Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

flatty

Lumen wrote: »

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.

Simon Davies told me the test is unreliable.

Dr. Bre

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

Froome is on a similar level as Lance to me

Agreed. Froome has won all 3 grand tours and numerous Tour de France. If he’s guilty it’s a massive blow to cycling

Enduro

MPFGLB wrote: »

What I dont understand is how you can have such a calorie defecit during one of the hardest races ever , lose the weight and still be beyond excellent by the en do of the race

I've got a lot of experience of continuous multi-day racing. Not cycling, but running and adventure racing (real Expedition AR). (FWIW, I'd say running is more time-energy intense and more tricky to get right). A Calorie deficit isn't actually a problem. Most people have problems precisely because they assume that a calorie deficit is an issue, and cause themselves all kinds of problems by trying to counter that perceived problem (unnecessarily). I've gone 5 days pretty much non-stop bar occasional sleeps but eating very little (and won the race I was in). Humans are well able to deal with calorie deficits. Calorie deficits during fat-burning endurance efforts aren't a big issue if you're adapted to deal with it.

It appears to me that in Froome's case here (and professional Cycling stage racing in general) it's not about calories/energy per se, but about avoiding glycogen depletion and bonking. Hence the emphasis on sugary carbs on the bike. It looks to me that the planning and timing is all about keeping his glycogen stores going so he could maintain high intensity output over a prolonged period (which would definitely lead to a bonk otherwise, given most people only have about 2 hours worth of glycogen to call on).

There's 2 different things going on there.

irishrover99

matban wrote: »

Clouds for some.

Clouds over Anquetil, Merckx,
Minor issues for Hinault, Indurain

All considered greats regardless, a lot of double standarding

Any cloud over Froome today is a major improvement from the hurricane over him after Giro Stage 19.

Indurain is regarded as the biggest doper of all time by the people who actually know about doping although he never actually got caught for some reason.

Macy0161

irishrover99 wrote: »

Indurain is regarded as the biggest doper of all time by the people who actually know about doping although he never actually got caught for some reason.

If I recall correctly, Indurain was actually popped for Salbultamol! Back when it was banned rather than a specified substance.

He was in the era of the heamocrit level, rather than an actual test, for EPO. And a client of Conconi. People are drawing their own conclusions (and I would be one of them). I read Alasdair Fotheringham's recent biography on him, and it had nothing bar a few visits to Conconi.

Lumen

flatty wrote: »

Simon Davies told me the test is unreliable.

?

MPFGLB

Enduro wrote: »

I've got a lot of experience of continuous multi-day racing. Not cycling, but running and adventure racing (real Expedition AR). (FWIW, I'd say running is more time-energy intense and more tricky to get right). A Calorie deficit isn't actually a problem. Most people have problems precisely because they assume that a calorie deficit is an issue, and cause themselves all kinds of problems by trying to counter that perceived problem (unnecessarily). I've gone 5 days pretty much non-stop bar occasional sleeps but eating very little (and won the race I was in). Humans are well able to deal with calorie deficits. Calorie deficits during fat-burning endurance efforts aren't a big issue if you're adapted to deal with it.

It appears to me that in Froome's case here (and professional Cycling stage racing in general) it's not about calories/energy per se, but about avoiding glycogen depletion and bonking. Hence the emphasis on sugary carbs on the bike. It looks to me that the planning and timing is all about keeping his glycogen stores going so he could maintain high intensity output over a prolonged period (which would definitely lead to a bonk otherwise, given most people only have about 2 hours worth of glycogen to call on).

There's 2 different things going on there.

Thanks for the reply but still doesnt add up for me

If you are racing one of the hardest races in the world you are expending alot of energy . Now if you also have a calorie deficit then you will need to call on your glycogen reserves before you burn fat

So how do you keep those reserves high and burn fat is what I dont get...glocogen needs to go down before fat burning kicks in

If Froome can deplete glycogen and draw of fat stores and is fat fueling buring adapted then that is another thing...but that would mean low carb diet or fasting and that is not what his diet says...His diet says low energy to me

I agree with Philippa York that losing weight in GTs in nigh impossible

irishrover99

Macy0161 wrote: »

If I recall correctly, Indurain was actually popped for Salbultamol! Back when it was banned rather than a specified substance.

He was in the era of the heamocrit level, rather than an actual test, for EPO. And a client of Conconi. People are drawing their own conclusions (and I would be one of them). I read Alasdair Fotheringham's recent biography on him, and it had nothing bar a few visits to Conconi.

Have a read of this.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-casts-doubt-over-performances-of-indurain-and-jalabert/

flatty

Indurain was up to the gills. He was also a decent sort who behaved properly other than that and quietly retired. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I have a bridge for sale.

Macy0161

irishrover99 wrote: »

Have a read of this.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-casts-doubt-over-performances-of-indurain-and-jalabert/

I'm well aware. I was just trying to stick to the charter! That's why I always supported Rominger :pac:

loyatemu

so apart from Lemond and Evans is there a single Tour winner in the last 30 years who is generally considered clean?

irishrover99

This is also another good watch on the Joe Rogan podcast with a sports physician and he delves into Lance, doping and the TDF

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SIQaFUJ7vI

1bryan

loyatemu wrote: »

so apart from Lemond and Evans is there a single Tour winner in the last 30 years who is generally considered clean?

Evans? hmmm, dunno.

Sastre maybe, but then again, maybe not.

ford2600

MPFGLB wrote: »

Thanks for the reply but still doesnt add up for me

If you are racing one of the hardest races in the world you are expending alot of energy . Now if you also have a calorie deficit then you will need to call on your glycogen reserves before you burn fat

So how do you keep those reserves high and burn fat is what I dont get...glocogen needs to go down before fat burning kicks in

If Froome can deplete glycogen and draw of fat stores and is fat fueling buring adapted then that is another thing...but that would mean low carb diet or fasting and that is not what his diet says...His diet says low energy to me

I agree with Philippa York that losing weight in GTs in nigh impossible

No you burn both at same time with % of each depending on intensity and your level of fat adaptation.

Someone like Enduro, at intensity of ultra running, would be running almost entirely on fat and only using a trickle of glycogen. He would probably get a trickle of glycogen from the breakdown of triglycerides into individual fat cells.
Which is why he can het by eating next to nothing. The reason he can do it on no sleep for 5 days is what separates men for boys ala Joe Barr, Jim Fitzpatrick etc

For someone like Froome, after years of GT riding his ability to burn fat on bike would be off the charts compared to an ordinary club rider.


I always think GT are not about who is strongest but who gets weaker slowest; with all the stresses of 3 weeks taking their toll.


I think it would be hard not to lose weight on a GT for a lot of riders. The idea of deliberating targeting such loss with precision and getting it right everytime while wiping the floor with other elite level athletes strikes me as BS. I guess pineapple juice yarn is out of legs


Froome is circa 8kg lighter than he was when he was a non runner; the idea that he can target further weight loss on a GT and keep all power without a pharma intervention seems a stretch. Losing the weight will be easy; at his bf percentage that will mean fat and muscle loss.

Also keeping healthy while trying to lower already incredibly low bf would be difficult. Fat isn't just a fuel source; a certain percentage is off limits to keep us healthy. Once below 6% or so and continuing to ride a GT while dieting would be pretty catabolic.

Macy0161

loyatemu wrote: »

so apart from Lemond and Evans is there a single Tour winner in the last 30 years who is generally considered clean?

Sastre, but he could fall under the Indurain school of nice guy too. I think Schleck has avoided any official linkage, just his brother and the teams he road for, but you could say that about Sastre too.

tbh, in the context of professional sport, even Wiggins has to be considered. What we know about is not doping, either legally or in the context of blood bags and epo. In most other sports what he did wouldn't even be hidden (e.g. football).

eagle eye

Lemond shouts about doping so is considered to be clean when he was cycling himself. Interesting is all I have to say about that.

irishrover99

eagle eye wrote: »

Lemond shouts about doping so is considered to be clean when he was cycling himself. Interesting is all I have to say about that.

And so he should because others have been giving out about omertà been the main doping problem in cycling.

They say nothing while cycling but sing like a canary when they've retired and been caught.

It's also one of the main reasons I like Tom Doumolan because he called out sky on twitter over the wiggins Jiffy bag thing.

07Lapierre

eagle eye wrote: »

Lemond shouts about doping so is considered to be clean when he was cycling himself. Interesting is all I have to say about that.

To be honest, what's more interesting is the amount of cyclists who never mention doping...ever! IMO that says a lot more.

irishrover99

07Lapierre wrote: »

To be honest, what's more interesting is the amount of cyclists who never mention doping...ever! IMO that says a lot more.

Our Sean been the main culprit for me.

NeedMoreGears

Just picking up from my earlier post (and thanks Inquitus for explaining things)

It strikes me as almost pointless to have an ingestion limit other than zero because no-one can independently and precisely verify ingested quantities directly. The only real option is to set a limit for excretion or levels in blood (perhaps not relevant in this case) AND that these limits are definitive. If an athlete exceeds these limits then there has been a doping offence.

Such a limit may be unfortunate for certain athletes whose metabolism, racing load etc cause them to have unusual relationship between quantities ingested and whatever turns up in the blood or urine. At least, however, it would eliminate most of the cheating.

At the end of the day here, Froome's team have successfully explained to the relevant experts how excretion levels can be high while staying within ingestion limits. In essence they have done what was requested.

It would be more than helpful if the details were made public, otherwise there will always be a doubt.

Lumen

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

At the end of the day here, Froome's team have successfully explained to the relevant experts how excretion levels can be high while staying within ingestion limits. In essence they have done what was requested.

That is not what is required by the rules.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-at-all-times/beta-2-agonists

The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.

A mountain of FUD does not equal "a controlled pharmacokinetic study".

Note also use of the word "proves". That's very strong. Not at all the same as "can be".

matban

Most experienced cycling fans are of the opinion that the doping doctors/scientists are always ahead of the game relative to the ability of doping controls to catch dopers. So there always will be a cloud of doubt over cycling.

Some people can put that to one side, hope Froome is more or less clean, and enjoy the likes of Giro stage 19 as a historic sporting spectacle.
If you subscribe to that philosophy it was one of the most amazing days cycle racing for years. A great watch on TV etc.

Some cannot put that to the side, I understand the logic given the sport's history. Froome is considered public enemy no.1, Giro stage 19 is a massive slap in the face for them.

I'm in the first group, maybe it's naivety or maybe Froome is clean, whichever, it makes cycle racing a lot more fun to watch.

eagle eye

matban wrote:

I'm in the first group, maybe it's naivety or maybe Froome is clean, whichever, it makes cycle racing a lot more fun to watch.

You are very naive then. History suggests that a cyclist never improves in his late twenties like Froome did. Then add in the ridiculous things he has done and there is only one logical conclusion.

el tel

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/fundamental-flaw-wadas-salbutamol-regulations-revealed-scientist-came-385142

so it seems from the expert professor Fitch that the test levels were based on swimmers, not cyclists, and does not take into account dehydration, and so should be doubt over previous cases involving salbutamol incucling, such as that of Italian sprinter Alessandro Petacchi who he considers innocent.

To me, on balance, it looks like Froome has done nothing wrong. For him to retain his decorum and quiet resolve throughout the sage shows a fair amount of class IMO

Leroy42

[QUOTE=matban;107438229I'm in the first group, maybe it's naivety or maybe Froome is clean, whichever, it makes cycle racing a lot more fun to watch.[/QUOTE]

Or maybe one can simply treat it as entertainment, like any TV show.Does anyone think that Game of Thrones is real, that Spiderman is a true represntation of events. No, we enjoy it for the spectacle.

Thats how I view it. I like the movement of the peloton, the crowds, the scenery, the commentary, the bikes, the gear, the noise etc. But I don't view Froome as being a great, or doing great things, anymore than I did when watching Hulk Hogan in WWE.

I recall watching Contador and Rasmussen on that mountain climb in the TdF. That was great watching. Completely unbelievable what they were doing, but it was fun at the time.

CramCycle

Leroy42 wrote: »

Or maybe one can simply treat it as entertainment, like any TV show.Does anyone think that Game of Thrones is real, that Spiderman is a true represntation of events. No, we enjoy it for the spectacle.

Thats how I view it. I like the movement of the peloton, the crowds, the scenery, the commentary, the bikes, the gear, the noise etc. But I don't view Froome as being a great, or doing great things, anymore than I did when watching Hulk Hogan in WWE.

I recall watching Contador and Rasmussen on that mountain climb in the TdF. That was great watching. Completely unbelievable what they were doing, but it was fun at the time.

While I dislike doping, I still watch it and enjoy it. my biggest issue now is motor doping. I can justify or understand doping as a means to an end, I wouldn't do it but thats easy to say from the bunch in A4. I think it is wrong, it should be punished and efforts must be made to control it but it is what it is, the athlete still suffers in a way I never could. The way the climbers suffer in any grand tour or any of the classics, is equivalent to the way I suffer when I go balls out at an A4 race or sometimes even just on a long commute home. While not comparable, I can relate.

Motor doping to me is pretty much the one thing that for me there can be no forgiveness, it should be a lifetime ban from cycling in competitive events, no interview, no cases, no investigation other than to see are there other connections. The downside is that if you make it across the line or have a swap of the bike, you'll get away with it as UCI seem less interested in chasing motor doping than biological doping, which they already know they have failed to stop and are not willing to.

Keeks

matban wrote: »

.....whichever, it makes cycle racing a lot more fun to watch.

Fun to watch. Froome...seriously???

Lumen

eagle eye wrote: »

History suggests that a cyclist never improves in his late twenties like Froome did.

All riders improve in their late twenties, maybe apart from sprinters.

Particularly in terms of endurance and three-week performance.

Maybe you meant something different.

1bryan

Lumen wrote: »

All riders improve in their late twenties, maybe apart from sprinters.

Particularly in terms of endurance and three-week performance.

Maybe you meant something different.

I think the 'like Froome did' might be the part that distinguishes Froome's trajectory from other riders who, agreed, generally peak closer to 30 than to 20. It's rare to see someone who doesn't show, at least some, potential of the rider they are to become, achieving world dominance.

I can only think of 2 instances in cycling where this has happened. One, Lance Armstrong who, has a more believable story imo, the other, Chris Froome.

eagle eye

Lumen wrote:

Maybe you meant something different.

I didn't word it right. They don't go from very average to best in the world.