Wiggins/Froome Asthma

Chuchote

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/asthma-elite-athletes-study-swimmers-cyclist-eid

callaway92

Chuchote wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/asthma-elite-athletes-study-swimmers-cyclist-eid

Ya, sure as per the post earlier, it's the parents getting kids to do these sports :P

Chuchote

But I demand to know why I'm not winning at KOM level. I want my money back for 40 years of asthma medication!

Edit: 50 years, that should be

RobFowl

Chuchote wrote: »

But I demand to know why I'm not winning at KOM level. I want my money back for 40 years of asthma medication!

I've asthma and took a KOM yesterday. Must be the limk but feck knows why it's the first in God knows ;0

morana

Chuchote wrote: »

But I demand to know why I'm not winning at KOM level. I want my money back for 40 years of asthma medication!

RobFowl wrote: »

I've asthma and took a KOM yesterday. Must be the limk but feck knows why it's the first in God knows ;0

you guys are taking your meds all wrong. its best administered in a fist sized suppository

stampydmonkey

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

This is one I can identify with somewhat having used various Asthma medications for the guts of 30 years at this stage. Without it I wouldn't be up to much exercise wise but with it I can go for 100km+ cycles without a bother. I didn't have to use my inhaler on tbe GDBR for instance but used it maybe three times earlier in the year when doing a sportive that brought us up the sally and Wicklow gaps. All sorts of things determine how often im using my inhaler but the thing that makes the biggest difference to me is the more exercise i do the less i need it.

But that's me and everyone who has asthma is affected differently.

Bang on...me too.

desertcircus

callaway92 wrote: »

It's a load of bullshít. There's your error.

Are you interested in actually having a discussion, or are you just here to call an argument bull**** without offering any actual explanation?

mossym

morana wrote: »

if you have it in the first place

sorry, not being clear

no asthma, take drugs to drop weight, then end up getting asthma attacks as a side effect meaning you need the drugs again...

Chuchote

mossym wrote: »

sorry, not being clear

no asthma, take drugs to drop weight, then end up getting asthma attacks as a side effect meaning you need the drugs again...

Never heard of asthma caused as a side effect of weight loss drugs, is that a thing?

mossym

Chuchote wrote: »

Never heard of asthma caused as a side effect of weight loss drugs, is that a thing?

have you read the previous posts in the thread?

callaway92

desertcircus wrote: »

Are you interested in actually having a discussion, or are you just here to call an argument bull**** without offering any actual explanation?

No argument/discussion needed here mate. The proof is as clear as day.

Chips Lovell

The pendulum has really swung

From being in denial that most of the peloton was on EPO to viewing people with asthma inhalers as deeply suspicious.

mloc123

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The pendulum has really swung

From being in denial that most of the peloton was on EPO to viewing people with asthma inhalers as deeply suspicious.

All about marginal gains these days... EPO was not marginal enough.

Chuchote

The inhalers they're regarding as suspicious are salbutamol, which open the bronchi and speed up the heart rate? Gosh, I wouldn't risk over-using that myself! Fairly deadly. Mind you, they should try the first one I had, which was straight adrenaline. Or the hideous Franol medicine that followed it (shudder) with its taste like over-sweet cherry lemonade with an undercut of vomit, and the effect of turning your heart into a jackhammer.

fat bloke

mossym wrote: »

And , as I was saying above, once you stop taking, one of the side affects is increased risk of asthma attacks. With respect to the rules about speculation on PEDs I m not going to name specific cases but anyone who follows the sport will know of cases of TUEs for sudden asthma attacks.

Is that increased risk of asthma attacks for people who already have asthma? Or does it actually cause asthma in people who up until then didn't have it?

Chuchote

fat bloke wrote: »

Is that increased risk of asthma attacks for people who already have asthma? Or does it actually cause asthma in people who up until then didn't have it?

That's what was puzzling me.

fat bloke

mossym wrote: »

sorry, not being clear

no asthma, take drugs to drop weight, then end up getting asthma attacks as a side effect meaning you need the drugs again...

Ok, sorry I missed this.

That's mad Ted.


So if they reckon 8-10% of the population is actually asthmatic, but 70% of elite athletes are..... that's a lot of induced asthma and potentially / allegedly many many boatloads of corticosteroids.

Odd though - that steroids would be both causative and curative.

Carawaystick

fat bloke wrote: »

Odd though - that steroids would be both causative and curative.

I suppose if you are backdating TUE's then it can be hard to get the timelines straight.

Chuchote

fat bloke wrote: »

Ok, sorry I missed this.

That's mad Ted.


So if they reckon 8-10% of the population is actually asthmatic, but 70% of elite athletes are..... that's a lot of induced asthma and potentially / allegedly many many boatloads of corticosteroids.

Odd though - that steroids would be both causative and curative.

But steroids wouldn't cause you to drop weight, would they? (Looks in puzzlement at every modern rugby team)

It's interesting generally, because I found over the years that when I set out on a long cycle (70km+ per day) I'm wrecked and wheezing the first day, and my sinuses aching, but by the second or third day, even when sleeping out in grassy, polleny fields, the wheezing and sinus have settled down. (Obviously continuing to use inhalers as normal during this.)

MPFGLB

My question ( and I don't understand enoguh about this) is if you have asthma (exercised induced or not) do you not have it all the time so why do you need a TUE only on occasions like Froome & Wiggins?? Does this asthma come and go ?

Also what about on training camps ? Do you need a TUE in out of competetion if you take corticosteroids....surely your asthma is an issue there ? OR is it only in competetion

I would like to see what the whole peloton is doing with TUEs and have it all published. (Doesn't Dan Martin have asthma ?)

The issue is not whether an athlete has asthma and needs medication the issue is if they selectively need the medication or they are using the medication for purposes other than asthma like rapid weight loss
Surley this can be established better in the pattern of use

I have to say I am not fully comfortabel with the TUE system...Don't want athletes with asthma to be excluded from competition for lack of medication but wonder about the frquency and validity of use of TUEs

Macy0161

I don't know enough about the other medications, but Salbutamol can help with allergies, and allergies can be seasonal. I was prescribed it for exercise induced asthma, but told I should also use it if my hayfever was playing up (or my fairly frequent sinus issues).

Salbutamol doesn't actually require a TUE anymore, unless it's over something like 14 doses/ puffs a day (so Wiggins wouldn't need a TUE for it).

Not sure about asthma, but Dan has suffered with Allergies, so I'd be surprised if he doesn't have some TUE's for related medication.

I'm not naive about cycling or doping, but don't see the inhalers as the big thing tbh. Maybe that's because I have pollen allergies and asthma though, and don't like the implication!

Chuchote

Where does a mansplainer get his water? A well, actually…

Well, actually (I womansplain), there are two kinds of asthma. There's the chronic kind, where you normally take a couple of kinds of medicine every day no matter what: salbutamol, a low-dose steroid inhaler, and a pill like Singulair. Most chronic asthmatics now, I think, take a combination of Singulair and a Duovent inhaler, which (afaik) contains both steroid and salbutamol.

Then there's the kind that you don't have most of the time, but occasionally get as 'attacks'. These people are warned to always carry a salbutamol inhaler, but may not need it unless they're under particular physical stress, when they take a puff. They may also be put on occasional courses of usually low-dose steroids.

Both kinds of asthmatic will have occasional need to go on a higher dose of steroids, in tablet form, if they get a severe chest infection. I've only had this once in recent memory. They'll also be likely to go on fairly heavy-duty antibiotics in case of the same, and sometimes on repeated courses.

I'm speaking as an asthmatic here, not as a doctor.

Moflojo

The Guardian article quoted earlier in the thread suggests that up to 70% of elite swimmers in the UK suffered from some type of asthma, mainly this "exercise-induced asthma".

This compares with an 8-10% rate of asthma sufferers in the general population.

At what point does someone reaching their performance limits (their optimum lung function) become a diagnosed condition requiring a performance enhancing drug?

When I cycle long distances at a fast pace I suffer from an exercise-induced paralysis in my legs caused by severe cramps - what PED can I be prescribed to counter this?

robinph

MPFGLB wrote: »

My question ( and I don't understand enoguh about this) is if you have asthma (exercised induced or not) do you not have it all the time so why do you need a TUE only on occasions like Froome & Wiggins?? Does this asthma come and go ?

You have asthma all the time, but some kids may grow out of it. But you may not be effected by it all the time. Could only be certain times of year, could only be certain other environmental triggers that set you off.

I'm generally OK in Ireland all through the year. But during the spring/ summer I'd be a bit worse on the west of the UK, but very very bad in particular areas on the east of the UK. Depending on the crops and grasses that grow in that particular area of the world. Other siblings are also effected by asthma, but get it more badly during opposite seasons and due to different triggers.

Chuchote

Some of the reason for elite swimmers being asthmatic is that swimming is regularly used to help asthmatic children; the Irish Asthma Society used to have a weekly swimming class in the ESB pool for children with asthma.

Another possible reason is that a lot of public pools are stingy about cleaning and just add more of the chloriney stuff (if you find that a pool smells strongly of chlorine, steer clear; people have been peeing in it and they've added more to the mix instead of draining and cleaning regularly…) This stuff isn't good for wheezers.

geotrig

I did read two things that go part of the way to indicating why swimming appears to have a high number of asthma sufferers. The first is that when searching for a sport for their kid to do, parents of kids with asthma often opt for swimming , what some one has already used that line :pac:

Macy0161

Moflojo wrote: »

The Guardian article quoted earlier in the thread suggests that up to 70% of elite swimmers in the UK suffered from some type of asthma, mainly this "exercise-induced asthma".

This compares with an 8-10% rate of asthma sufferers in the general population.

At what point does someone reaching their performance limits (their optimum lung function) become a diagnosed condition requiring a performance enhancing drug?

When I cycle long distances at a fast pace I suffer from an exercise-induced paralysis in my legs caused by severe cramps - what PED can I be prescribed to counter this?

Well you have to be exercising to have any hope of being diagnosed with exercise induced asthma. Then I think some people see being full of snot/ phlem and wheezy as side effects of exercise, and don't actually go to their doctor with it.

Add in that professional/ elite athletes, I would expect to go through testing regimes which may point to exercise induced asthma - it's a while since i looked into it, but iirc you'll at least get indicators in VO2 Max testing?

So therefore I would expect general population figures to be much lower.

MPFGLB

THis sheds some light on the issue

http://www.stickybottle.com/coaching/medical-opinion-why-details-of-pros-leaked-tues-are-worrying/

Chuchote

Macy0161 wrote: »

So therefore I would expect general population figures to be much lower.

Yeah, we're not generally tested as much as some other populations. Amid all the snottiness about aspirational gluten-free-eating the other day it struck me that since Ireland has the highest rate of coeliac, it might be a good idea (if economically feasible) to test the whole population.

Friend of a friend was in Thailand a few years back and was lured into a building he was passing buy a guy outside beckoning and offering him wonders. And wonders there were: for something like €250 he went up through the building being tested for the health of his heart, liver, lungs, blood, glands, teeth, etc, etc, and coming out at the top with a complete, graphic and comprehensive health report, done by specialists. You wouldn't get that in Ireland. And in France, there are regular workups every couple of year via your GP.

gordongekko

Chuchote wrote: »

Yeah, we're not generally tested as much as some other populations. Amid all the snottiness about aspirational gluten-free-eating the other day it struck me that since Ireland has the highest rate of coeliac, it might be a good idea (if economically feasible) to test the whole population.

Friend of a friend was in Thailand a few years back and was lured into a building he was passing buy a guy outside beckoning and offering him wonders. And wonders there were: for something like €250 he went up through the building being tested for the health of his heart, liver, lungs, blood, glands, teeth, etc, etc, and coming out at the top with a complete, graphic and comprehensive health report, done by specialists. You wouldn't get that in Ireland. And in France, there are regular workups every couple of year via your GP.

Did that story in Thailand have a happy ending?

gordongekko

Is sport not supposed to be along the lines of the best person wins, and health is a major part of this. So if you suffer from asthma then your natural ability at sport is just less than someone who naturally doesn't have asthma.

So while you claim the medication is not performance enhancing without it you would just not be able to perform at a level to compete with someone without asthma.

RobFowl

gordongekko wrote: »

Did that story in Thailand have a happy ending?

If he did was it reported on sticky bottle ?

Chuchote

gordongekko wrote: »

Is sport not supposed to be along the lines of the best person wins, and health is a major part of this. So if you suffer from asthma then your natural ability at sport is just less than someone who naturally doesn't have asthma.

So while you claim the medication is not performance enhancing without it you would just not be able to perform at a level to compete with someone without asthma.

Interesting point. I suppose you could extend it to say that people who grow up in high mountain climates have a performance enhancing effect on their ability to process oxygen, and perhaps people who live in the First World and are better fed have an ability to have stronger bones and muscles through better feeding…

Lumen

gordongekko wrote: »

Is sport not supposed to be along the lines of the best person wins, and health is a major part of this. So if you suffer from asthma then your natural ability at sport is just less than someone who naturally doesn't have asthma.

So while you claim the medication is not performance enhancing without it you would just not be able to perform at a level to compete with someone without asthma.

This.

I just don't see how a breathing deficiency (which I don't have) is different to a deficiency in lactate processing, motivation, skill, bravery, pain tolerance, flexibility, ability to recover or any of the other reasons I haven't won a grand tour.

Top level sport is highly selective. Would it be less dramatic or interesting if the 200 pro tour riders (out of 7 billion or so individuals on earth) were selected from the ranks of the bronchially fit?

robinph

gordongekko wrote: »

Is sport not supposed to be along the lines of the best person wins, and health is a major part of this. So if you suffer from asthma then your natural ability at sport is just less than someone who naturally doesn't have asthma.

So while you claim the medication is not performance enhancing without it you would just not be able to perform at a level to compete with someone without asthma.

There are drugs from the banned list that I'm on I'd be dead without injecting daily. Am I allowed to compete? Doesn't do anything performance enhancing for the way I need to use it, unless you count being alive as enhanced.

Chuchote

robinph wrote: »

There are drugs from the banned list that I'm on I'd be dead without injecting daily. Am I allowed to compete? Doesn't do anything performance enhancing for the way I need to use it, unless you count being alive as enhanced.

This is where official cycling really needs to have sensible, independent (of competitors) staff doctors rather than rigid rules.

gordongekko

robinph wrote: »

There are drugs from the banned list that I'm on I'd be dead without injecting daily. Am I allowed to compete? Doesn't do anything performance enhancing for the way I need to use it, unless you count being alive as enhanced.

If the drug is on the list then no you can't compete. If it doesn't enhance performance then it needs to come off the list and everyone can take it.

nak

gordongekko wrote: »

If the drug is on the list then no you can't compete. If it doesn't enhance performance then it needs to come off the list and everyone can take it.

So insulin dependent diabetics shouldn't be allowed to compete?

gordongekko

nak wrote: »

So insulin dependent diabetics shouldn't be allowed to compete?

No. I said those drugs should not be on the list.

nak

gordongekko wrote: »

No. I said those drugs should not be on the list.

But insulin is used by non diabetic athletes for performance enhancement (usually with GH and steroids) so should be banned unless you're diabetic.

Chuchote

nak wrote: »

But insulin is used by non diabetic athletes for performance enhancement (usually with GH and steroids) so should be banned unless you're diabetic.

Seems mad that you can't register through your doctor as a diabetic, and be able to compete.

gordongekko

nak wrote: »

But insulin is used by non diabetic athletes for performance enhancement (usually with GH and steroids) so should be banned unless you're diabetic.

Well then it is a performance enhancing drug despite what was earlier stated. So no you can't compete at the highest level and have no god given right so. Just pick another career

Chuchote

gordongekko wrote: »

Well then it is a performance enhancing drug despite what was earlier stated. So no you can't compete at the highest level and have no god given right so. Just pick another career

Point of information. It is not God who decides this.

A piece in Paris Match (not the most impeccable source, admittedly) about asthma and the current batch of competitive cyclists:

http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Sport/Froome-Wiggins-l-asthme-et-le-dopage-1068931

gordongekko

Chuchote wrote: »

Point of information. It is not God who decides this.

I wanted to be god but wasn't naturally talented enough and haven't been able to get a TUE to allow me reach my goal yet.

nak

gordongekko wrote: »

Well then it is a performance enhancing drug despite what was earlier stated. So no you can't compete at the highest level and have no god given right so. Just pick another career

Wow.

Diabetics can compete with a TUE and quite rightly so.

robyntmorton

gordongekko wrote: »

Well then it is a performance enhancing drug despite what was earlier stated. So no you can't compete at the highest level and have no god given right so. Just pick another career

That's an unbelievably negative way of looking at everything. If Robinph has the natural talent to compete and succeed, then why should a health issue that is controllable with the correct treatment be an obstacle. What you are saying is that only the naturally talented and naturally perfectly healthy should be athletes, and that someone in Robinph's position needs to not take the meds, compete, and possibly die, or take the meds, sit on the couch, and just be glad to be alive. That's bull

The reason TUE's are there is to allow for cases where it is medically necessary to use a substance. The problem arises in the fact that where the potential for abuse exists, you will find some doctor who is willing to do up the paperwork and reports needed to say something is necessary when it really isn't.

gordongekko

There are 3 choices its either available to nobody, available to everyone or a limit that is available to everyone.

velo.2010

Siobhan Marie O'Connor is an interesting example of this situation. Clearly from her TUE's (released today by Fancy Bears) and what is already in the public domain, she has a bowel condition which affects her in her daily life regardless of doing high level sport. The same applies to diabetics and many other conditions that affect people day to day. She needs her medication to basically function.

The problem arises whereby some condition is 'exercise induced'. If someone starts to have physical problems as a result of high level competition and needs medical intervention to continue to compete (such as TUE for exercise induced asthma) then I think that's simply hard luck regarding your genetics. A sort of 'survival of the fittest' should be the standard for high level sport. How that can be demarcated, I don't know.

Of course, that's all even before we talk about the blatant abuse of TUE's by some of those athletes listed by the breach. A lot of people seem to be stuck on the above aspect and arguement and don't see how the TUE's can be abused by certain athletes.

DanDublin1982

gordongekko wrote: »

Is sport not supposed to be along the lines of the best person wins, and health is a major part of this. So if you suffer from asthma then your natural ability at sport is just less than someone who naturally doesn't have asthma.

So while you claim the medication is not performance enhancing without it you would just not be able to perform at a level to compete with someone without asthma.

It's certainly a valid viewpoint but begs the question about where to draw the line. What about vitamin supplements? Energy gels? Or are they ok because everyone can take them?

As I said earlier I'm not pro or against them using an inhaler if they need to but I think certainly it leads to even more questions.

I will say though that I'm glad that when I had my first asthma attack aged five and was put on medication no one told me there was now no way I could ever be a pro athlete. Its not the life I was destined for regardless but still, im glad it wasn't something taken away from me before I had the chance to realise my other limitations.

Lumen

nak wrote: »

Diabetics can compete with a TUE and quite rightly so.

Just stating that something is right doesn't make it so. That's the point under discussion.