Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

DanDublin1982

Wanderer78 wrote: »

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

I do agree but as I've gotten more into cycling as a pro sport over the last few years I've always found it a bit odd that the sport that does the most to actively catch the cheats (as far as I can tell anyway) is the one with the worst image. Other sports seem quite willing to ignore it and the media too. The fancy bears hack around the world cup 2010 for example was in the news for a day or two and then nothing since. A lot of people seem to only care about this issue when it's cycling in the spotlight.

Macy0161

Macy0161 wrote: »

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


...

Yes, their body says NO.

plodder

Personally, I think there's a difference between this and more serious doping like EPO, because as posters already said exercise induced asthma is a real thing. But if he's done the crime, he has to do the time. If he was double the limit, there's no excuse.

Otoh, I think comparisons with other sports are a waste of time. The public perception is that sports like athletics and cycling are more damaged by illegal PEDs, than soccer, rugby etc. Whether that's fair or not is another question. I've seen people complain about Lionel Messi, and the growth hormone treatments he got as a teen, that weren't entirely above board. Do, soccer fans think that tainted the sport of football? I doubt it. Athletics and cycling need to deal with the issue irrespective of how other sports act. If anything, the fact that testing is throwing up cases like this, of legal drugs at the wrong dosage, means the system is working to some extent, to contain the really bad stuff. Not sure how true that really is though, as I don't know enough about the science of it.

Wanderer78

DanDublin1982 wrote:

I do agree but as I've gotten more into cycling as a pro sport over the last few years I've always found it a bit odd that the sport that does the most to actively catch the cheats (as far as I can tell anyway) is the one with the worst image. Other sports seem quite willing to ignore it and the media too. The fancy bears hack around the world cup 2010 for example was in the news for a day or two and then nothing since. A lot of people seem to only care about this issue when it's cycling in the spotlight.

It is very strange why there's so much efficiencies on the drug problems in cycling, and not other sports, I'd imagine there's many drug cheats in other sports to, very odd

terrydel

Macy0161 wrote: »

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.

Well while I dont entirely disagree with you i think we have different ways of looking at it. For me, the incontrovertible evidence against cycling is there for all to see, there is hardly a grand tour in the last 20 years that isnt massively tainted. Thats shocking, it really is. Only the 100m in athletics has such a statistically damning record against it.
Yes soccer was involved in drug scandals and Puerto, and I actually agree that regardless of skill, a more athletic player with a certain level fo skill is better than a less athletic one with the same skill. I'm not naive, but i take the view that the level of evidence against pro cycling is just overwhelming compared to soccer and almost any other sport. Whether thats because they are working harder to find the cheats is a different debate. I think they are possibly, but not to the point that would explain the sheer level of tainted results we see.
And tho I understand and agree wit the financial incentive argument, its not the be all and end all, sole arbitrar of whether a sport will have cheats in its midst. Humans routinely cheat when nothing is at stake, loads cheat at fecking sportives now!
When the level of proven evidence against soccer gets even into the same ballpark as cycling, and there is no way anybody can argue the case that it has got there yet. then I will treat it with the same cynicism and disregard as pro cycling.
I enjoy watching some pro sport but it doesnt matter all that much to me, and I can easily seperate the cycling I do and love from the pro genre.
interesting debate tho all the same.

DanDublin1982

terrydel wrote: »

When the level of proven evidence against soccer gets even into the same ballpark as cycling, and there is no way anybody can argue the case that it has got there yet. then I will treat it with the same cynicism and disregard as pro cycling.
.

Not something you'll probably ever have to worry about so because it's likely in the last year or so that Chris Froome underwent more doping tests than some entire premier league squads combined.

loyatemu

I guess the limit is there to allow asthmatics an opportunity to compete without giving them an unfair advantage.

If Froome was twice the (apparently already generous) limit, whatever the reason for it, then he had that advantage and should be stripped of the title and take whatever ban is coming to him, same as happened to Contador. I'd imagine Sky know this is coming and all the spinning is to limit the damage to his/their reputation and maybe give them an excuse not to sack him.

El Caballo

plodder wrote: »

Personally, I think there's a difference between this and more serious doping like EPO, because as posters already said exercise induced asthma is a real thing. But if he's done the crime, he has to do the time. If he was double the limit, there's no excuse.

Otoh, I think comparisons with other sports are a waste of time. The public perception is that sports like athletics and cycling are more damaged by illegal PEDs, than soccer, rugby etc. Whether that's fair or not is another question. I've seen people complain about Lionel Messi, and the growth hormone treatments he got as a teen, that weren't entirely above board. Do, soccer fans think that tainted the sport of football? I doubt it. Athletics and cycling need to deal with the issue irrespective of how other sports act. If anything, the fact that testing is throwing up cases like this, of legal drugs at the wrong dosage, means the system is working to some extent, to contain the really bad stuff. Not sure how true that really is though, as I don't know enough about the science of it.

There's absolutely no doubt that cycling has improved from the days of mutants in the 90's and early 00's. All you have to do is look at the power outputs of some top pros on Strava to see that. No freaks pushing out 6.5+w/kg for sustained climbing efforts anymore. 6w/kg which is more humane will put a rider in serious contention to win in the big tours and that's mainly down to the bio passport and the strain it put on EPO which destroyed the sport. No question that drug usage still exists but the benfits aren't what they used to be which means riders don't have as critical of a decision whether to dope or not when entering the sport, that's a big deal and probably the most important part in fighting doping among the peleton.

Still, WADA can't just rest on their laurels here as cheating is still cheating whether it's grey area TUE's or 65 haemocrite readings. Although one might not be percieved to be as effective as the other, the intention is the problem and not the effect.

El Caballo

loyatemu wrote: »

I guess the limit is there to allow asthmatics an opportunity to compete without giving them an unfair advantage.

If Froome was twice the (apparently already generous) limit, whatever the reason for it, then he had that advantage and should be stripped of the title and take whatever ban is coming to him, same as happened to Contador. I'd imagine Sky know this is coming and all the spinning is to limit the damage to his/their reputation and maybe give them an excuse not to sack him.

The limit on inhaled salbutamol is set for health reasons, not performance enhancing reasons. You can only return your lungs to normal function from inhaling, you cannot increase their capacity beyond normal function.

Keeks

loyatemu wrote: »

I guess the limit is there to allow asthmatics an opportunity to compete without giving them an unfair advantage.

I think the limit is there, as it could suggest that it is being used as a masking agent......

I don't think that Salbutamol can be seen as a PED, but more that what it could be hiding......

with this level in his urine, it will leave a very dark cloud over his name for a very long time, irrespective of the outcome

velo.2010

I wonder if anyone was on 'jiffy bag' duty for Froome during the Vuelta?

From all the material I've read this morning, everything points to it being an oral or injectable form of salbutamol, which is banned!

1bryan

terrydel wrote: »

When the level of proven evidence against soccer gets even into the same ballpark as cycling, and there is no way anybody can argue the case that it has got there yet. then I will treat it with the same cynicism and disregard as pro cycling.

a big difference between cycling and soccer is that soccer fans don't care by in large, if there are drugs in their sport or not. A lot of cycling fans started to kick back after Armstrong got busted out of anger at feeling duped by him. Before that there was utter ambivalence towards doping, despite it's obvious presence in the sport (many, mostly newbie cycling fans, are still happily oblivious). Once the will is there to catch cheats, you'll see action. There is no will in soccer, or most other sports for that matter, to catch cheats. Even in cycling it's generally only small-fry that will be picked off. The sport needs it's marquee names. Their being caught does the sport more harm than good. Read into that what you will.

The fight against doping is a battle that will never be won because no one really wants to win it.

flatty

Who'll get the title if Froome is stripped?
Oh dear.

el tel

Personally I think the time has come that TUEs should only apply on out-of-competition, or on non race days.
If you need some medication during competition to help you overcome an illness (inherent or acquired) i.e. as therapy, and thus compete with healthy folk (i.e. improve your performance), that's the cosmos telling you that physically, you are just not cut out for it as well as people without your condition.

Macy0161

1bryan wrote: »

a big difference between cycling and soccer is that soccer fans don't care by in large, if there are drugs in their sport or not.

Don't care/ don't want to know/ can't see what's staring them in the face.

I think a lot of cycling fans are pretty ambivalent too, perhaps more so in the old cycling world? I would suggest I probably am to the degree as I still enjoy, watch and follow pro cycling, and my cycling heroes remain my heroes despite some of them being popped, never mind dot joining and rumours! However, I think the difference is with my eyes wide open.

I do agree that cycling can only address cycling doping, but it's galling to hear from (in particular) field sports fans that cycling has no credibility, given the testing regimes in most of those sports.

ford2600

el tel wrote: »

Personally I think the time has come that TUEs should only apply on out-of-competition, or on non race days.
If you need some medication during competition to help you overcome an illness (inherent or acquired) i.e. as therapy, and thus compete with healthy folk (i.e. improve your performance), that's the cosmos telling you that physically, you are just not cut out for it as well as people without your condition.

I can see that point but am a bit conflicted by it. Very hard to make a hard call on it.

If you apply your thinking lots of amateurs couldn't race or play any competitive sport.

If ysed fairly I don't have an issue, but just like every other walk of like at pro level people will take the p1ss and abuse rules to their limit and beyond.

Winning a GT is about finding the strongest freak of nature in pack, if 3 weeks of brutal racing makes you sick are you really the strongest is the counter argument of course.

If you view pro sport as entertainment it's fine; Disney is the perfect sponsor.

If you want sport as it is understood or should be go local.

If you want heroes, try your local hospice/charity/fire station/carer of the old/disabled etc

Lumen

Look, if we still had gladiators we'd be happy with them using inhalers before cutting each others heads off.

Pro cycling is modern day gladiatorial combat. Deeply unhealthy but entertaining spectacle.

Weepsie

Not to mention, that this only became news because of (a) it far exceeded the limit and (b) it's Froome.

If you took the zero TUE or zero med approach, you'd have few finishers. Balance, fairness and most important transparency are the things. It should be declared before a race start, tested then and then tested again after.

You fail to declare, you're out.

terrydel

1bryan wrote: »

a big difference between cycling and soccer is that soccer fans don't care by in large, if there are drugs in their sport or not. A lot of cycling fans started to kick back after Armstrong got busted out of anger at feeling duped by him. Before that there was utter ambivalence towards doping, despite it's obvious presence in the sport (many, mostly newbie cycling fans, are still happily oblivious). Once the will is there to catch cheats, you'll see action. There is no will in soccer, or most other sports for that matter, to catch cheats. Even in cycling it's generally only small-fry that will be picked off. The sport needs it's marquee names. Their being caught does the sport more harm than good. Read into that what you will.

The fight against doping is a battle that will never be won because no one really wants to win it.

I think thats a very big jump to make the assumption that the majority of fans of the most globally popular sport dont care about this issue.
Rightly or wrongly the fact remains, irrespective of how it was arrived at, that cycling has a drug problem that is practically across the board, totally insidious. Its 3 main events have very few winners in the last 1/4 century that arent either bang to rights or have serious questions having over them, that is incredible and unique in world sport outside of the 100m. And it is simply not solely down to the approach cycling takes in weeding out cheats, which I agree is commendable and probably as good as any sport, certainly far better than what soccer seems to be doing. It is hugely due to the fact that quite simply cyclists cheat en masse. Until someone provides me with evidence that participants in other sports do so to the same degree, and high quality evidence similar to that which exists to expose cycling's problem, my cynicism and dislike of pro cycling will always far outway that of other sports such as soccer.

Macy0161

terrydel wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly the fact remains, irrespective of how it was arrived at, that cycling has a drug problem that is practically across the board, totally insidious.

It's just a circular argument, as I will say if you don't test you don't find, which is why most sports are perceived cleaner. However, again just curious why you're giving athletics except the 100m a relatively clean bill of health? That just seems a bit bizarre, given what we know about athletics post war. Even if we just (wrongly) assume the eastern block.

1bryan

terrydel wrote: »

I think thats a very big jump to make the assumption that the majority of fans of the most globally popular sport dont care about this issue.
Rightly or wrongly the fact remains, irrespective of how it was arrived at, that cycling has a drug problem that is practically across the board, totally insidious. Its 3 main events have very few winners in the last 1/4 century that arent either bang to rights or have serious questions having over them, that is incredible and unique in world sport outside of the 100m. And it is simply not solely down to the approach cycling takes in weeding out cheats, which I agree is commendable and probably as good as any sport, certainly far better than what soccer seems to be doing. It is hugely due to the fact that quite simply cyclists cheat en masse. Until someone provides me with evidence that participants in other sports do so to the same degree, and high quality evidence similar to that which exists to expose cycling's problem, my cynicism and dislike of pro cycling will always far outway that of other sports such as soccer.

this slightly misses the point. The point is that there is unlikely to ever be concrete evidence of widespread doping in soccer because there is no desire to go and find it. There's enough anecdotal (and in the case of Puerto, even stronger) evidence to think that, should someone take the matter further, they'll find lots of skeletons. But no one is willing to do so. Imagine being the person who deprives a team or a nation of their superstar player by outing them as a drugs cheat. Or imagine being the person responsible, as Fuentes suggested during his trial, to have Spain stripped of their world cup win. Who would want that? It's different in a sport dominated by individual who compete on trade teams. Journalists can make a name for themselves by pursuing a big name cyclist. If they did the same in soccer they'd likely end up with death threats.

terrydel

Macy0161 wrote: »

It's just a circular argument, as I will say if you don't test you don't find, which is why most sports are perceived cleaner. However, again just curious why you're giving athletics except the 100m a relatively clean bill of health? That just seems a bit bizarre, given what we know about athletics post war. Even if we just (wrongly) assume the eastern block.

Not giving it a a clean bill of health at all. I merely highlighted the 100m as its the blue ribbon event and compares to cycling's blue ribbon events in the sheer number of medal winners who are confirmed/heavily suspected drug cheats or implicated in some shape or form.
The rest of athletics has a massive problem without a doubt.

DanDublin1982

terrydel wrote: »

I think thats a very big jump to make the assumption that the majority of fans of the most globally popular sport dont care about this issue.

They don't have to care. The authorities of the sport don't really care, they don't conduct effective testing so therefore there's no one caught, there's no discission of the matter...nothing.

Out of interest where do you personally draw a line in terms of what is and isn't acceptable cheating because salbutamol or not Chris Froome climbed those mountains on his bike. Week in week out football players routinely dive, harass refs and make claims for corners, free kicks and anything else that could eek their team out a tiny advantage. I know which one I ultimately have more respect for.

terrydel

1bryan wrote: »

this slightly misses the point. The point is that there is unlikely to ever be concrete evidence of widespread doping in soccer because there is no desire to go and find it. There's enough anecdotal (and in the case of Puerto, even stronger) evidence to think that, should someone take the matter further, they'll find lots of skeletons. But no one is willing to do so. Imagine being the person who deprives a team or a nation of their superstar player by outing them as a drugs cheat. Or imagine being the person responsible, as Fuentes suggested during his trial, to have Spain stripped of their world cup win. Who would want that? It's different in a sport dominated by individual who compete on trade teams. Journalists can make a name for themselves by pursuing a big name cyclist. If they did the same in soccer they'd likely end up with death threats.

But does that approach not basically just say that irrespective of actual evidence, everyone is as bad as the worst offenders? Not even a nod to 'innocent until proven guilty'. Surely thats the worst form of cynicism around.

ThisRegard

Weepsie wrote: »

Not to mention, that this only became news because of (a) it far exceeded the limit and (b) it's Froome.

And the fact that Sky/UCI sat on this before until some journalists found out forcing them to go public.

But regardless of what cyclist is involved, it would have been news, albeit just a brief paragraph had it been a lesser known one.

El Caballo

terrydel wrote: »

I think thats a very big jump to make the assumption that the majority of fans of the most globally popular sport dont care about this issue.
Rightly or wrongly the fact remains, irrespective of how it was arrived at, that cycling has a drug problem that is practically across the board, totally insidious. Its 3 main events have very few winners in the last 1/4 century that arent either bang to rights or have serious questions having over them, that is incredible and unique in world sport outside of the 100m. And it is simply not solely down to the approach cycling takes in weeding out cheats, which I agree is commendable and probably as good as any sport, certainly far better than what soccer seems to be doing. It is hugely due to the fact that quite simply cyclists cheat en masse. Until someone provides me with evidence that participants in other sports do so to the same degree, and high quality evidence similar to that which exists to expose cycling's problem, my cynicism and dislike of pro cycling will always far outway that of other sports such as soccer.

You will never get evidence because FIFA and UEFA don't want evidence. If they don't test, no one gets caught.

A few cases this year. Aepsad (spanish anti-doping) was declared non-compliant with WADA guidelines, the IAAF and UCI stepped in to try bring the program up to scratch earlier this year, FIFA and UEFA were both asked to step in too but flat out declined to be of any assistance to bring the program up to scratch.

The Russian anti-doping lab which was huge news for the last few years and has subsquently ended in a complete ban from competition at every single other sport hasn't even been commented on by FIFA or UEFA. The same lab that handles all the Soccer players testing.

This should tell you just how much FIFA care about clean sport. The reason all the evidence is there in athletics and cycling is because they actually test the athletes unlike FIFA. It's also amazing that these stories like above never get covered in the media as extensively as athletics or cycling or even at all.

Urindanger

pelevin wrote: »

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.

This is a very important point. Sky and the UCI have known about this for a while, both samples have been tested and came back positive and were it not for the leaks we would have never have heard about this probably. Froome is only hiring a lawyer now. Tony Martin's response has been spot on. He should have been suspended the day it was found just like any other doping case. He has been given time to explain it all, and even given a chance of having this never reach the public. It's absolutely rotten. Who knows what else has been swept under the carpet and hasn't made public light during the Cookson period.

joey100

Considering there were less drug tests in The English leagues, Spanish leagues, French leagues, German leagues and Italian leagues in 2015 than the UCI (exclusively road testing) in the same year I think you can say that football isn't really the best at testing. So to say that cycling has a huge drug problem and football doesn't probably says more about the football testing than anything else. While we might give out about drugs in cycling and some of the (short) bans, they are one of the few organisations who seem to be actually doing something about drug use. Football, Rugby and Tennis could learn a lot.

terrydel

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

They don't have to care. The authorities of the sport don't really care, they don't conduct effective testing so therefore there's no one caught, there's no discission of the matter...nothing.

Out of interest where do you personally draw a line in terms of what is and isn't acceptable cheating because salbutamol or not Chris Froome climbed those mountains on his bike. Week in week out football players routinely dive, harass refs and make claims for corners, free kicks and anything else that could eek their team out a tiny advantage. I know which one I ultimately have more respect for.

If theres rules and they are broken then its cheating. If you dont win within the rules then your victory is meaningless imho.
diving is not on in soccer, but it is far less prevalent now than it was in the past and it is now punishable which previously it was not.
Claiming for things may be cynical but its within the rules. Sure you could start on about guys draftin cars, holding onto the car door etc, if you want to start on players claiming for corners etc. I would not put it anywhere near the same category as taking a drug that makes you athletically better.

1bryan

terrydel wrote: »

But does that approach not basically just say that irrespective of actual evidence, everyone is as bad as the worst offenders? Not even a nod to 'innocent until proven guilty'. Surely thats the worst form of cynicism around.

right, but that's where we're at, and it applies equally to footballers as it does to cyclists. Cycling is a 'dirty sport' so we have to be suspicious of even the cleanest of cyclists - even though you and I both know that there is such a thing as a clean cyclist. Football could be a dirty sport or not but we don't know because we can't have faith in the lack of any real will to weed out cheats. The more cynical among us can't but wonder about what's really going on.