018 13:56

:lol:

:lol: Exactly, as soon as someone calls him out he has no retort. Troll all day long.

 

[Benotti69]

"The issue is that a rider with limited pedigree in 2011 is on the verge of becoming the greatest bike rider of all time" - Paul Kimmage on Chris Froome

https://twitter.com/offtheball/status/1016032306727931906

Kimmage just jealous of course, just like the French..............and all the other BS excuses that spew forth trying to ignore the medical mircale that Froome and Sky claim he is!