Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

1bryan

terrydel wrote: »

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.

I think this one highlights how everything is about image. Diving is a scourge in soccer. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth when it happens and it reflects poorly on the image of the sport as a whole. For this reason they're tacking it.

It says something about their motivations that they'd expend effort on something
like this, rather than something that is firmly under the carpet.

DanDublin1982

terrydel wrote: »

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.

Fair points. Apart from diving being less prevalent. I certainly disagree with that and the level of punishment so far has been basically non existent.

I'm not trying to change your mind or anything here, I just don't think other sports should get a free pass for essentially ignoring the issue.

Hoboo

1bryan wrote: »

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.

2015/2016 the FA tested 3,250 professional footballers. 61% of players were tested at least once. 2 positive results, 2 under investigation. Football has the highest number of professionals in any sport in England. FA aim to test 5000 players this year. Id say that's a will to weed out cheats.

walshb

If the levels are twice the allowed and somehow he explains this or defends it and is successful I think it's time to just scrap that particular medicine/drug from the list....

Red herrings exist, but if they are being given value and credence then that is where the issue is.

As for the asthma he ingested. It is not a PED. It enables performance but hardly enhances it.

1bryan

Hoboo wrote: »

2015/2016 the FA tested 3,250 professional footballers. 61% of players were tested at least once. 2 positive results, 2 under investigation. Football has the highest number of professionals in any sport in England. FA aim to test 5000 players this year. Id say that's a will to weed out cheats.

do you think that's a fair reflection of drug use in soccer?

DanDublin1982

Hoboo wrote: »

2015/2016 the FA tested 3,250 professional footballers. 61% of players were tested at least once. 2 positive results, 2 under investigation. Football has the highest number of professionals in any sport in England. FA aim to test 5000 players this year. Id say that's a will to weed out cheats.

Just wondering where your figures are coming from. The FA website says they collected 2442 samples in 15/16. Is there a better breakdown somewhere?

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/anti-doping/testing

theoneeyedman

One of the big issues with froome/sky etc al, is that they sold the line than they were whiter than white, that everyone else is a cheat, but us Brits are going to play fair and still succeed through 'marginal gains' etc etc.

This is clearly BS, as anyone with a critical mind can see by now. The myth is becoming more frayed around the edges as time goes on.

How long before the British Olympic cycling team gets a proper investigation, a lot of these characters have graduated from there to Sky, and I suspect brought a lot of their methods with them? There is no appetite I'd guess in the UK to do it, given the popularity and the political capital gained over the years in the glow of all those glorious gold medals, but still, it would be interesting.

mcgratheoin

Keeks wrote: »

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......

Just to clarify a bit, the limit as far as I understand it is there primarily to prevent oral use of salbutamol which can act as a PED rather than the therapeutic use for asthmatics.

terrydel

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

Fair points. Apart from diving being less prevalent. I certainly disagree with that and the level of punishment so far has been basically non existent.

I'm not trying to change your mind or anything here, I just don't think other sports should get a free pass for essentially ignoring the issue.

I totally agree with you, no sport should get a free pass and I'd never suggest soccer deserves one. If it came across that way I apologise. I am merely saying that the evidence is there with regard cycling, it isnt yet for soccer, rightly or wrongly, a large part due to soccer's own failure to look, but I cant have the same view of one sport until the evidence matches that of the other. When that happens I'd have no issue holding my hands up.

Macy0161

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

Just wondering where your figures are coming from. The FA website says they collected 2442 samples in 15/16. Is there a better breakdown somewhere?

Also depends on the type of test, is profiling used, out of competition/ in competition etc.

Premier League Squad size, including U21's, probably 65, so 1300 players just in the EPL. Even 3250 doesn't look that great, if they're claiming everyone tested once, and I assume the 3250 isn't just EPL?

Hoboo

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

Just wondering where your figures are coming from. The FA website says they collected 2442 samples in 15/16. Is there a better breakdown somewhere?

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/anti-doping/testing

No thats correct, I was referring to number of tests not number of samples taken. Good breakdown here of all sports in the UK, done on a quarter basis, quoting samples taken.

https://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/quarterly-reports-on-testing-programme

DanDublin1982

terrydel wrote: »

I totally agree with you, no sport should get a free pass and I'd never suggest soccer deserves one. If it came across that way I apologise. I am merely saying that the evidence is there with regard cycling, it isnt yet for soccer, rightly or wrongly, a large part due to soccer's own failure to look, but I cant have the same view of one sport until the evidence matches that of the other. When that happens I'd have no issue holding my hands up.

Nah fair dos i see what you're saying. I'm attaching my own bias to proceedings here so apologies on my behalf if I came across a bit preachy. I'm probably a bit more defensive of Cycling because as my interest in football decreased (I'm an Arsenal fan ) so my interest in cycling increased and I guess beginning to follow a sport in around 30 years old and knowing all the problems it has I perhaps give it a bit more leeway than I did as an outsider.

terrydel

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

Nah fair dos i see what you're saying. I'm attaching my own bias to proceedings here so apologies on my behalf if I came across a bit preachy. I'm probably a bit more defensive of Cycling because as my interest in football decreased (I'm an Arsenal fan ) so my interest in cycling increased and I guess beginning to follow a sport in around 30 years old and knowing all the problems it has I perhaps give it a bit more leeway than I did as an outsider.

Not at all, its a good debate and one I've had with mates lots of times over the years.
I'm an everton fan so Im not even sure if that makes me a soccer fan anymore since big Sam took over :P
I absolutely love cycling myself, taking it up 5 years ago was the best thing I've ever done. But I hate that I cant believe in anything I see on the tv, therefore I just ignore it. Like lots of us, I've struggled up some of those iconic climbs and know how hard they are, I want to believe that the supposedly impressive displays from the pros are exactly that, amazing and at a level I can only dream of. I want to say 'I know how hard that is and the way you do it is amazing' but I cant because I pretty much know most of them arent doing it within the rules.
I suspect that with soccer, but Im a lot further from 'knowing' it. Thats the best way I can explain it.
And whatever comes out with Froome or whoever else, it wont change how I feel about going out on my bike. They cant take that.

fishfoodie

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'm definately coming around to this point of view.

Not least because I think if riders had to fight off infections & avoid minor maladies, without running to the nearest chemist, it would reduce the number of human skeletons in the peloton !

Lets face it, a lot of these guys look fundamentally unhealthy, because they've dropped so much weight in search for improved Power/Kg.

The UCI needs to reduce whats available under TUE, to the bare minimum, & make stop, or dramatically reduce the legal doping.

walshb

terrydel wrote: »

I've struggled up some of those iconic climbs and know how hard they are, I want to believe that the supposedly impressive displays from the pros are exactly that, amazing and at a level I can only dream of. I want to say 'I know how hard that is and the way you do it is amazing' but I cant because I pretty much know most of them arent doing it within the rules.

Would the riders falling over from effort and exhaustion convince you they were not using PEDs?

terrydel

walshb wrote: »

Would the riders falling over from effort and exhaustion convince you they were not using PEDs?

No. should it?
Maybe have the odd winner of a grand tour who hasnt either been caught bang to rights or have serious doubt hanging over them, once every few years.
Too much to ask? Apparently it is with pro cycling.

Chips Lovell

You don't need a TUE to take Salbutamol.

walshb

terrydel wrote: »

No. should it?
Maybe have the odd winner of a grand tour who hasnt either been caught bang to rights or have serious doubt hanging over them, once every few years.
Too much to ask? Apparently it is with pro cycling.

How many grand tour winners have been caught cheating via PEDs? Very few compared to those not caught.

Don't want to hear the "not caught" doesn't mean clean.....I am strictly speaking about those caught vs. not caught....

odyssey06

Hoboo wrote: »

2015/2016 the FA tested 3,250 professional footballers. 61% of players were tested at least once. 2 positive results, 2 under investigation. Football has the highest number of professionals in any sport in England. FA aim to test 5000 players this year. Id say that's a will to weed out cheats.

I think you are right ... about England.
Im not sure if it is true globally.

el tel

walshb wrote: »

terrydel wrote: »

No. should it?
Maybe have the odd winner of a grand tour who hasnt either been caught bang to rights or have serious doubt hanging over them, once every few years.
Too much to ask? Apparently it is with pro cycling.

How many grand tour winners have been caught cheating via PEDs? Very few compared to those not caught.

Don't want to hear the "not caught" doesn't mean clean.....I am strictly speaking about those caught vs. not caught....

I must be tired today but I find that rather confusing. To classify someone as "not caught" needs knowledge of them having done something that was not allowed.  So are you talking about people who have admitted cheating, but weren't caught per se?

Yours,
Perplexed

irishrover99

walshb wrote: »

How many grand tour winners have been caught cheating via PEDs? Very few compared to those not caught.

Don't want to hear the "not caught" doesn't mean clean.....I am strictly speaking about those caught vs. not caught....

I'd say you are wrong. Since doping has become more advanced lots of GT winners have been caught doping or at least the one's who won many of the GT's.
Amstrong 7
Pantani 2 or 3
Contador 7
Rassmusen 1
Landis 1
Basso 2
Cobo 1
Ulrich 1
Rominger 1
Jalabert 1

And now possibly Froome who has four so that makes up a good portion of GT's from the past decade or more.

And i'm sure i have missed many more

terrydel

walshb wrote: »

How many grand tour winners have been caught cheating via PEDs? Very few compared to those not caught.

Don't want to hear the "not caught" doesn't mean clean.....I am strictly speaking about those caught vs. not caught....

You dont want to hear it because it weakens your argument, if you even have one.
Since Lemond last won it, only Evans & Sastre havent either been confirmed or seriously suspected .
There's Armstrong's 7 victories, Contador, Pantani, Ulrich, Riis all caught.
Seriosu doubts hang over the rest. Wiggins is a lot more than doubt.
If you think that doesnt make a farce of a sport than good luck to you.
I could go, but only a piss taker would use the recent history of GC's as some sort of defence of pro cycling.

irishrover99

terrydel wrote: »

You dont want to hear it because it weakens your argument, if you even have one.
Since Lemond last won it, only Evans & Sastre havent either been confirmed or seriously suspected .
There's Armstrong's 7 victories, Contador, Pantani, Ulrich, Riis all caught.
Seriosu doubts hang over the rest. Wiggins is a lot more than doubt.
If you think that doesnt make a farce of a sport than good luck to you.
I could go, but only a piss taker would use the recent history of GC's as some sort of defence of pro cycling.

Were you reading my mind

terrydel

irishrover99 wrote: »

Were you reading my mind

Whatever side of this argument you are on, the last 2 decades of GC's are truly damning to pro cycling. Anyone who argues otherwise has team sky levels of credibility.

irishrover99

terrydel wrote: »

Whatever side of this argument you are on, the last 2 decades of GC's are truly damning to pro cycling. Anyone who argues otherwise has team sky levels of credibility.

Agree but yet i still watch 90% of the televised races

Macy0161

irishrover99 wrote: »

Agree but yet i still watch 90% of the televised races

The full on EPO years had some brilliant racing! But much more to pro road racing than the Grand Tours.

Lumen

Despite the fact that Sky's extreme unethical rule bending isn't the same as Lance's blatant lining up of the blood bags, it seems fairly clear that is has given their riders an unnatural consistency of performance that has changed results and therefore deprived other riders of victories.

terrydel

irishrover99 wrote: »

Agree but yet i still watch 90% of the televised races

Aside from the drugs, Sky have turned GC's into exercises in analytics, mapped out in excel before the race even starts.
That for me is another factor in why I've no interest in watching them anymore.

Lumen

terrydel wrote: »

Aside from the drugs, Sky have turned GC's into exercises in analytics, mapped out in excel before the race even starts.

I think that factor is overrated.

What I see most often is a squad of very well prepared, very expensive riders under strict instructions to ride conservatively.

In the last couple of years Froome has ridden with something like panache, albeit an extremely ugly variant, but he can't help looking like some sort of insect on a bike.

terrydel

Lumen wrote: »

I think that factor is overrated.

What I see most often is a squad of very well prepared, very expensive riders under strict instructions to ride conservatively.

In the last couple of years Froome has ridden with something like panache, albeit an extremely ugly variant, but he can't help looking like some sort of insect on a bike.

Fair points , he was done some exciting stuff in recent years but the fact hes generally so boring probably over-amps those moments. Its not so much panache or style on the bike as the ridiculously over-analytical, data driven approach sky take. There is nothing spontaeneous or off the cuff, or it is vanishingly rare when it does appear. We live in a world obsessed with that stuff now, it is depressing but entirely predictable when it seeps into the world of pro sports.