Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

Thud

i just hope they are keeping his urine and blood test samples in a vault somewhere to back test in the future when they know how to test for whatever it is the salbutamol was masking.

Chips Lovell

Right from the start, there was something about this case that didn't add up. It was either

A: One of the best paid cyclists in the world was choosing to dope using the worlds most commonly used asthma medication whose performance enhancing benefits are marginal at best. Not only that, he was choosing to do so knowing that several of his peers had been caught allegedly doing the same. And, that an amateur GAA player had somehow hit upon the same doping strategy as a Tour de France winner.

or

B: If he was telling the truth, then there was something wrong with the underlying assumptions behind the test.

Either way, there was something odd going on, but I think for too many people there was an eagerness to believe that Froome was cheating that they weren't able to see that.

Leroy42

TBF, he did fail the anti-doping controls. What are people supposed to think?

We are told that WADA has put in place systems to catch drug cheats, testing is the major component of it. Since most punters are not deeply involved in the science, and as is the case in most areas, we rely on the experts to give up the guidelines.

So Froome failed a test, a test that others had previously failed and been sanctioned for. Are you really expecting the average punter to start to question the motives behind Froome, what his thought process was etc.

Not only is that impossible, but it also goes against the very nature of drug testing which states that athletes are responsible for what is in their bodies.

He failed the test, the test that was administered under the WADA code, a code that we are told is the standard. If the test has holes, they why are WADA continuing with the test? Why did the UCI not immediately, upon release of the failed test, inform the world that the test itself was open to question and that Froome was likely to be innocent?

optogirl

incredible the amount of professional racers with chronic asthma...

terrydel

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Right from the start, there was something about this case that didn't add up. It was either

A: One of the best paid cyclists in the world was choosing to dope using the worlds most commonly used asthma medication whose performance enhancing benefits are marginal at best. Not only that, he was choosing to do so knowing that several of his peers had been caught allegedly doing the same. And, that an amateur GAA player had somehow hit upon the same doping strategy as a Tour de France winner.

or

B: If he was telling the truth, then there was something wrong with the underlying assumptions behind the test.

Either way, there was something odd going on, but I think for too many people there was an eagerness to believe that Froome was cheating that they weren't able to see that.

Do you think hes cheating?
I think given that Shane Sutton (second only to the reptile Brailsford) said they were gaming the system (i.e cheating in pretty much every sense of the word), the fact we know beyond any reasonable doubt that Wiggins took something for no legitimate reason other than to improve performance, the bull**** around a jiffy bag/delivering flumacil (which I think Im gonna buy at lunch across the road!), and the many, many other bit and pieces of evidence as to how sky operate and their lack of a moral compass, I'm pretty sure this was another attempt to circumvent the rules and gain an advantage, and they ****ed up in some way. Brailsford has been shown to be a bit of a bluffer and not nearly as clever as he'd like us to believe, so I think its highly conceivable that they simply ballsed it up, either thru arrogance, hubris, or a basic human error.

loyatemu

I hope they're checking his bike as well as his blood at the Tour:
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/ewan-mackenna-so-how-is-it-then-that-you-explain-a-freak-like-chris-froome-36968940.html

el tel

I don't know how many pro cyclists are taking Salbutamol inhalers, but on the assumption there are plenty, how come so few appear to be falling foul of the usage rules, particularly given that factors such as dehydration can cause you to record above the permitted levels? Or is it just that these "adverse findings" rarely get made public?

I actually like Froome and his disposition (I think he should have put Wiggins to the sword on La Toussuire in 2012) but to produce his adverse finding he must have really really badly dehydrated and/or really sailing close to the max amount of puffs, which is quite worrying that his condition would be so bad. I'm not going to speculate on possible use of nebuliser or intravenous intake, because that would be unthinkable.

CramCycle

loyatemu wrote: »

I hope they're checking his bike as well as his blood at the Tour:

An excellent idea

el tel wrote: »

I don't know how many pro cyclists are taking Salbutamol inhalers, but on the assumption there are plenty, how come so few appear to be falling foul of the usage rules, particularly given that factors such as dehydration can cause you to record above the permitted levels? Or is it just that these "adverse findings" rarely get made public?

I could be wrong but other than Sky claiming it, my understanding is that others who had been let in around the date of the test had found that he was showing absolutely no signs of dehydration.

CramCycle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Either way, there was something odd going on, but I think for too many people there was an eagerness to believe that Froome was cheating that they weren't able to see that.

Eagerness is a bit of a stretch, he was asthmatic but it had never come up before even though he was potentially one of the strongest riders the tour had ever seen? Using a medication that most doctors seem to agree is for the most extreme of asthmatics. A drug that is believed to have potential PED effects when taken in excess. In that regard, he probably is no different than most of the

My issue with the case is simple, while other riders could get that leeway if they pushed, few if any could afford to push that hard, there simply should be a zero tolerance on it.

My issue with Froome, is not an issue with medical dopers. I don't like doping but it is part of the sport, and if all anti doping does is restrict it a bit, then it is better than nothing. My issues with Froome are suspicions on riding styles and physiological behaviours and movements that test the believability of what he is doing. Doesn't mean he is doing anything wrong, Usain Bolt is a perfect example of a running style that shouldn't work but does, the only difference is that Usain is on his own, Frooome is on a bike and it is just hard to watch. Is it possible, anything is possible, is it believable, well, no.

el tel

loyatemu wrote: »

I hope they're checking his bike as well as his blood at the Tour:
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/ewan-mackenna-so-how-is-it-then-that-you-explain-a-freak-like-chris-froome-36968940.html

Very interesting read. It doesn't say it, but maybe the inhaler/Salbutamol finding is just a deliberate smokescreen. Certainly an adverse finding against a poor suffering asthmatic is a minor infraction compared to riding a part-time ebike

Thud wrote: »

i just hope they are keeping his urine and blood test samples in a vault somewhere to back test in the future when they know how to test for whatever it is the salbutamol was masking.

Don't they already have a test for hidden motors?

terrydel

el tel wrote: »

I don't know how many pro cyclists are taking Salbutamol inhalers, but on the assumption there are plenty, how come so few appear to be falling foul of the usage rules, particularly given that factors such as dehydration can cause you to record above the permitted levels? Or is it just that these "adverse findings" rarely get made public?

I actually like Froome and his disposition (I think he should have put Wiggins to the sword on La Toussuire in 2012) but to produce his adverse finding he must have really really badly dehydrated and/or really sailing close to the max amount of puffs, which is quite worrying that his condition would be so bad. I'm not going to speculate on possible use of nebuliser or intravenous intake, because that would be unthinkable.

Maybe froome dehydrates far worse than other elite pro cyclists. Yet another condition this poor man has suffered with and risen above, he really is a man who has triumphed against all the odds.

Weepsie

el tel wrote: »

Very interesting read. It doesn't say it, but maybe the inhaler/Salbutamol finding is just a deliberate smokescreen. Certainly an adverse finding against a poor suffering asthmatic is a minor infraction compared to riding a part-time ebike

Ewan McKenna, gives out about foreigners earning a living while in Ireland, yet he lives in Brazil. A proper d!ckhead.

loyatemu

Weepsie wrote: »

Ewan McKenna, gives out about foreigners earning a living while in Ireland, yet he lives in Brazil. A proper d!ckhead.

doesn't take away from his point - he's not the only one to look at Froome's style and wonder "what's going on here?"

Hurrache

Weepsie wrote: »

Ewan McKenna, gives out about foreigners earning a living while in Ireland, yet he lives in Brazil. A proper d!ckhead.

He jumped the shark some time ago alright, which is a shame as I tend not to listen or read him as much anymore. He used to be quite good but it seems to have gotten to his head and has become pretty smarmy and intolerable.

terrydel

Hurrache wrote: »

He jumped the shark some time ago alright, which is a shame as I tend not to listen or read him as much anymore. He used to be quite good but it seems to have gotten to his head and has become pretty smarmy and intolerable.

I tend to agree with his stance on a lot of things, but yeah hes gone quite aggressive recently on twitter, maybe thats what happens when you take the DOB shilling.

Macy0161

terrydel wrote: »

Maybe froome dehydrates far worse than other elite pro cyclists. Yet another condition this poor man has suffered with and risen above, he really is a man who has triumphed against all the odds.

Sky do manage dehydration to up the power to weight. But if dehydration was a factor, and he did his usual dose, why wasn't he (and lots of others) over before?

There's nothing exceptional, or necessarily dodgy, about endurance athletes suffering from asthma. It is a known consequence of spending so much time exercising outside.

el tel

1bryan wrote: »

according to Tucker some college students carried out a study on dogs (yes, dogs) whereby they could prove 15% of 'participants' returned values above the threshold. Yes, dogs.

It probably comes down to the scientific basis behind why they picked the threshold they did. It'll probably make them push the threshold out by, oh I dunno, maybe double?

Sounds like Sky basically made the case that the test isn't even good enough for a greyhound race, let a lone a bike race :mad:

Weepsie

If someone is so severly dehydrated as he apparently was, how the feck could he spin up the mountain in the manner he did!

magicbastarder

GCN repeating rumours (itself a bit strange) that froome's lawyers were able to draw on the evidence that 10 other riders returned an adverse salbutamol finding but were not banned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKUsLIvHyKs
they start discussing froome at about 1:20 and the rumour above is mentioned at around 3:45.

RobFowl

Weepsie wrote: »

If someone is so severly dehydrated as he apparently was, how the feck could he spin up the mountain in the manner he did!

Dehydrated, sick and suffering from severe asthma yet still able to crush the rest of the field in a GT.

flatty

Fwiw, and I loathe Brailsford in particular, I was speaking to someone at the absolute pinnacle of drug testing a few months ago, and he told me that the salbutamol test was actually not very reliable, and could indeed be grossly skewed by dehydration, the only question is how much.

CramCycle

He wasn't dehydrated though

Lusk_Doyle

CramCycle wrote: »

He wasn't dehydrated though

"Marginally" thirsty?

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

Fwiw, and I loathe Brailsford in particular, I was speaking to someone at the absolute pinnacle of drug testing a few months ago, and he told me that the salbutamol test was actually not very reliable, and could indeed be grossly skewed by dehydration, the only question is how much.

If that is true, and I am not saying that you are not, and based on the findings, Froome and other athletes are being treated disgracefully.

Why continue on with a test that has no reliability? Froome has been put through the ringer based on a test that even WADA accepts is flawed.

Frooom, Sky and cycling as a whole has taken a massive hit over this.

Lumen

Leroy42 wrote: »

If that is true, and I am not saying that you are not, and based on the findings, Froome and other athletes are being treated disgracefully.

Why continue on with a test that has no reliability? Froome has been put through the ringer based on a test that even WADA accepts is flawed.

That's arseways. The test is not flawed. What's flawed is the dosage recommendation. But it's only a recommendation, and Sky have the resources to do their own research for athletes with chronic respiratory problems needing constant medication.

Leroy42

Lumen wrote: »

That's arseways. The test is not flawed. What's flawed is the dosage recommendation. But it's only a recommendation, and Sky have the resources to do their own research for athletes with chronic respiratory problems needing constant medication.

Don't follow. If the results of the test of so open to interpretation as to be meaningless then what is the point of the test.

If it is just, as it think the Dr said, a pointer to asking more questions, then don't tell the world that Froome (or any other athlete) failed a test. They didn't as the results don't mean that he doped.

If they already know that these tests can result in data showing widely different levels based on many factors then its a useless test.

Lumen

Leroy42 wrote: »

Don't follow. If the results of the test of so open to interpretation as to be meaningless then what is the point of the test.

If it is just, as it think the Dr said, a pointer to asking more questions, then don't tell the world that Froome (or any other athlete) failed a test. They didn't as the results don't mean that he doped.

If they already know that these tests can result in data showing widely different levels based on many factors then its a useless test.

The results of the tests are not open to interpretation. It's not a test for ingestion, it's a test for excretion.

It's the athlete/team's problem to figure out how to stay under the test limits. Like the old 50% rule.

DKmac

It boils down to the legal side of things and particularly the cost. Teams, Athletes who have an adverse finding have the financial muscle over governing bodies to drag the argument through the courts if required, which is where this was headed. WADA or UCI can't afford to get involved in these continuous legal challenges. The prospect of a legal challenge is in place because of the existence of CAS. As the UCI falls under the Olympic movement and engages with this it must abide by the rulings of CAS. Simplest solution is to remove yourself from the Olympics, remove the threat of CAS objections and issue bans and anti-doping rules under your own guidelines.......If the UCI could be trusted to do so!!

loyatemu

Lumen wrote: »

The results of the tests are not open to interpretation. It's not a test for ingestion, it's a test for excretion.

It's the athlete/team's problem to figure out how to stay under the test limits. Like the old 50% rule.

but that's basically what the guy on the Off the Ball interview above said... WADA have stated that someone who excretes X amount of the substance has benefited from the performance enhancing effects. Sky challenged them to stand over this and they couldn't - the amount excreted is just too variable; and they may not be able to stand over this methodology for a bunch of other tests too.

check_six

loyatemu wrote: »

but that's basically what the guy on the Off the Ball interview above said... WADA have stated that someone who excretes X amount of the substance has benefited from the performance enhancing effects. Sky challenged them to stand over this and they couldn't - the amount excreted is just too variable; and they may not be able to stand over this methodology for a bunch of other tests too.

So what he's saying is that Froome and Sky have destroyed WADA's ability to ever take anyone to task over a failed test ever again?

That's... just... terrific.

As if they weren't unlikeable enough already this is just another twist of the knife.

More knighthoods all round for a sterling service to world sport, I suppose?