Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

guanciale

Frankie (Sheehan) says relax!

Couldnt resist.

MPFGLB

Sigh

When Ulissi tested postive for lower levels he was banned. I would presume Froome will get the same treatment otherwise it would be very suspicious from UCi

I know very little about this drug and its effect except what I read

but 4 things make me feel very uneasy
1. Froome was looking like he had cracked and was on his last legs the day before he tested positive. The day he was tested positive he looked like a rejuevenated individual.
2. The levels in his urine are twice the permitted and would require some inhalation. However if ingested then the figures seem more plausible. There is also the question of a masking agent

3. He has been taking medicine for asthma for sometime so why now have these adverse findings. If its down to his body and how he metabolised the drug then why now and not previously ? He is a seasoned athlete so how to adminster the drug must be second nature to him

4. One argument pro Froome fans say is that he would not be so stupid to take the wrong dose if he knew he was going to be tested every day. But that begs the question about masking.

I dont know but I hope he is treated by UCI and SKY as if any rider
Shame again for cycling

velo.2010

As predicted by Ross Tucker and others earlier, Froome and Sky are now pushing the dehydration line along with his body metabolising it differently.

paddyref

velo.2010 wrote:

As predicted by Ross Tucker and others earlier, Froome and Sky are now pushing the dehydration line along with his body metabolising it differently.

velo.2010 wrote:

As predicted by Ross Tucker and others earlier, Froome and Sky are now pushing the dehydration line along with his body metabolising it differently.

'Sky are so far beyond any ethical line that we may as well not waste time even weighing up legal vs ethical. Ethical is clear-cut. Legal, now, maybe heading that way too. In the wrong direction.'
Also by Dr Ross Tucker....says it all.

Bobeagleburger

This news isn't a surprise tbf.

Macy0161

I used to sceptical on the amount of asthmatics in all pro sport (not just cycling is a high percentage). Until I got fit and got diagnosed with exercise induced asthma!

I think the issue of asthma should be separated from the issue of people taking enough medication to be double the limit!

terrydel wrote:

How anyone bothers with the pro sport is beyond me personally. Its a complete fraud top to bottom.

Just interested, is it cycling as a pro sport or all pro sport that you don't bother with?

Cycling has no more issues as any other pro sport imo, bar bizarrely more transparency/ testing on the issue. And with a lot less financial incentives than other sports with much much much more lax testing regimes.

Macy0161

Macy0161 wrote: »

Cycling has no more issues as any other pro sport imo, bar bizarrely more transparency/ testing on the issue. And with a lot less financial incentives than other sports with much much much more lax testing regimes.

Just on that one many might not know that the minimum wage for a pro cyclist at world tour level was increased to a little over 38k a year recently. Now there are many paid way more than that and get money from other sources too but for average Joe in the peleton there are far easier ways to make that kind of money and not have to do what they do physically and spend away from home.

RobFowl

Just to clarify
Froome's level is twice the maximun permitted level, this is a very high level already and numeous sutides have found it is very hard to even reach that. Froomes level is off the scale...

I don't think we will ever really know the truth and the reason but in many ways it doesn't matter. The level is there and unless he gives a very convincing body of proof he is toast

MPFGLB

RobFowl wrote: »

Just to clarify
Froome's level is twice the maximun permitted level, this is a very high level already and numeous sutides have found it is very hard to even reach that. Froomes level is off the scale...

I don't think we will ever really know the truth and the reason but in many ways it doesn't matter. The level is there and unless he gives a very convincing body of proof he is toast

I dont understand what proof he can give ?

Even if he quoted it as administration error ..so what ?
Or how he metabolises the drug ?
Dehyradtion ?
Not seen before in a longterm asthma suffer

But why in the middle of the Vuleta after he seemed to be cracking in the race . Nibali is pissed but I dont blame him

Wiggins was also at th stage of a race when performance needed a boost

It doesnt look good for SKY again

Macy0161

Macy0161 wrote: »

I used to sceptical on the amount of asthmatics in all pro sport (not just cycling is a high percentage). Until I got fit and got diagnosed with exercise induced asthma!

Probably it should simply be called your limit. No med for asthma should be allowed in sport, like no med for oxygenating blood is allowed etc

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Kimmage’s problem is that his OTT zealousness means that his credibility is pants..

He can’t be impartial and reasonable. Tries too hard to find things that aren’t there.

This is another non story. Pure sensationalism.. Froome is a good guy. No way with all that’s gone on and all the sh1tty mud thrown his way that he is going to intentionally cheat and break rules. At least not now and recently.

Historically, so many of your postings are in support of dopers

Lusk_Doyle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I've a Power2Max and a full Ventolin inhaler. We could probably do this.

Not a chance with all that euro sausage around your neck.

career move

I’m so disappointed. I really wanted to believe he was clean. I loved his book and his story. I never was that big into cycling until I read The Climb this year and then I watched every stage of the Vuelta and every interview he gave. I feel betrayed *sigh*

68 lost souls

I really don’t know how to feel. I am sceptical but angry that this has happened. I liked Froome and had belief in Sky but now pushing gains too much. I know there wa s a lot of talk this year about planned dehydration for Froome to increase W/kg on climbs and then rehydrate on the downhills. I’m hoping that this is actually the cause of the results but I think that’s more hope than truth. This is different to Yates slip up with the TUe and it pains me to say I do think he should be banned, the rules is the rules even if it was accidental.

GreeBo

El Caballo wrote: »

Still, the rules are the rules and it can also be a masking agent. Tbh, I don't know how Froome can take that amount through inhalation, my breathing and performance actually gets worse after a certain amount of puffs. As bizarre as it sounds, highly active people are almost 10 times as likely to have asthmatic symptoms than the general population as noted in the Ultra longitudinal Study on high mileage runners.

Is it not possible that he could be using a custom/modified inhaler that delivers more then the typical dosage per puff?

ThisRegard

GreeBo wrote: »

Is it not possible that he could be using a custom/modified inhaler that delivers more then the typical dosage per puff?

The existing limits I think are already really high so in order to get to his level he'd need to be constantly sucking it.

kenmc

You'd think that if his doctor advised him to up his dosage to an amount that resulted in twice the allowed limit, he really had a duty of care to tell him he was actually too ill to race, and given him a sick note.

Doltanian

As someone who has had childhood asthma up to this present day I can tell you that those Ventolin Salbutamol inhalers have saved my life on many a day but they really do give you a huge energy boost and kick, I remember as a kid playing soccer starting to literally choke and going off wheezing and choking and then I'd take my inhaler and go back on and be massive, the other kids used to think the asthma was fake as I would be so good and fast after the inhaler, later on in life I realized what I was really taking.

NIMAN

Whats the odds so many elite athletes would have asthma?

Simply incredible.

The big alarm bell for me is the reporting on it being a "great masking agent". How true is that ?

corny

This is not news. If we got Travis Tygart on the job he could write a fairly comprehensive reasoned decision on the 'inspire a generation' boys. Dare i say it would make Lances thousand pages seem like light reading.:D

gimli2112

I'm not an enthusiast but what strikes me is that if he had to up the dosage for health reasons, on a medication that could give a positive result, surely they could have flagged it to the authorities at the time. Also he was interviewed the day of the test and specifically asked about his health to which he replied it was fine.
He was either not telling the truth then or now. I'd like to give the guy the benefit of the doubt but did that for years with Armstrong.

Unless there's compelling proof otherwise I'd consider him dodgy (I'm sure he's worried)

If I was a sponser I wouldn't go near these guys.

ThisRegard

gimli2112 wrote: »

if he had to up the dosage for health reasons, on a medication that could give a positive result,

If he was so ill as to the point that he needed such a high dosage you'd think he'd be racing the broom wagon the next day on that particular stage, never mind putting to bed his contenders for the race.

Sky are unfortunate in having riders with a long history of hidden illness. Poor Wiggins was on deaths door that he need medicine flown over to him but he luckily survived and went on to win the tour that particular time.

Macy0161

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably it should simply be called your limit. No med for asthma should be allowed in sport, like no med for oxygenating blood is allowed etc

But the reason it is treated as it is by WADA is because of the benefits (or lack of them) for people without asthma.

WADA code applies to all levels, so are you saying someone with asthma effectively can't compete at A4 level?

ThisRegard wrote:

Sky are unfortunate in having riders with a long history of hidden illness. Poor Wiggins was on deaths door that he need medicine flown over to him but he luckily survived and went on to win the tour that particular time.

Lest we forget Froomes remarkable recovery from being let go to GT contender after recovering from bilharzia. There's also the whole "living at altitude" affected Henao's blood passport. That's before getting on to Leinders. I know Wiggins is everyones favourite fall guy, but a lot more smoke about...

terrydel

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I don’t know what’s funnier, your ‘Mickey Mouse’ comment or the thanks from ‘Big Ears’!

Hahahaha, I reckon his contribution without doubt, mine was an obvious and very poor joke

Wanderer78

Sadly I can't ever see this sport shaking off this image, it's probably tainted forever

terrydel

Macy0161 wrote: »

I used to sceptical on the amount of asthmatics in all pro sport (not just cycling is a high percentage). Until I got fit and got diagnosed with exercise induced asthma!

I think the issue of asthma should be separated from the issue of people taking enough medication to be double the limit!


Just interested, is it cycling as a pro sport or all pro sport that you don't bother with?

Cycling has no more issues as any other pro sport imo, bar bizarrely more transparency/ testing on the issue. And with a lot less financial incentives than other sports with much much much more lax testing regimes.

I dont have huge time for much pro sport, but I certainly have no time for a pro sport (cycling) that is so tainted that its blue ribbon event has either confirmed or suspected cheats winning for 90% of the time over the last 20+ years.
I love the pursuit of cycling, its an amazing pastime to be involved in. But the pro side is a joke in my view.
I would not for a second say that other pro sports dont have issues, blatant ones, and I am totally with you on the whole 'where theres money theres cheating, the more money the more incentive' argument, but imho the evidence against cycling is just beyond a joke. Until other sports that concern me (soccer mainly) have such damning evidence against them, I cannot disregard it in the same way as I do pro cycling. And again I'm not for one minute suggesting soccer has no issues, it has huge ones and in some aspects cycling does a better job, but it is just my belief that there is virtually no result in pro cycling that is believeable anymore, and whatever problems soccer and other sports have, they are nowhere near that level yet.
Just my take on it.

gaffmaster

On Channel 4 news yesterday, they mentioned Froome having asthma since childhood, so it doesn't seem to be caused by endurance sports, but could be exacerbated by this.

Lots of continental cycling fans would rejoice at him getting a ban.

I'm not sure where I stand on the use of Salbutamol in sport. I used it myself in small doses as a kid (only way I could run the full length of a rugby pitch). So I can see the argument for it leveling the playing field. However, there are plenty of physical ailments preventing other athletes from reaching the top of their game, for which there is no cure. So should they ban all use of Salbutamol completely, and chalk it down to another case of tough luck on the genetics front?

pelevin

One good thing is Brian Cookson is gone as head of the UCI - the man whose son works for Sky and who only a week or so ago said that Sky & Wiggins should be basically rehabillitated completely in people's minds after the UKAD enquiry failed to damn them based on lack of definitive evidence. Clearly not a man interested in anything but clearing Sky & Froome if he was still in charge.

Macy0161

terrydel wrote: »

Until other sports that concern me (soccer mainly) have such damning evidence against them, I cannot disregard it in the same way as I do pro cycling. And again I'm not for one minute suggesting soccer has no issues, it has huge ones and in some aspects cycling does a better job, but it is just my belief that there is virtually no result in pro cycling that is believeable anymore, and whatever problems soccer and other sports have, they are nowhere near that level yet.
Just my take on it.

Have to disagree on that. The reason we don't know about football is because of the lack of tests, and the financial might. That's why only selected sports blood bags were seriously considered in Operación Puerto, when we know that Fuentes worked with football. We know Juve doped in the 90's. We know one of the worlds best players was treated with HGH. In recent years we've had a massive increase in the amount of teams that rely on aerobic capacity for their style of play, and the amount of games won in, around, past 90 minutes. A whole list of treatments that don't even need a TUE in football which would be a 4 year ban. Plus I'd think the UCI world tour minimum annual wage is more equivalent to the effective minimum weekly wage in the EPL.

The usual counter argument is the skill levels involved, but that doesn't take away the benefit of a "great engine", the fact that the ability to use that skill is enhanced with greater endurance/ aerobic capacity, and the need for footballers to recover.

tldr I'm able to enjoy the spectacle of Pro Cycling and Pro Sport in general, and seperate it from what is real. 90's cycling was, and still is, great entertainment.