Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

Sinbad_NI

Anyone else think they're all at it... same as every other professional sport.

CF just a fool to actually get caught. Don't for a second think that the guys who are a few seconds back are any cleaner.

Sad state of affairs I know.

Weepsie

recedite wrote: »

I think the results are entirely predictable and measurable. As for "morality" well, if only wealthy people/teams can afford it, is it moral?
Perhaps no different in principle to having access to the best and most expensive equipment. Obviously it won't turn a donkey into a racehorse. But then Froome was never a donkey, and the same goes for all the riders who have been banned over the years. All were good riders even before they took whatever they took.

Results are predictable in that you'll get riders who can take on oxygen or whatever more effectively, but they'll heat their natural ceiling sooner and suffer in a way they wouldn't on epo.

Just because one team can afford it and another can't, doesn't make it anything similar to doping.

Plus the predicted avalanche of GTs to Colombian riders hasn't quite happened

MPFGLB

Weepsie wrote: »

Results are predictable in that you'll get riders who can take on oxygen or whatever more effectively, but they'll heat their natural ceiling sooner and suffer in a way they wouldn't on epo.

Just because one team can afford it and another can't, doesn't make it anything similar to doping.

Plus the predicted avalanche of GTs to Colombian riders hasn't quite happened

That is because winning is more than just climbing
and winning is more than just physical

And no they are not all doping ...this need to blanket stamp everyone is ridiculous
Not all doping just like not all have blond hair or are size 12 shoe

The world is a more diverse and complex place as is cycling

The obvious doping accoutrements of Armstrong, Vino, Hamilton & Pantani are no longer in circulation

The game switched to one of play the system ...which SKY have become the masters at
Hence their domination of the Tour the only race they cared about ...by British riders

I know that many riders signed with SKY thinking they had some scientific advantage but left without any insights or wonderous revelations

Lumen

If Froome is a donkey then cycling has much bigger problems than Froome.

odyssey06

Macy0161 wrote: »

Was this at the 2010 giro when he was chucked off for holding on to a moto on a mountain stage, or just before the 2011 vuelta when he was so good sky weren't going to renew his contract?

I'm guessing it could depends on whether you define 'good' as relative to the average male of sporting age, or 'good' relative to the couple of hundred fulltime professional riders that are out there...

recedite

Macy0161 wrote: »

Equating epo to altitude training is an over simplification of the effect of epo from what I've read. The ability to do more training on less fuel/ calories (and thus reducing power to weight) was the biggest benefit Tyler Hamilton said iirc, not in the actual oxygen up take.

A lot of these guys just pop the pills they are given and don't necessarily know the exact effects of each one. The "asthma"type drugs open up the lungs/airways in the short term, but also increase base metababolism in the long term, hence the fat burning and higher intensity training effect. Even the caffeine in coffee can increase metabolism, though I don't think the cyclists filling coffee shops would consider themselves "cheats". Basically it mimics some of the primeval body responses for "fight or flight" similar to adrenaline.
EPO and altitude training increase the speed of transferring the oxygen from the lungs to the muscles. If you are a Columbian or a Tibetan you have a natural advantage.
Anabolic steroids and other bodybuilder type drugs and supplements increase muscle mass and aid recovery.
Amphetamine type drugs increase the pain threshold.
Also some people have different amounts of naturally occurring hormones such as testosterone.
Some combination of these would be much more effective than just one alone.

At the end of the day IMO the authorities just have pick the (somewhat arbitrary) limits and say "beyond this line you are cheating".
At twice the limit, Froome is well beyond that line.

Weepsie wrote: »

Plus the predicted avalanche of GTs to Colombian riders hasn't quite happened

Quite a few have worn the polka dot jersey over the years.

Weepsie

recedite wrote: »

.


Quite a few have worn the polka dot jersey over the years.

Fewer than 20, and 5 if those were Luis Herrera.

recedite

Weepsie wrote: »

Fewer than 20, and 5 if those were Luis Herrera.

More than were from Brazil, all the same.

el tel

From that piece: “Salbutamol’s performance enhancing effects as an inhalant (there are none)”

Ive heard that think a lot lately. But isn’t it bollocks? Because speaking from experience, when your asthma manifests itself, you will ride your bike like a wheezing crock of ****. But when you take a few puffs of you inhaler, you breathe better and can ride your bike slightly less like a crock of ****. The difference being a very black and white gain in performance.

koutoubia

el tel wrote: »

From that piece: “Salbutamol’s performance enhancing effects as an inhalant (there are none)”

Ive heard that think a lot lately. But isn’t it bollocks? Because speaking from experience, when your asthma manifests itself, you will ride your bike like a wheezing crock of ****. But when you take a few puffs of you inhaler, you breathe better and can ride your bike slightly less like a crock of ****. The difference being a very black and white gain in performance.

But what is the norm?
Is the norm being a wheezing crock of ****e or is the norm being able to breathe like a normal human?

Lumen

koutoubia wrote: »

But what is the norm?
Is the norm being a wheezing crock of ****e or is the norm being able to breathe like a normal human?

Normal is your cycling performance not being limited by your lungs, which is what people without asthma experience.

The PED effects of salbutamol are nothing to do with the lungs.

Leroy42

but the issue isn't inhaler use, it is accepted that it can be used hence the reason for a limit rather than a total ban.
but the level would indicate that it was not normal inhaler use, and thus we get into tablet etc form.
Sky needs to now prove how that level is possible with just an inhaler

SharpshooterTom

So whats are the chances do we think of Chris Froome getting a ban then and actually missing the Giro and TDF this year?

Above 50%, below 50% currently??

pelevin

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

So whats are the chances do we think of Chris Froome getting a ban then and actually missing the Giro and TDF this year?

Above 50%, below 50% currently??

It seems probable he will get a ban but it also seems that Sky will be able to drag the whole process out before there is any judgement that he will be free to ride those events in the meantime. Most teams would suspend their own rider in the meantime in those circumstances though and as the UCI president has even publicly wished Sky to do.

Sky have always cared passionately about the image of the sport and doing things the right way, being holier than any thou imaginable, etc so of course they'll probably ignore completely the ethical side of things and throw masses of money at the legal side of things and plough on regardless. That's what any self-respecting soulless robot like Dave Brailsford would do anyway imo.

Macy0161

odyssey06 wrote: »

I'm guessing it could depends on whether you define 'good' as relative to the average male of sporting age, or 'good' relative to the couple of hundred fulltime professional riders that are out there...

Well in this context I meant compared to the other pro's. Sky only renewed after he started showing in that vuelta - so despite "the numbers" in training they said they'd seen at the time, they obviously didn't see the potential (otherwise they would've renewed him on his previous domestique salary, not a GT contender salary they ended up paying!).

SharpshooterTom

pelevin wrote: »

It seems probable he will get a ban but it also seems that Sky will be able to drag the whole process out before there is any judgement that he will be free to ride those events in the meantime. Most teams would suspend their own rider in the meantime in those circumstances though and as the UCI president has even publicly wished Sky to do.

Surely the decision will come before the TDF??

pelevin

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Surely the decision will come before the TDF??

The UCI president said he thinks it could drag on a year or so if Sky choose to go that route:

"I don't know but with the appeals it could take a year. I hope that it's less but it depends. It's possible he could be riding the Tour. It's possible he could be sanctioned after. That's happened."

Macy0161

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Surely the decision will come before the TDF??

Initial decision maybe, but I can't see how it's not going to be appealed to CAS. Any suspension and Sky will appeal to CAS. No suspension, WADA will appeal to CAS.

Obviously more likely to go deeper into the season the longer sky take to make their case.

Cycling was much more fun when I just knew about KAS rather than CAS...

SharpshooterTom

Macy0161 wrote: »

Initial decision maybe, but I can't see how it's not going to be appealed to CAS. Any suspension and Sky will appeal to CAS. No suspension, WADA will appeal to CAS.

Obviously more likely to go deeper into the season the longer sky take to make their case.

Cycling was much more fun when I just knew about KAS rather than CAS...

But even if he initially was banned, appealing doesn't automatically allow him to start racing does it? The ban would immediately take affect?

Would you say therefore its likely he'll be banned from one of the next two TDF's? I wouldn't mind seeing a new winner at some point.

CramCycle

This has been yet another colossal PR f*ck up from Sky. All they had to do at the very start was say that while they believe in Chris and that he is clean, we also respect due process and are holding him back from competition until his name is cleared. They could have knocked up a quick PR statement about it not being a banned substance, just regulated, and that it has been flagged to authorities before, and if he gets banned, what kind of a message does that send to millions of asthmatics around the world, are you telling me they are not allowed dream. Maybe Chris could come out as a secret Asthma UK sponsor and get snapped sitting in with GPs when they break the bad news to newly diagnosed asthmatics.

Marginal gains, I would be surprised if they could organise a piss up in a brewery.

SharpshooterTom

What happens if Chris Froome goes onto win the Giro, TDF this year and then gets banned afterwards?

Does that mean his all his titles he wins in this period get subsequently stripped from him too?

Bit weird all this.

dragratchet

nothing other than a full exoneration will do for sky and froome from now on. hence their efforts to move mountains to find an acceptable excuse. If he cops a ban his past wins will be tainted and he'll struggle to compete in the future without an increased volume of inhalers, p1ss and abuse getting hurled at him from the roadside and european media. the world has been waiting to pin something on him and if even a tiny indiscretion sticks he's finished as a credible rider. so i can understand the lengths sky will go to clear him

Macy0161

dragratchet wrote: »

the world has been waiting to pin something on him and if even a tiny indiscretion sticks he's finished as a credible rider. so i can understand the lengths sky will go to clear him

I can't see how him being cleared now changes opinions of him tbh.

dragratchet

He may not change the opinion of the likes us internet commenters and some of the press but at least he can bat away questions in media engagements with a good old lance style, ive never tested positive for PEDs and i explained away that sambutamol snafu.

pelevin

CramCycle wrote: »

This has been yet another colossal PR f*ck up from Sky. All they had to do at the very start was say that while they believe in Chris and that he is clean, we also respect due process and are holding him back from competition until his name is cleared. They could have knocked up a quick PR statement about it not being a banned substance, just regulated, and that it has been flagged to authorities before, and if he gets banned, what kind of a message does that send to millions of asthmatics around the world, are you telling me they are not allowed dream. Maybe Chris could come out as a secret Asthma UK sponsor and get snapped sitting in with GPs when they break the bad news to newly diagnosed asthmatics.

Marginal gains, I would be surprised if they could organise a piss up in a brewery.

I really look on Brailsford as a corporate soulless robot, & the stuff where they shouted from the rooftops how ethical they were was a PR front. It doesn't seem to have reflected a deep-rooted inner sense of right & wrong at all - in fact the opposite. It was a cynical front.

Now that for most anyone who isn't simply a Sky fan this front has been blown out of the water, I think Sky/Brailsford are now at the point of simply not giving a sh.. about the PR anymore & will go on trying to get every advantage from any position as their only concern, with naturally still the odd sops to the believers who will be ready to swallow anything Sky throw to them about them doing things 'the right way'.

Keeks

I can't figure out what Sky are trying to do.....If they just accepted the findings of the adverse findings, banned Froome, but admitted no liability i,.e still spun the line of we don't know how this happened, we are clean, must be his kidneys etc, but just left it at that....they would be a short ban and that would be a line drawn under it.

He is not competing anyway so by the time the ban was up it would be Giro time.

Now they are just digging a hole they can't get out of and all credibility is lost if they can't prove Froomes Kidneys held the salbutamol and released it all in one go. I severely doubt that they will be able to prove it. the human body is a strange complicated machine that rarely replicates unusual occurrences.....

SharpshooterTom

Keeks wrote: »

Now they are just digging a hole they can't get out of and all credibility is lost if they can't prove Froomes Kidneys held the salbutamol and released it all in one go. I severely doubt that they will be able to prove it. the human body is a strange complicated machine that rarely replicates unusual occurrences.....

I guess Sky simply think there's a very good chance he'll get off as they wouldn't pursue with it otherwise. They obviously know something we don't.

ThomasFlynn

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

What happens if Chris Froome goes onto win the Giro, TDF this year and then gets banned afterwards?

Does that mean his all his titles he wins in this period get subsequently stripped from him too?

Bit weird all this.

Thats pretty much what happened with Contador that time.

Lumen

What's to stop them from dosing him orally with Salbutamol during the tests?

Macy0161

Lumen wrote: »

What's to stop them from dosing him orally with Salbutamol during the tests?

Surreptitiously? Officially they can only use up to the maximum permitted dose in permitted methods.

I think I said earlier in the thread just off the cuff about whether all the South African kilometers on strava was to prepare for the test - I was listening to a podcast over the weekend where someone had compared the rides he'd posted to the vuelta stages, and they're remarkably similiar apparently!