Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

Options
1…1011131516…36

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    MPFGLB
    Registered Users Posts: 3,254 ✭✭✭MPFGLB


    BowSideChamp wrote: »
    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.

    Well for one its not banned and for two it can in high dose effect your muscle growth esp if swallowed

    "It is. It is thought that high doses…it is a similar class of drug to Clenbuterol and it is thought that can build up lean muscle mass and maintain muscle mass at very high doses". - Frome the intervew of Dr Conor McGrane by Shane Stokes

    But above all else he was twice the upper limit and that usually requires a ban. There are several people in the know who set these limits and for a reason

    I think you may want read up on the issues


  • Options
    #363
    wheelo01
    Registered Users Posts: 681 ✭✭✭wheelo01


    Is the problem with salbutimol not that it is performance enhancing (which obviously it is to asthmatics because it allows their lungs to work on a level playingfield as others), but that it can be used as a masking agent for God knows what?


  • Options
    #364
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,083 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    MPFGLB wrote: »
    I think you may want read up on the issues
    Or just from the start of the thread.


  • Options
    #365
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    to be fair, your head would be spinning by the time you read the thread in its entirety.


  • Options
    #366
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,450 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    wheelo01 wrote: »
    but that it can be used as a masking agent for God knows what?
    Much more informed people than me (e.g. Ross Tucker, Conor McGrane) don't really support that, yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Much more informed people than me (e.g. Ross Tucker, Conor McGrane) don't really support that, yet.

    I believe Ross Tucker had acknowledged it's potential use as a masking agent but didn't go into it in too great detail due to lack of research.


  • Options
    #368
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,655 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    BowSideChamp wrote: »
    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.

    Yes but there are limited and he broke them. As a professional athlete, he should know these limits and it is on him and his team, to abide by them.

    It is akin to complaining about a speeding ticket because you feel the limit should be higher. You knew the limit at the time.

    Saying that Salbutamol limit should be increased/removed is not part of this discussion.

    It really if fairly simple. Ignore any talk about Team Sky, the past etc. People put that in there to muddy the waters and try to paint this a some sort of witch hunt against Froome or Team Sky. Its not. Its simply a case of Froome breaking the rules.

    Would you allow him to ship a major climb because he didn't agree with its inclusion but still be allowed to win? no of course not. If a rider opts to skip a part of the course they get removed from the race.

    In this case Froome decided to opt out of a certain rule of the race.


  • Options
    #369
    irishrover99
    Registered Users Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭irishrover99


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yes but there are limited and he broke them. As a professional athlete, he should know these limits and it is on him and his team, to abide by them.

    .

    And that's the thing that i don't get about this.
    I can't imagine for one minute that he didn't know the limits and just decided to take more to gain an advantage when i believe he was already in the red jersey and was bound to be tested.
    People scoff at Sky's marginal gains theory but they are a very well organised team so i can't imagine they would get this wrong or allow Froome to go over the limit knowing he'd get caught.


  • Options
    #370
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    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.

    That's assuming though that there was an intent to cheat. The purpose of the excuse is to explain (correctly or falsely) that intent wasn't there. If you assume that all infractions are intentional, the excuse becomes irrelevant.


  • Options
    #371
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,450 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    irishrover99 wrote: »
    People scoff at Sky's marginal gains theory but they are a very well organised team so i can't imagine they would get this wrong or allow Froome to go over the limit knowing he'd get caught.
    They're pushing the limits though, so they could've put a wrong dose in, wrongly adapted an inhaler, or used the wrong dose at the wrong time, used a nebulizer (when I believe it is only cleared without TUE for inhaler) etc. Lots of things they could've potentially done, and just fecked up!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,882 ✭✭✭Russman


    irishrover99 wrote: »
    People scoff at Sky's marginal gains theory but they are a very well organised team so i can't imagine they would get this wrong or allow Froome to go over the limit knowing he'd get caught.

    Are they really though ?


  • Options
    #373
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,655 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    irishrover99 wrote: »
    And that's the thing that i don't get about this.
    I can't imagine for one minute that he didn't know the limits and just decided to take more to gain an advantage when i believe he was already in the red jersey and was bound to be tested.
    People scoff at Sky's marginal gains theory but they are a very well organised team so i can't imagine they would get this wrong or allow Froome to go over the limit knowing he'd get caught.

    There are lots of variables involved in this area, get it wrong and you end up on the wrong side of the line. Marginal gains means pushing the limits, and sometimes it doesn't work.

    Whether they meant to or not is irrelevant. They used to much. I have no idea whose fault it is, but it is Froomes ultimate responsibility.

    Its another diverting argument though. It is only a concern to Froome and Sky how it went wrong, from UCI and spectators POV the only issue is whether it was wrong. We know that it was.
    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    That's assuming though that there was an intent to cheat. The purpose of the excuse is to explain (correctly or falsely) that intent wasn't there. If you assume that all infractions are intentional, the excuse becomes irrelevant.

    It can be a mitigating factor but does not remove the fact that Froome cheated. The reasons why are really between him and his team but the fact is that he was found to have broken the rules.


  • Options
    #374
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Correct. And if he's broken the rules, he should be sanctioned, like Ulissi. All I'm saying is that not all offences are equally as bad, as someone earlier suggested.


  • Options
    #375
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    Russman wrote: »
    Are they really though ?

    I think they are in many regards, but the more and more of this stuff you bring into your 'preparation' the more room for error you create. And you only have to f**k once to get caught.
    Perhaps their focus was too much on other areas of 'marginal gains' * and dropped the ball on this one, it could be that simple.

    * = this seems to mean nothing more than morally dubious rule bending at best these days.


  • Options
    #376
    pelevin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭pelevin


    For me saying what he's done isn't bad, shouldn't be banned, etc is accepting total innocence & virtually any explanation as one's starting point - and in professional sport & very obviously in cycling that's a pretty ridiculous position of naivety. Sky & Brailsford in particular has been absolutely shown up to be an untrustowrthy liar regarding such issues - "Brad couldn't have been on the bus and the bus driver was really annoyed about it as he wanted to contragulate him" - as the get-out clause for the jiffy bag episode, quickly shown to be total fabrication. Wiggins who never took and abhorred injections as he & Sky were totally against such stuff, except for the injections of powerful banned drugs before grand tours that he forgot about.

    Here Dr McGrane says: "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."

    Froome was twice that level. Explaining it away as some little thing-of-nothing is an abdication of any intellectual integrity imo. And lest it be forgot, Froome is someone who went from being a nobody to more or less the best cyclist in the world practically overnight in his mid 20s. Again with explanations like illness that given the probabilities of such things happening - nobody to world's best almost overnight and under a manager that has been shown up to be a hypocritical fraud - well how could one not be very open-minded at the least about what may be going on under the hood, so to speak.


  • Options
    #377
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Is anyone saying he shouldn't be banned?


  • Options
    #378
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    I think it will be astonishing if he is not banned. That was a super normal level of that drug. It was in his body and therefore, he is responsible for that. Even Brailsford must know when you are explaining, you are loosing!


  • Options
    #379
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,655 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Is anyone saying he shouldn't be banned?

    Maybe not outright, but there are plenty trying to paint it as nothing more than an oversight, Salbutamol isn't performance enhancing etc etc.

    That to me reads as a mitigation and the attempt to try to minimise the offence, and thus minimise any ban.

    Whilst mitigation can/should be taken into account in most areas, in the area of drugs in cycling there is simply no excuse. Why are these teams continuing to sail so close to the wind when they know the impact that such adverse results will have, not just on them, but on cycling as a whole.

    Froome in particular, was well aware how he was the leader of the new cycling future, that he was under intense review and any error would cause a problem.

    Yet the reaction has been muted to say the least. Have Sky fired him? Has he been dropped?


  • Options
    #380
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    At the moment, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to prove either scenario.

    If you think it's an oversight, there's plenty that doesn't stack up about it.

    But similarly, if you think this is a smoking gun, proof of intent to cheat, there's lots that doesn't make sense either.

    Either way though, the outcome is going to be the same, unless he can replicate the results, he's going to serve a ban.


  • Options
    #381
    Luis21
    Registered Users Posts: 369 ✭✭Luis21


    He isnt SIR Chris Froome.

    He'll get a ban.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Is anyone saying he shouldn't be banned?
    regardless of the ban, what about his vuelta placing? will that be taken off him?
    he'll be forever known as the chap competing after losing a grand tour months after the podium, if he is stripped of that and is allowed compete further.


  • Options
    #383
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    regardless of the ban, what about his vuelta placing? will that be taken off him?
    he'll be forever known as the chap competing after losing a grand tour months after the podium, if he is stripped of that and is allowed compete further.

    If he's banned he'll be stripped of all results post-test. So that will include the Vuelta and probably his World's TT medal.


  • Options
    #384
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,655 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    At the moment, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to prove either scenario.

    If you think it's an oversight, there's plenty that doesn't stack up about it.

    But similarly, if you think this is a smoking gun, proof of intent to cheat, there's lots that doesn't make sense either.

    Either way though, the outcome is going to be the same, unless he can replicate the results, he's going to serve a ban.

    I don't understand. There is ample evidence to show intent to cheat, the results of the samples show that.

    What some, mainly Froome and Sky, are trying to do is to make intent a discussion point, and try to bring up the possibility that it was a simple error.

    All of that is fine and all, but is totally irrelevant. He failed the test. End of. Go directly to ban, do not pass go, do not collect your community chest etc. He broke the rules in order to help him to win a grand tour. It really is a blatant as that.


  • Options
    #385
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,592 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    If he's banned he'll be stripped of all results post-test. So that will include the Vuelta and probably his World's TT medal.
    is there such a thing of being stripped of the title without a ban? how much independence do the organisers of the vuelta have to act independently of the UCI/anti-doping agency?


  • Options
    #386
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    is there such a thing of being stripped of the title without a ban? how much independence do the organisers of the vuelta have to act independently of the UCI/anti-doping agency?

    No. AFAIK, it's not even at the discretion of the organisers
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    All of that is fine and all, but is totally irrelevant. He failed the test. End of. Go directly to ban, do not pass go, do not collect your community chest etc. He broke the rules in order to help him to win a grand tour. It really is a blatant as that.

    That's not how it works. You can be banned even if it was unintentional. You're responsible for what's in your body. There's plenty of precedent for that.


  • Options
    #387
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,655 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    That's not how it works. You can be banned even if it was unintentional. You're responsible for what's in your body. There's plenty of precedent for that.

    I think you picked me up wrong. I completely agree with that and that was the point I was (trying!) making


  • Options
    #388
    1bryan
    Registered Users Posts: 815 ✭✭✭1bryan


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    is there such a thing of being stripped of the title without a ban?

    theoretically that could happen. He gets a 6-month ban backdated to the date of the failed test, which would be up before the 2018 season starts in earnest. So, while technically he'd get a ban, he wouldn't miss any races.

    That seems the likeliest outcome to me. Wasn't Contador's ban backdated by the guts of a year also?


  • Options
    #389
    el tel
    Registered Users Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭el tel


    pelevin wrote: »
    For me saying what he's done isn't bad, shouldn't be banned, etc is accepting total innocence & virtually any explanation as one's starting point - and in professional sport & very obviously in cycling that's a pretty ridiculous position of naivety. Sky & Brailsford in particular has been absolutely shown up to be an untrustowrthy liar regarding such issues - "Brad couldn't have been on the bus and the bus driver was really annoyed about it as he wanted to contragulate him" - as the get-out clause for the jiffy bag episode, quickly shown to be total fabrication. Wiggins who never took and abhorred injections as he & Sky were totally against such stuff, except for the injections of powerful banned drugs before grand tours that he forgot about.

    Here Dr McGrane says: "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."

    Froome was twice that level. Explaining it away as some little thing-of-nothing is an abdication of any intellectual integrity imo. And lest it be forgot, Froome is someone who went from being a nobody to more or less the best cyclist in the world practically overnight in his mid 20s. Again with explanations like illness that given the probabilities of such things happening - nobody to world's best almost overnight and under a manager that has been shown up to be a hypocritical fraud - well how could one not be very open-minded at the least about what may be going on under the hood, so to speak.

    You can't go from being a fat bastard who can't keep a bike upright to a Grand Tour contender overnight.
    It takes the tried and tested route of an amazing back story of tribulation against the odds, about six months with Team Sky, a cure for a hitherto undiagnosed disease, a large amount of weight loss and prolonged episode of Asthma. You're talking at least 10 months in total.


  • Options
    #390
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,450 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    1bryan wrote: »
    theoretically that could happen. He gets a 6-month ban backdated to the date of the failed test, which would be up before the 2018 season starts in earnest. So, while technically he'd get a ban, he wouldn't miss any races.
    Not without a provisional suspension he shouldn't. Contadors was back dated to the date of his original suspension (which he then appealed), and then results stripped between the failed test and the start of suspension.

    Sky are being very confident of getting no suspension for them not to have provisionally suspended him.

    Previous examples, like Yates and Ulissi, they've taken provisional suspension from A sample failure, and then by the time the case has worked itself through the system, with the sanction was back dated to the provisional suspension, they've had very little left to serve. It's a big gamble for sky - the sky bet?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    lescol
    Registered Users Posts: 648 ✭✭✭lescol


    Just throwing this in, maybe somebody could pass on Aidan O'Mahony's contact details to Chris Froome:D

    https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/best-possible-outcome-for-star-omahony-26507965.html

    "It emerged yesterday that the level of Salbutamol in O'Mahony's system was 1,977ng/ml, almost twice the 1,000 ng/ml threshold the WADA allow for users of asthma inhalers."


Advertisement