chris froome

Cyclewizard

mistermatthew wrote: »

Yeah Wiggins is probably the most gifted rider of his generation. A lot of people have little appreciation of how good he is. It really would not surprise me if he makes rio 2016 and wins a gold, after beating the hour record in 2015 and retires with the most awesome of palmares.

Chris froome on the other hand is a GC specialist and a top TTer, but nowhere near Brads class on the bike.

Brad is more versatile for sure and I agree he could well win gold in rio. Frome is a different athlete and as a GC rider way ahead at the moment

tomdempsey200

NO SPOILERS

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Dammit, read the rules, no damn spoilers.

Brian?

This is sort of interesting. TUE fast tracked for Froome to take corticosteroid prednisolone at the Tour of Romandie.

Probably another storm in a tea cup, but this fast tracking business is a bit unsettling.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie

Inquitus

Brian? wrote: »

This is sort of interesting. TUE fast tracked for Froome to take corticosteroid prednisolone at the Tour of Romandie.

Probably another storm in a tea cup, but this fast tracking business is a bit unsettling.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie

That's the UCI's problem rather than Froomes, disappointing that the UCI still isn't following the WADA rules it's signed up to. I often wonder why Sky aren't signed up to the MPCC...

dragratchet

and the doc who signed off on it and his history :rolleyes:

Brian?

Inquitus wrote: »

That's the UCI's problem rather than Froomes, disappointing that the UCI still isn't following the WADA rules it's signed up to. I often wonder why Sky aren't signed up to the MPCC...

I completely agree. The fault here lies with the UCI. will they ever learn??

RobFowl

Brian? wrote: »

I completely agree. The fault here lies with the UCI. will they ever learn??

WADA rules
S9. GLUCOCORTICOSTEROIDS
All glucocorticosteroids are prohibited when administered by oral, intravenous, intramuscular or rectal routes

TUE required for use in competition and standard process must be followed, which included the application being reviewed by a 3 doc TUE committee.
If this didn't happen there will be consequences for the doctors involved...

fishfoodie

Somewhere, Pat McQuaid is laughing his a$$ off ..... Possibly while stroking a white cat.

Cookson needs to explain this immediately !

mcgratheoin

Storm in a teacup alright, but for me there's a greater issue at stake. I'm of the opinion that for cases like Froome's, if you need a corticosteroid TUE because you're coughing too much (see quote from Froome) then you shouldn't be racing in the first place. As a rough draft of a new rule I would suggest; If there are underlying medical issues at the beginning of the season, e.g. exercise induced asthma, hayfever, diabetes etc.., then the rider obtains a TUE valid for that season. If they apply for a short term TUE during the season, for painkillers/corticosteroids/whatever, then they serve a mandatory short period (let's say a week) while ineligible to race.

At the time I was coming back from a training camp at altitude and I was supposed to participate in Liège-Bastogne-Liège but I was coughing too much and the morning of the race the doctor told me that I had to pull out if I wanted to go to the Tour de Romandie and that I needed to rest for two days.
I gave everything I had in the Romandie prologue but I was coughing so much that we decided to ask for a TUE that evening. It was just an oral [corticosteroid], there was no injection.

griffin100

We need the services of someone whose good at routing out the truth in situations such as this to take an impartial and expert look at what happened here. Someone like David Walsh............

pelevin

I saw someone quote the following extract from "Inside Team Sky" p.72, which seems a fair thing to bring up:

'Peters insists that Leinders was scrupulously ethical in his time with Sky. ‘We agreed as a team that if a rider, suffering from asthma, got into trouble with pollen we would pull him out of the race rather than apply for a therapeutic use exemption on his behalf.

‘Once, one of our riders was in this situation and the doctor got in touch with me and asked if we could get an exemption because the guy was in a bad way but was very keen to finish the race.
‘Using my discretion, I said “Okay.”
‘It was Geert who rang me afterwards to tell me I was wrong.
‘“We’ve got to have consistency,” he said.'


I think fair to say, it's been proved the above meaningless PR guff from Sky & their PR man, Walsh. Surely the meaning of the above is if an athlete requires steroid medication, then he should be pulled from the race. And which seemingly would have to be the case if Sky were members of the MPCC.

RobFowl

pelevin wrote: »

I think fair to say, it's been proved the above meaningless PR guff from Sky & their PR man, Walsh. Surely the meaning of the above is if an athlete requires steroid medication, then he should be pulled from the race. And which seemingly would have to be the case if Sky were members of the MPCC.

If Sky were members of the MPCC they would have puled the rider and rested him for 7 days after finishing the course of steroids.
MPCC membership is voluntary though and not mandatory.

pelevin

RobFowl wrote: »

If Sky were members of the MPCC they would have puled the rider and rested him for 7 days after finishing the course of steroids.
MPCC membership is voluntary though and not mandatory.

Thanks, piecing together what is & isn't the reality can be a tricky business. Sky I think claim their non-membership of MPCC is to do with the MPCC not actually being stringent enough! while in this scenario that piousness seems to be more empty words than substance.

RobFowl

Interesting, according to the Daily Telegraph the drug prescribed was actually penisolone


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10902353/Chris-Froomes-use-of-a-steroid-based-drug-in-competition-did-not-break-anti-doping-rules-say-UCI.html

lennymc

pelevin wrote: »

I saw someone quote the following extract from "Inside Team Sky" p.72, which seems a fair thing to bring up:

'Peters insists that Leinders was scrupulously ethical in his time with Sky. ‘We agreed as a team that if a rider, suffering from asthma, got into trouble with pollen we would pull him out of the race rather than apply for a therapeutic use exemption on his behalf.

‘Once, one of our riders was in this situation and the doctor got in touch with me and asked if we could get an exemption because the guy was in a bad way but was very keen to finish the race.
‘Using my discretion, I said “Okay.”
‘It was Geert who rang me afterwards to tell me I was wrong.
‘“We’ve got to have consistency,” he said.'

but you don't need a TUE for an asthma inhaler. They are hardly going to pull a rider for using something that is completely within the rules.

Lumen

RobFowl wrote: »

Interesting, according to the Daily Telegraph the drug prescribed was actually penisolone

Must be tricky to administer that therapy when you have a roommate.

pelevin

lennymc wrote: »

but you don't need a TUE for an asthma inhaler. They are hardly going to pull a rider for using something that is completely within the rules.

I think you're mixing up stories. The Tour of Romandie TUE had nothing to do with the asthma inhaler.

RobFowl

lennymc wrote: »

but you don't need a TUE for an asthma inhaler. They are hardly going to pull a rider for using something that is completely within the rules.

They were talking about a TUE for a course of steroids (prednisolone)

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

Must be tricky to administer that therapy when you have a roommate.

I think they come with ear plugs for any room mates.

fishfoodie

pelevin wrote: »

I saw someone quote the following extract from "Inside Team Sky" p.72, which seems a fair thing to bring up:

'Peters insists that Leinders was scrupulously ethical in his time with Sky. ‘We agreed as a team that if a rider, suffering from asthma, got into trouble with pollen we would pull him out of the race rather than apply for a therapeutic use exemption on his behalf.

‘Once, one of our riders was in this situation and the doctor got in touch with me and asked if we could get an exemption because the guy was in a bad way but was very keen to finish the race.
‘Using my discretion, I said “Okay.”
‘It was Geert who rang me afterwards to tell me I was wrong.
‘“We’ve got to have consistency,” he said.'


I think fair to say, it's been proved the above meaningless PR guff from Sky & their PR man, Walsh. Surely the meaning of the above is if an athlete requires steroid medication, then he should be pulled from the race. And which seemingly would have to be the case if Sky were members of the MPCC.

There are so many parts to this story that are depressing

1. Skys 'Transparency', & Froomes, 'I don't know what more I can do ...', are shown to be complete shams.

2. The UCI hasn't moved one step forward from where it was when it gave LA his retrospective TUE.

3. Yet again we have a UCI leader with a massive conflict of interest, & no sign of him giving a krap about changing that !

tomdempsey200

I don't think there's any way froome is going to dominate the tour going forward

He is just too underweight and will struggle with illness and loss of form imo

fishfoodie

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

I don't think there's any way froome is going to dominate the tour going forward

He is just too underweight and will struggle with illness and loss of form imo

I don't think his weight is any lower than last year ?

And as for illness, he apparently had an 'acute' respiratory issue at the start of the Romandy, & still obliterated the field in the TT, including Tony Martin.

lennymc

Yes the TOR was for the penis-whatchyamacallit, but the quote above specifically mentioned TUE for asthma.

serendip

This is a non-story: http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/06/wada-says-uci-followed-rules-in-granting-froome-tue-for-corticosteroid/

irishrover99

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

I don't think there's any way froome is going to dominate the tour going forward

He is just too underweight and will struggle with illness and loss of form imo

I think Froome is fragile under pressure. In last years tour when the peloton split in cross winds, he really didn't know what to do and was unwilling to help other teams to try close to the gap to Contador. I couldn't believe that the other riders didn't attack him more in the climbs(until the last mountain stage). I know sky set a high pace and its hard to attack but they could try.

I can see Froome having a hard time on stage 5 this year when they use the Paris Roubaix route. Contador is a better bike handler and has done this stage before and finished well.

pelevin

lennymc wrote: »

Yes the TOR was for the penis-whatchyamacallit, but the quote above specifically mentioned TUE for asthma.

Yes but the Leinders related extract is I would say clearly about the whole principle of resorting to TUEs to enable a rider to race. The UCI statement was: "Christopher Froome’s TUE for oral use of glucocorticosteroids was granted . . . " so it's the use of a steroid, to help with Froome's a bad chest & cough. So the principle of the Inside Team Sky extract is resorting to a TUE and such medicine is against team principles. Also if you're sick enough to need such medicine, should you be racing? Odd kind of recovery, and Froome dominantly won that race! Which makes the issue that bit more odd & imo wrong again. He needed a dose of steroids to help him get over an illness for which he pulled out of Liege Baston Liege, & in such a physically demanding activity he ended up the strongest rider in the race. I'd say it's fairly clear the spirit of the words in the Walsh book, showing how pleasingly conscientious they are have shown to be, has been discarded happily enough.

One correction though is I think the MPCC statement is "Intra-articular corticosteroid injections have to be validated by the team doctor, who will prescribe eight days off-race." Froome's steroid use was oral rather than injection, though which still obviously wholly contradicts the spirit of the claims in the "Inside Team Sky" book regarding riders who otherwise would not be racing resorting to TUEs & steroids to compete.

jinkypolly

serendip wrote: »

This is a non-story: http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/06/wada-says-uci-followed-rules-in-granting-froome-tue-for-corticosteroid/

Not quite getting the same attention on here that the original accusatory piece got. Funny that.

mistermatthew

irishrover99 wrote: »

I think Froome is fragile under pressure. In last years tour when the peloton split in cross winds, he really didn't know what to do and was unwilling to help other teams to try close to the gap to Contador. I couldn't believe that the other riders didn't attack him more in the climbs(until the last mountain stage). I know sky set a high pace and its hard to attack but they could try.

I can see Froome having a hard time on stage 5 this year when they use the Paris Roubaix route. Contador is a better bike handler and has done this stage before and finished well.

I agree. I think he is also a poor reader of races as he's shown numerous times. I think due to this he can only beat riders he is much stronger than and not those who are close to him on form.

I think you can see the weaknesses through Bradley Wiggins whom I think he has an inferiority complex with.

Also last years tour I think was far from convincing as I think contrary to popular belief it was a weaker field than the years wiggo and cadel won. And also Valverde was out of the equation due to the stage he punctured in crosswinds. This year he faces an in form valverde(IMO the cleverest race reader out there), a fired up and in form contador, the possibility of having to close down constant one twos from quintana/valverde in the mountains and the fact that richie porte has turned into an andy schleck.

Also I think the decision to not take wiggo(if it is true) is idiotic and could have shot himself in the foot. It is the equivelant of contador not taking kreusinger because he was a stronger rider at the tour last year.
You pick the best team possible and as a leader you stamp your authority on the road, not in a political way. Froome is scared wiggo will take the yellow in the first tt and he can't allow this. Instead of letting it happen and taking it of him in the mountains, what a real leader would do.

I'm looking forward to the tour but as you can probably tell I've taken a real dislike to froome, not because I am anti-sky like so many but because I think he is a coward on the road.

laraghrider

jinkypolly wrote: »

Not quite getting the same attention on here that the original accusatory piece got. Funny that.

Not really. The initial discussion was around the type of drug being used and it's familiarity with a previous case. It was also based on information we had at the tie that the procedure had been broken which regardless of rider is wrong. The link supplied above clarifies this and the discussion has now moved onto the safety of racing while ill.

So it's not a "funny that" case of the link being ignored if you follow the discussion it has simply shifted direction as new information (such as the link) has become available.

n-dawg

mistermatthew wrote: »

Froome is scared wiggo will take the yellow in the first tt and he can't allow this.

Only one TT this year on the 2nd last day... so if Wiggin's was in yellow it would be because he claimed it in the hills (or cobblestones). Still I agree with your point, it is stupid not to pick your best team. You just need good management to deal with peoples conflicting goals.

pelevin

Very good piece by Shane Stokes on the TUE issue:

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/06/wada-says-uci-followed-rules-in-granting-froome-tue-for-corticosteroid/

12 sprocket

mistermatthew wrote: »

I agree. I think he is also a poor reader of races as he's shown numerous times. I think due to this he can only beat riders he is much stronger than and not those who are close to him on form.

I think you can see the weaknesses through Bradley Wiggins whom I think he has an inferiority complex with.

Also last years tour I think was far from convincing as I think contrary to popular belief it was a weaker field than the years wiggo and cadel won. And also Valverde was out of the equation due to the stage he punctured in crosswinds. This year he faces an in form valverde(IMO the cleverest race reader out there), a fired up and in form contador, the possibility of having to close down constant one twos from quintana/valverde in the mountains and the fact that richie porte has turned into an andy schleck.

Also I think the decision to not take wiggo(if it is true) is idiotic and could have shot himself in the foot. It is the equivelant of contador not taking kreusinger because he was a stronger rider at the tour last year.
You pick the best team possible and as a leader you stamp your authority on the road, not in a political way. Froome is scared wiggo will take the yellow in the first tt and he can't allow this. Instead of letting it happen and taking it of him in the mountains, what a real leader would do.

I'm looking forward to the tour but as you can probably tell I've taken a real dislike to froome, not because I am anti-sky like so many but because I think he is a coward on the road.

Your a gas man... "A coward on the road??? must be the first Tour De France winner in over a hundred years that was a "coward on the road"

mistermatthew

12 sprocket wrote: »

Your a gas man... "A coward on the road??? must be the first Tour De France winner in over a hundred years that was a "coward on the road"

I just think the way he criticised contador for attacking on descents and claims he could have beaten wiggins but didn't do it shows a lack of bravery. Beat someone if you want to, don't hide behind one 30 second attack for years after. And if you don;t want to, shut up about it.

laraghrider

mistermatthew wrote: »

claims he could have beaten wiggins but didn't do it shows a lack of bravery. Beat someone if you want to, don't hide behind one 30 second attack for years after. And if you don;t want to, shut up about it.

Not sure you're quite grasping the whole team leader and tactics/orders.

mistermatthew

laraghrider wrote: »

Not sure you're quite grasping the whole team leader and tactics/orders.

No not quite. I guess stephen roche didn't quite understand those in the 1987 Giro.

I just think froome should keep quiet about that tour and get his girlfriend of twitter.

MPFG

Millar on cortisone and its effects on his performance

https://twitter.com/RiderOfTheMonth/status/479360726302482435/photo/1

MPFG

The problem is if you take cortisone for too long you can get renal fatigue.....my mother has been on it for a year and she is tired all the time

RobFowl

MPFG wrote: »

The problem is if you take cortisone for too long you can get renal fatigue.....my mother has been on it for a year and she is tired all the time

There are many problems with long term cortisone use, at least i suspect your mother is on it for genuine reasons unlike a lot of cyclists in the past.

MPFG

RobFowl wrote: »

There are many problems with long term cortisone use, at least i suspect your mother is on it for genuine reasons unlike a lot of cyclists in the past.

yes of course I only know one side effect from experience

I presume the UCI & team monitor how many times a rider takes this medication... even with a TUE..over their career

There seems quite a few riders with asthma in the peloton including Roche & Martin I believe ...you kinda wonder do they all get TUEs or maybe not

Doc07

I presume the UCI & team monitor how many times a rider takes this medication... even with a TUE..over their career

Presume and assume nothing. The amount of times actual sick patients use cortisone over the years is not even accurately recorded by hospital doctors so I would have too high an expectation on the UCI or sports doctors. They are generally a lot more responsible nowadays but remember it's a only a few years ago that UCI were happy to accept that Marco Pantani and his team mates had personal centrifuges in their hotel rooms to measure their haematocrit just to keep an eye on their health and well being.

neris

so Froomes been out on the first 2 stages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebRqCSadpY

furiousox

"Shame of Team Sky!!"
David Walsh exclusive, only in today's Sunday Times.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-walsh-questions-team-skys-ethics-in-sunday-times

A P

For those who haven't seen it, here's part 1 of Paul Kimmage's interview with Chris Froome. http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/cyclist-chris-froome-is-right-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-30391816.html

Arequipa

I read the Article.. I tend to agree with kimmage..
Froome as the top rider, has to be doing things whiter than white..
I think his girlfriend describes him as naive and not knowing much of the history of the sport..
I wouldnt say he's naive..

I am sure he's a nice guy... But i feel that a healthy amount of doubt/suspicion is required when anyone dominates like Froome does at the mo..

pelevin

I just find Kimmage pretty unpalatable. He generally in the article seems to side with Froome as a nice guy, etc helpfully stressing to Froome that we need the highest standards from him. However I think Kimmage is on very shaky ground in talking of standards. This is how he responded to Froome last year's TdF:

"Froome on Ventoux? Call me Dumbo: "I saw a peanut stand, heard a rubber band, I saw a needle that winked its eye. But I think I will have seen everything when I see an elephant fly."

The general meaning of this imo typically glib choice of quote is that Froome is totally beyond belief, and farcically so. And this without any shred of actual evidence is how Kimmage chose to put how he felt about Froome in the public arena, something totally different from healthy scepticism or open-mindedness.

I'm not looking for PR or blind damnations of riders but hopefully stuff of genuine integrity, and imo that kind of self-righteous and total disregard for someone's reputation - just blindly calling them a blatant cheat - doesn't justify Kimmage the kind of ethical guardian role many, and certainly apparently himself, consider he holds. "This is the guy talking to me of standards, the guy who last year called me a blatant cheat without a shred of evidence" would be a pretty reasonable thought for Froome imo.

Arequipa

Those comments by Kimmage after Ventoux defo sound a bit ott..
But i agree with him on Froome's use of. TUE at the Tour of Romandie: Froome should have avoided all controversy abd just pulled out.. If his chest infection was so bad as to require a banned inhaler, just drop out!
Sky can say all they like, but it just creates more rumours and scandal..
The sport has been virtually destroyed since the Armstrong debacle...
Kimmage can go a bit ott, but i think he is generally a very positive influence & wants to clean up the sport.. There were plenty other journos who were too chicken & kissed too many asses to ask the really tough questions..
Kimmage is ballsy & he has a right to be extremely sceptical of all professional riders and teams pledges that they are racing 100% clean.....

Turns out David Walsh himself is turning a bit on Sky after the recent TUE debacle...

pelevin

I agree with you with on all that, & Sky fully deserved their recent criticism on their hypocritical abandoning of their TUE stance.

Arequipa

Remember when someone rides away from a group of top riders(some of whom have been caught cheating previously) with relative ease, you're entitled to ask questions...
-advances in technology,
-use of wind tunnel, aerodynamics
-loss of weight by certain riders
-advanced new training techniques etc..

Human physiology hasnt advanced this quickly..
In a clean race, riders get progressively tired and eventually fall back & the fittest, genetically strongest with highest VO2 generally win...
Maybe this is Froome.. But maybe other factors are at play...

Probably time will tell....

12 sprocket

Arequipa wrote: »

Remember when someone rides away from a group of top riders(some of whom have been caught cheating previously) with relative ease, you're entitled to ask questions...
-advances in technology,
-use of wind tunnel, aerodynamics
-loss of weight by certain riders
-advanced new training techniques etc..

Human physiology hasnt advanced this quickly..
In a clean race, riders get progressively tired and eventually fall back & the fittest, genetically strongest with highest VO2 generally win...
Maybe this is Froome.. But maybe other factors are at play...

Probably time will tell....

As someone who has dealt with some World class riders as amateurs before they ever went into the pro ranks, what I have seen is that the very exceptional riders Tour De france winners - stage winners in the major tours .. from the time that they are young riders they are different especially in regard to recovery from day to day..
They seem to wake up the day after hard stages as if they haven't made any big efforts the previous day. As stage races go on they even seem to improve when compared to the average rider who just gets slower and more fatigued as the race progresses. Try not to insult these athletes physical gifts and ability to apply themselves to be the best with the proposition that its all about doping.