UCI helped Froome with illegal(?) TUE at Romandie

[Benotti69]

A number of us can remember elite riders hitting the inhaler while warming up on the turbo trainer before bigger national-level events. Many of those riders were cured later on. Cured! Not kidding.

Find a doctor willing to make the diagnosis and get your asthma meds. It's as old as the discovery asthma meds improve performance for endurance athletics.

Even Froome when talking to Kimmage was not sure about which docs he was talking too, Cound had to correct him!

PK: Who was the doctor?

CF: Richard.. . . .

MC: Freeman.

CF: Sorry, Freeman. He saw me and said, 'Chris, you're not riding with the way you are at the moment, you're just going to aggravate it. Give it 48 hours and you should be good to start in Romandie'. So I ended up just riding on the indoor trainer for a couple of hours in the hotel, watching the guys race Liege. And then I went on to Romandie. I felt good. The chest infection was pretty much finished. I did the prologue and my chest closed up completely and that's when (the team doctor) said: 'Okay, listen, we know you're fit to race but you're coughing like a dog. You need to take this (prednisone) to clear your chest'.

 

[Hawkwood]

A number of us can remember elite riders hitting the inhaler while warming up on the turbo trainer before bigger national-level events. Many of those riders were cured later on. Cured! Not kidding.

Find a doctor willing to make the diagnosis and get your asthma meds. It's as old as the discovery asthma meds improve performance for endurance athletics.

I know, I've heard, you've heard, the stats quoted of x% of Olympic athletes being asthmatic. Being devil's advocate just for a moment, I understand that some people with asthma grow out of it. Mine certainly isn't as bad as it was, but then I've seen a reduction in my peak flow of about 150.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I know, I've heard, you've heard, the stats quoted of x% of Olympic athletes being asthmatic. Being devil's advocate just for a moment, I understand that some people with asthma grow out of it. Mine certainly isn't as bad as it was, but then I've seen a reduction in my peak flow of about 150.

By grow out of it, they "get asthma" when accepted onto a national team, maybe 18-20 years old then cured when they quite riding at elite level?

 

[red_flanders]

Well the whole Froome/asthma thing is interesting. I suppose you can describe asthma as a chronic condition with acute attacks. I've been told that asthma's impact on your lungs is progressive, and some of the treatment is designed to slow this progression down. If Froome had a chest infection then it's highly likely that this caused a problem with his asthma. In the UK if you're asthmatic you're automatically on the at risk list for flu, and are offered the flu jab as are other at risk categories. In Froome's case I guess the team doctor would have done a few tests, listen for wheeziness in his chest, and do a peak flow, and check the oxygenation of the blood.

In my case I've been told that a decrease in peak flow of 10% is an attack, I forget what my `get to a hospital immediately' level is, I was told, but fortunately my asthma has been managed reasonably well. In terms of impact on cycling, a 10% decrease in peak flow for me would make it very uncomfortable cycling. I don't know how well Froome reacts to Salbutamol, but for me it isn't that effective. So possibly his peak flow went down, and the Salbutamol wasn't bringing it back up to a normal level, hence something else was needed. There are other factors, the weather, pollen levels if he's also got hay fever, dust levels in the atmosphere etc. I've always had problems in the lead up to a thunder storm which have gone once the storm has broken, my best 10 mile TT time was during a storm, I was soaked but fast.

I'm not making a case for whether or not this TUE should have been issued, but I would be interested in learning what were the details of the diagnosis.

All interesting, and thanks for the response.

I can't get by calling a chest infection on top of asthma, "not ill". Totally agree with the asthma analysis, but an infection means you're ill.

Froome had missed Liège-Bastogne-Liège due to a chest infection and initially consulted with his personal doctor in Monaco, Dr. Bermon, who did not prescribe any oral corticosteroids to treat the ailment.

EDIT: And never mind, I see above he says the infection was gone at Romandie. So why the TUE? He was no longer sick.

Here's the question now–is it OK to take prednisone for asthma? Does this meet the "acute" and "exceptional" standard which was cited when he got the TUE?

If it does, we have a UCI who are very loose with the definition of those terms. The least you can say on this case is that he got a TUE for reasons other than those acceptable by the UCI's own terms. At most you have a cover-up for a rider coming into a race glowing.

I don't know which it is, but either is doping, one is simply sanctioned with a wink and a nod by the UCI. Will that be the new bar for acceptable for Sky fans or defenders?

 

[Beech Mtn]

<snipped>

The story has always been utterly suspicious to me. Come of a training block in Tenerife, pull out late from LBL then a TUE is given in what my view at the time were suspicious circumstances.

Now the previous rationale(s) for the TUE have been directly contradicted by Froome. The situation was neither acute or exceptional, and he did not have a chest infection. When the story is never the same it almost always means someone is lying. And it was, as mentioned above, suspect from the start. Now we have more evidence that it was a lie.

In the full article, Froome states that he was tested at 6am on the morning of LBL, so I assume he was not glowing from his Tenerife training, or else the test would presumably catch that (absent a coverup, etc).

He also does talk about the chest infection at LBL, and the doctor not letting him race, thinking it would be cleared up in 48 hours. So he rode the rollers in the hotel that day, then travelled to Romandie.

 

[red_flanders]

In the full article, Froome states that he was tested at 6am on the morning of LBL, so I assume he was not glowing from his Tenerife training, or else the test would presumably catch that (absent a coverup, etc).

Quite possibly all true, and reasonable to believe. Just as likely that as with many other statements by Froome and/or Sky, there is some mis-truth in them, and therefor conclusions made on the claims aren't valid. He's said way too many things which have been confirmed to be untrue for me to accept anything he says at face value.

Not aimed at you Beech, but I don't understand why anyone who reads here and has the information readily available here would accept his statements at face value.

 

[thehog]

In the full article, Froome states that he was tested at 6am on the morning of LBL, so I assume he was not glowing from his Tenerife training, or else the test would presumably catch that (absent a coverup, etc).

He also does talk about the chest infection at LBL, and the doctor not letting him race, thinking it would be cleared up in 48 hours. So he rode the rollers in the hotel that day, then travelled to Romandie.

Serious question because I don't know the anwser;

If he didn't race by withdrawing does that mean he is considered "training" and it's an OOC test and not a race day test?

As Red says he appears very vague on the details.

PK: You applied for the TUE (on April 29) after the prologue of the Tour of Romandie. Two days before that you were in Belgium for Liege-Bastogne-Liege. You tweeted on the morning of the race that you'd had a (dope) control? You were woken at six?

CF: Yeah.

PK: You went back to bed but didn't ride the race because of a chest infection. At what stage did you decide you weren't riding?

CF: It was that morning. I flew in the night before and the doctor saw me and said, 'We'll check you in the morning'.

PK: Who was the doctor?

CF: Richard.. . . .

MC: Freeman.

Sorry I'll add; it's still not known 100% when the TUE was applied for... ahead? ie before Romandie started?

Ahead of the Tour de Romandie, Le Journal du Dimanche reports, Sky team doctor Alan Farrell requested a TUE that would allow Froome to take 40mg per day of the oral corticosteroid prednisolone throughout the race. This request was reportedly granted and Froome proceeded to win the Tour de Romandie for the second successive year.

 

[jens_attacks]

chris was at moments to slip his tongue there...

pk:who was the doctor?

cf: richard...leinders

mc: chris, for fucc's sake!

 

[Hawkwood]

All interesting, and thanks for the response.

I can't get by calling a chest infection on top of asthma, "not ill". Totally agree with the asthma analysis, but an infection means you're ill.

EDIT: And never mind, I see above he says the infection was gone at Romandie. So why the TUE? He was no longer sick.

Here's the question now–is it OK to take prednisone for asthma? Does this meet the "acute" and "exceptional" standard which was cited when he got the TUE?

If it does, we have a UCI who are very loose with the definition of those terms. The least you can say on this case is that he got a TUE for reasons other than those acceptable by the UCI's own terms. At most you have a cover-up for a rider coming into a race glowing.

I don't know which it is, but either is doping, one is simply sanctioned with a wink and a nod by the UCI. Will that be the new bar for acceptable for Sky fans or defenders?

I thought I'd check what it says in the British National Formulary and I'm surprised. Oral prednisolone is indicated for three levels of asthma, moderate exacerbation of asthma, acute severe asthma, and life threatening asthma, all terms are from the Formulary. A moderate exacerbation is given as 50-75% of predicted or best peak flow. The dose, 40-50mg daily, is exactly the same in all three instances. So if Froome has a best or predicted peak flow of 700, then 525 would have a UK doctor giving him the drug. I should add that I have a 2003 copy of the Formulary so the above might have changed a bit.

 

[Hawkwood]

By grow out of it, they "get asthma" when accepted onto a national team, maybe 18-20 years old then cured when they quite riding at elite level?

I know, I was referring to people with genuine asthma. But then being on the road as a pro cyclist, staying in hotels with not so new mattresses and pillows might well make very mild asthma not so mild!

 

[TailWindHome]

In the full article, Froome states that he was tested at 6am on the morning of LBL

This was the 'obvious question' I alluded to earlier, which no one seemed to be asking.

There's a lot of bollix in this thread, but the fact that he was tested, withdrew from the race and then required an urgent TUE a couple of days later is a red flag for me.

Taking a steroid under TUE isn't cheating, I don't even think it's unethical. However requiring an urgent TUE to cover something you're already been taking is a whole different ballgame.

 

[red_flanders]

I thought I'd check what it says in the British National Formulary and I'm surprised. Oral prednisolone is indicated for three levels of asthma, moderate exacerbation of asthma, acute severe asthma, and life threatening asthma, all terms are from the Formulary. A moderate exacerbation is given as 50-75% of predicted or best peak flow. The dose, 40-50mg daily, is exactly the same in all three instances. So if Froome has a best or predicted peak flow of 700, then 525 would have a UK doctor giving him the drug. I should add that I have a 2003 copy of the Formulary so the above might have changed a bit.

Notable, thanks. Also notable that his personal doctor did not prescribe Prednisone in his case, before the team doctor did.

So I don't know if he was having an asthma flareup, a chest infection, or nothing at all. It's believable that he was prescribed Prednisone and the UCI doctor really believed he needed it.

So he loses 9 seconds in the prologue with what has to be described as "acute" asthma to qualify for the emergency TUE.

Do you believe that's possible? Then he proceeds to crush the field after the Prednisone, according to the stated timeline

So we are to believe that he:
• came off a chest infection despite the original claim that he got the TUE for a chest infection
• rode the prologue for 13th place, 9 seconds off the win
• got an emergency TUE for some kind of acute condition, initially reported as a chest infection but now identified as restricted breathing due to asthma. A condition he claims to have had since childhood.
• The UCI give him an emergency TUE which are granted for "acute cases" in "exceptional circumstances". We are to believe asthma that he knows he has qualifies?
• Goes on to dominate the race, never mentioning the TUE
• Story breaks

It all sounds very fishy to me.

 

[Benotti69]

Notable, thanks. Also notable that his personal doctor did not prescribe Prednisone in his case, before the team doctor did.

So I don't know if he was having an asthma flareup, a chest infection, or nothing at all. It's believable that he was prescribed Prednisone and the UCI doctor really believed he needed it.

So he loses 9 seconds in the prologue with what has to be described as "acute" asthma to qualify for the emergency TUE.

Do you believe that's possible? Then he proceeds to crush the field after the Prednisone, according to the stated timeline

So we are to believe that he:
• came off a chest infection despite the original claim that he got the TUE for a chest infection
• rode the prologue for 13th place, 9 seconds off the win
• got an emergency TUE for some kind of acute condition, initially reported as a chest infection but now identified as restricted breathing due to asthma. A condition he claims to have had since childhood.
• The UCI give him an emergency TUE which are granted for "acute cases" in "exceptional circumstances". We are to believe asthma that he knows he has qualifies?
• Goes on to dominate the race, never mentioning the TUE
• Story breaks

It all sounds very fishy to me.

He tells Kimmage

I have used inhalers since I was a teenager.

Why wait till his teenage years to treat his asthma if he had it since childhood..........

 

[sniper]

He tells Kimmage



Why wait till his teenage years to treat his asthma if he had it since childhood..........

good spot.

the guy wants to be Mr. Clean but can't keep the simplest of stories straight.

 

[The Hitch]

chris was at moments to slip his tongue there...

pk:who was the doctor?

cf: richard...leinders

mc: chris, for fucc's sake!

she should have just kept quiet and go with whatever doctor froome said

 

[sniper]

chris was at moments to slip his tongue there...

Pk:who was the doctor?

Cf: Richard...leinders

mc: Chris, for fucc's sake!

..........

 

[thehog]

This was the 'obvious question' I alluded to earlier, which no one seemed to be asking.

There's a lot of bollix in this thread, but the fact that he was tested, withdrew from the race and then required an urgent TUE a couple of days later is a red flag for me.

Taking a steroid under TUE isn't cheating, I don't even think it's unethical. However requiring an urgent TUE to cover something you're already been taking is a whole different ballgame.

It is an interesting question. Controlled at 6:30am, withdrawn by 7:30am.

Emergency TUE 2 days later prior to the race or night of the prologue - yet to be confirmed.

I'd still like to know that by "withdrawing" does your ADAMS status go from "In competition" back to "OOC"?


edit: I guess I answered my own question. By "withdrawing" from the event he can no longer test positive as he's not "in-competition".

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Notable, thanks. Also notable that his personal doctor did not prescribe Prednisone in his case, before the team doctor did.

So I don't know if he was having an asthma flareup, a chest infection, or nothing at all. It's believable that he was prescribed Prednisone and the UCI doctor really believed he needed it.

So he loses 9 seconds in the prologue with what has to be described as "acute" asthma to qualify for the emergency TUE.

Do you believe that's possible? Then he proceeds to crush the field after the Prednisone, according to the stated timeline

So we are to believe that he:
• came off a chest infection despite the original claim that he got the TUE for a chest infection
• rode the prologue for 13th place, 9 seconds off the win
• got an emergency TUE for some kind of acute condition, initially reported as a chest infection but now identified as restricted breathing due to asthma. A condition he claims to have had since childhood.
• The UCI give him an emergency TUE which are granted for "acute cases" in "exceptional circumstances". We are to believe asthma that he knows he has qualifies?
• Goes on to dominate the race, never mentioning the TUE
• Story breaks

It all sounds very fishy to me.

Is it too pedantic to add that he makes no mention, anywhere, of trying his inhaler to no avail?

If you have an ongoing issue, I would expect you'd try your ongoing remedy, and then if it failed to work as expected, mention such as justification for raising the remedy level to defcon 4?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It is an interesting question. Controlled at 6:30am, withdrawn by 7:30am.

Emergency TUE 2 days later prior to the race or night of the prologue - yet to be confirmed.

I'd still like to know that by "withdrawing" does your ADAMS status go from "In competition" back to "OOC"?


edit: I guess I answered my own question. By "withdrawing" from the event he can no longer test positive as he's not "in-competition".

I don't think athletes have "competition status" - their tests or test samples do.

 

[thehog]

I don't think athletes have "competition status" - their tests or test samples do.

They do have status. They are "in-competition", "training", "travelling or "other".

Reading the below. By withdrawing from the event would mean the control on the morning of LBL would now become "OOC" meaning steroids would not be tested for.

 

[RownhamHill]

I don't think athletes have "competition status" - their tests or test samples do.

Isn't there an 8 day cut off for cortisone use ooc? So if he tested positive in an ooc test on Sunday, he would have had to skip the race he started the following Wednesday?

Edit: sorry just seen hog's post. So he wouldn't get tested for cortisone on the ooc test?

 

[Beech Mtn]

They do have status. They are "in-competition", "training", "travelling or "other".

Reading the below. By withdrawing from the event would mean the control on the morning of LBL would now become "OOC" meaning steroids would not be tested for.

Good post Hog, and the ADAMS link too.

 

[thehog]

Good post Hog, and the ADAMS link too.

Yes it all starts to make sense.

The late arrival, the withdrawal straight after the dope control to maintain OOC, the TUE for the next race.

Glowing like Christmas Tree in Times Square.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

They do have status. They are "in-competition", "training", "travelling or "other".

Reading the below. By withdrawing from the event would mean the control on the morning of LBL would now become "OOC" meaning steroids would not be tested for.

No, it wouldn't be OOC.

When you get tested they fill out the paperwork.

There's no way they go back and change the paper work post-test because the rider pulled out.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The above snippet is simply the definition of In-competition as used in the UCI ADR. Page 75.