Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

harringtonp

walshb wrote: »

So the only answer here is that he is a deliberate intentional cheat?

bwalsh has a valid point. There seems to be huge dislike of Froome in the cycling community. Maybe its because he is basically a nice guy (and basically he is regardless of your viewpoint on the AAF) but most likely because fans don't like Sky's complete dominance when they target Grand Tours. There are those here slating Froome who happily turn a blind eye to Contadors previous infractions (find me a thread where he has been slated) because he is stylish and has been underdog of late.

Many here seem to view the findings through black and white goggles in the same way my 5 year and Donald Trump have everybody categorized as either goodies or baddies.

To put some perspective on things, lets put a number of the seriousness of the case where 1 is very minor and 10 is as bad as it gets. Lets give 10 to lance who was systematically abusing everything he could get and bullying others to toe the line.

Question then is on this scale what number would you give to Froome, Wiggins (for his timely TUEs) and Contador ?

ThisRegard

Doesn't matter where on the scale, all that matters is that he's on it.

dastardly00

Tony Martin and Nibali have spoken out against Froome, and now Bardet as well. I presume none of them have asthma?

Lumen

ThisRegard wrote: »

Doesn't matter where on the scale, all that matters is that he's on it.

Mathematically speaking, cheating + being a dick cannot equal cheating only, unless being a dick is zero.

And that's on top of the assumption that all forms of cheating are equal.

It must not be much fun to live in such a black and white world.

el tel

MPFGLB wrote: »

Vicenzo Nibali: "Here we all know where the limit of Salbutamol is"

http://www.marca.com/ciclismo/2017/12/16/5a34f884e5fdeac1118b4695.html

Ah but does Nibbles know the limit of a sticky bottle?

el tel

MPFGLB wrote: »

Vicenzo Nibali: "Here we all know where the limit of Salbutamol is"

http://www.marca.com/ciclismo/2017/12/16/5a34f884e5fdeac1118b4695.html

Ah but does Nibbles know the limit of a sticky bottle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi24TVdZFyc

ThisRegard

Lumen wrote: »

Mathematically speaking, cheating + being a dick cannot equal cheating only, unless being a dick is zero.

And that's on top of the assumption that all forms of cheating are equal.

It must not be much fun to live in such a black and white world.

I have great fun, but the simple fact is he failed a test, he didn't pass.

Chips Lovell

I'm with Lumen and harringtonp. There is a scale. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't be punished for offences lower on the scale. The rules are there for a reason. But if you portray every anti-doping violation as equally egregious, you're doing the sport a disservice and making far dirtier than it really is.

Macy0161

Obviously there's a scale - hence why he'll probably only get 9 months not 4 years!

As to why Froome isn't liked, that's a whole different debate. For me, his transformation has never been properly explained, and I thought it was complete bs in the 2012 tour (either attack or don't - instead he acted like a dick). Before we get on to Sky/ his own tue past.

ThisRegard

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I'm with Lumen and harringtonp. There is a scale. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't be punished for offences lower on the scale. The rules are there for a reason. But if you portray every anti-doping violation as equally egregious, you're doing the sport a disservice and making far dirtier than it really is.

True, which is reflected by the different levels of punishment, but the reality is that you either pass or fail drugs tests.

Someone at his level with that team behind him shouldn't be getting such adverse findings.

el tel

Macy0161 wrote: »

Obviously there's a scale - hence why he'll probably only get 9 months not 4 years!

As to why Froome isn't liked, that's a whole different debate. For me, his transformation has never been properly explained, and I thought it was complete bs in the 2012 tour (either attack or don't - instead he acted like a dick). Before we get on to Sky/ his own tue past.

I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.       (©Lance Armstrong 2005)

Chips Lovell

I don't think anyone is disputing that though. More that there is a difference between what you fail for.

1bryan

dastardly00 wrote: »

Tony Martin and Nibali have spoken out against Froome, and now Bardet as well. I presume none of them have asthma?

they have that in common with Froome, if so

terrydel

1bryan wrote: »

they have that in common with Froome, if so

Asthma, cycling's version of ADHD.

Koobcam

harringtonp wrote: »

To put some perspective on things, lets put a number of the seriousness of the case where 1 is very minor and 10 is as bad as it gets. Lets give 10 to lance who was systematically abusing everything he could get and bullying others to toe the line.

Question then is on this scale what number would you give to Froome, Wiggins (for his timely TUEs) and Contador ?

The seriousness of the case depends on the honesty of those defending themselves. In other words, how believable are the stories being put out by Sky? I think their credibility when it comes to this sort of thing is essentially non-existant. That added to the fact that Froome was twice the legal limit for salbutamol in his test suggests something dodgy may be going on and that Sky/Froome are not to be taken at their word. So, when they try to portray this case as some sort of unlucky instance of a rider following the rules and just having an anomalous reading because of dehydration or some other such reason, it comes across as total BS. This article on Cycling Tips is pretty good

Chips Lovell

I think the seriousness of the case depends on the substance and the excuse/explanation.

If you only apply weight to the latter then, by that logic, someone who comes up with a BS excuse for testing positive for cannabis is a worse offender than someone who proffers an elaborate and plausible sounding explanation for wildly fluctuating haematocrit values.

el tel

Koobcam wrote: »

This article on Cycling Tips is pretty good

Thanks for that, as an asthmatic that's mega informative. Now I know to avoid taking 10 puffs of the blue inhaler before football and to just get used to having lungs that feel the size of golf balls.

mcgratheoin

harringtonp wrote: »

There are those here slating Froome who happily turn a blind eye to Contadors previous infractions (find me a thread where he has been slated) because he is stylish and has been underdog of late.

Maybe do your own homework in future

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68262691

Eamonnator

The article by Dr. McGrane, in Cycling Tips answers a lot of questions

pelevin

Koobcam wrote: »

This article on Cycling Tips is pretty good

This stands out in it: "And I think it is important to remember that the 1000 nanograms of this isn’t the expected dose. It is above the maximum dose that anyone should be using, ever.

So even that WADA threshold is unusual…

Yes. It is not like you should be using Ventolin to the point where you are at 900 nanograms all the time. It is something that should never get to that."

dastardly00

pelevin wrote: »

This stands out in it: "And I think it is important to remember that the 1000 nanograms of this isn’t the expected dose. It is above the maximum dose that anyone should be using, ever.

So even that WADA threshold is unusual…

Yes. It is not like you should be using Ventolin to the point where you are at 900 nanograms all the time. It is something that should never get to that."

Ross Tucker made a good point last week when he said that WADA/CADF should essentially have a 'biological passport' type history for Froome's Ventolin/salbutamol use. That would show the trend of whether he is normally near the 1,000 ng/ml threshold or way lower when tested.

plodder

Interesting that you can get very high levels from a nebuliser (that's the idea I guess). My daughter has asthma and every couple of years gets a bad attack that needs one. You can get small battery operated nebulisers you can use yourself. If he was doing that though unsupervised, he deserves to get the chop for stupidity.

guanciale

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think the seriousness of the case depends on the substance and the excuse/explanation.
.

That is one way of looking at this. Consider though, that if an athlete cheats then the first 'crime' so to speak was cheating. Only after that point should there be an assessment of how the athlete cheated.
For example, one might have 2 athletes both of whom took what they thought to be PEDs, but one was actually a placebo. Should they both be sanctioned or only the one who was effective.

In this case, scientific opinion aired publicly detracts from any of Froomes credibility. So I believe that he should be banned - but in line with others using the same drug.
I suffer from chronic asthma - often on nebulisers. My doctor opined that it would be difficult to get Froomes result with an inhaler alone.
Afaik taking salbutomol in any way other than an inhaler is banned (& potentially performance enhancing). If that is substantiated then we are in a different league of offense to Ulissi.

To me the basic intent was to cheat.

Lusk_Doyle

Can anyone point me in the direction of the interview from the other day?

fishfoodie

harringtonp wrote: »

bwalsh has a valid point. There seems to be huge dislike of Froome in the cycling community. Maybe its because he is basically a nice guy (and basically he is regardless of your viewpoint on the AAF) but most likely because fans don't like Sky's complete dominance when they target Grand Tours. There are those here slating Froome who happily turn a blind eye to Contadors previous infractions (find me a thread where he has been slated) because he is stylish and has been underdog of late.

Many here seem to view the findings through black and white goggles in the same way my 5 year and Donald Trump have everybody categorized as either goodies or baddies.

To put some perspective on things, lets put a number of the seriousness of the case where 1 is very minor and 10 is as bad as it gets. Lets give 10 to lance who was systematically abusing everything he could get and bullying others to toe the line.

Question then is on this scale what number would you give to Froome, Wiggins (for his timely TUEs) and Contador ?

You can broadly define the 'cycling community' you speak of into two groups; those who watched cycling before Sky, & those you didn't.

The former saw US Postal in action, & so they've seen deeply, deeply average riders become world beaters before, & they know how the story ends; the latter believe that washing your hands, & drinking pineapple juice will let you push out 7W power levels up an Alp, or enable your doms regularly finish ahead of world class climbers.

MPFGLB

guanciale wrote: »

That is one way of looking at this. Consider though, that if an athlete cheats then the first 'crime' so to speak was cheating. Only after that point should there be an assessment of how the athlete cheated.
For example, one might have 2 athletes both of whom took what they thought to be PEDs, but one was actually a placebo. Should they both be sanctioned or only the one who was effective.

In this case, scientific opinion aired publicly detracts from any of Froomes credibility. So I believe that he should be banned - but in line with others using the same drug.
I suffer from chronic asthma - often on nebulisers. My doctor opined that it would be difficult to get Froomes result with an inhaler alone.
Afaik taking salbutomol in any way other than an inhaler is banned (& potentially performance enhancing). If that is substantiated then we are in a different league of offense to Ulissi.

To me the basic intent was to cheat.

Ulissi could have been 'other than through an inhaler' for all we know

After his ban his perfromance was never the same as at 2014 Giro wher he failed the test

Kaisr Sose

terrydel wrote: »

Well he kept glancing to his right for something! Someone was feeding him the answers. Could well ahve been that capret bagger Brailsford.

Froome always has to be glancing up and down at something. Maybe they have written an app for marginal defence speak!

Weepsie

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Froome always has to be glancing up and down at something. Maybe they have written an app for marginal defence speak!

There may have been a stem out of shot that he had to stare at

Lusk_Doyle

Weepsie wrote: »

There may have been a stem out of shot that he had to stare at

Looking for permission from his wife to answer.

BowSideChamp

I hope he gets let off. I'm not a fan of his but Salbutamol should not be banned. A number of studies that says it does nothing to your performance.

Twenty-six studies involving 403 participants (age range 7-30 years) compared inhaled β₂-agonists with placebo. No significant effect could be detected for inhaled β₂-agonists on maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂(max)), endurance time to exhaustion at 105-110% VO₂(max), 20-km time trial duration, peak power and total work during a 30-second Wingate test.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21142283