[Closed] Le Tour doping/speculation/rumour/conjecture thread

Kcr.

Good post.

Of course, there's a documented advantage to using inhalers if not asthmatic which is where my points about the TUE system being abused come in.

The Asthma card gets brought up a lot, and I understand both the medical application for suffers to be able to [i]maintain unhindered performance[/i] (other half is on two differnet inhalers daily), and also the benefits it can give to non-suffers to [i]improve normal performance[/i], and the questions that brings up about TUE abuse, so I have a question, as I'm not sure where to get the answers.

- Do we have stats for number of Asthmatics using inhalers (type?) in the tour?
- Is that number appreciably different by % to the % of Asthma suffers in general population?

> if it is NO higher then I think we have to put that one to bed not an issue, especially considering a TUE requires review and agrement, I have to believe that if the number of suffers in the tour is in line with normal population, ADN the TUE requests are reviewed then they must be genuine.

> if it IS higher then we have an interesting question to answer...

is there some reason that more Asthmatics gravitate towards the top of end of a sport? why? what mechanism is in play here? on the face of it it would seem an odd thing, if there was a higher than average % of people with respiratory problems ending up in pro sport, and then ending up right at the top of the field in that sport, <yoda>very odd it would be, explanations we must find...</yoda>

OR

is the TUE system being abused? in which case is the review board being duped, or is the review board in on it? how do you combat that?

And if the TUE system is being abused for Asthma then that throws into question the TUE review process in general, for all meds and casts doubt on anyone involved in the review and the medical advice.

so, are we making a fuss over nothing with Asthma or is it actually an indicator or something awry in the process/system?

Well you need to bear in mind that "asthma" covers more than one thing

EIA is likely to be higher in incidence in active people than couch potatos

Lots of information about asthma in elite athletes
https://www.google.co.uk/#safe=on&q=incidence%20of%20asthma%20in%20elite%20athletes

thanks for the link Nemesis, anyone know where we could get info on who in the tour has a TUE for medication?

Not sure - I always figured that while the athletes obviously need to share that with the governing body, it'd otherwise be covered by doctor confidentiality type thing - a rider isn't going to want the world to know what he's on X for a dodgy rash 😆

I read an interesting article recently about the asthma TUE issue. The bottom line was the suggestion some sports doctors were taking a fuzzy approach to defining the condition and prescribing treatment for people who would not normally be defined as asthmatic, but whose lungs perhaps simply didn't work quite as well when they were competing. So they were potentially medicalising someone who simply had a less effective physiology.

Amedias.

I think its a flawed approach to try to draw a conclusion on incidence rates in the peleton, comparing word class pro cycles to the general population.

Just by shear nature of the sport, you need to be special, to begin with.

For TUE this page is interesting: http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exemptions/

There were 24 TUE's given out by the UCI in total in 2014 compared to 239 in 2009. Almost like in 2009 (and before) they were used to cover up positives or something

I don't disagree Solo, and I'm not drawing conclusions, I'm asking questions, the answers to which may lead me to formulate a hypothesis, but I'm certainly not yet drawing conclusions, which is why I specified that if it is higher incidence in the pro peleton, I'd be curious as to why.

You would naturally assume that anyone suffering form a respiratory condition like Asthma might find it harder to rise to that level in the sport due to the impact it has, I know it can be controlled and treated to a degree, remember I live with a sufferer, I see the impact it has on her and the steps she has to take to manage it during normal life and exercise.

There would have to be some mechanism at play to explain it, and what isn't obvious (to me at least) is why a respiratory condition would be so prevalent in athletes competing at that level, unless as suggested it's actually an increase in EIA as a [i]result[/i] of being at that level in the sport, rather than sufferers who have risen to that level [i]despite [/i]it.

Either way, I'm curious (as always!)

I live with a sufferer, I see the impact it has on her and the steps she has to take to manage it during normal life and exercise.

Not all asthma is the same. EIA is very different to the type of asthma it sounds like you're seeing.

EIA if managed (via TUE...) shouldn't (usually) restrict an athlete.

Amedias.

Ok, apologies if I've missed anything.
🙂

cheers Atlaz

for ref:

Year - TUEs approved
2009 - 239
2010 - 97
2011 - 56
2012 - 47
2013 - 30
2014 - 24

Definitely interesting...and quite a sharp contrast, maybe TUE abuse isn't as rife as some people indicate.

Was something requiring a TUE in 2009 allowed without a TUE from 2010 onwards?

Definitely interesting...and quite a sharp contrast, maybe TUE abuse isn't as rife as some people indicate.

There were 24 TUE's given out by the UCI in total in 2014 compared to 239 in 2009. Almost like in 2009 (and before) they were used to cover up positives or something

This implies that
1. TUEs are harder to get due to new rules/change in regime
2. TUEs are no longer necessary - some new drug/doping method has taken over
3. The peloton have miraculously recovered from all of their ailments
4. Cycling is cleaner, so the no-one needs the advantage from the TUEs anymore
5. Some drugs have been legalised to save on paperwork etc

Personally I'd suspect mainly 1. and a little bit of 2, possibly 5 though I haven't seen any evidence for it. 3 is highly unlikely, and clean or not, people will always cheat to get ahead, so I don't think 4 would apply.

are you suggesting that people are flinging round random stuff with no evidence?

I don't have enough evidence to suggest that 😉

I was more thinking along the lines of joeydeacon list above, there will be reasons, I don't yet know what they are.

I read on road.cc that G climbed Plateau de Beille quicker than Armstrong, stage winner, in 2002 and 04. I checked his times and apparently Armstrong climbed it in 45 minutes plus some seconds. A rewind of my recorded coverage shows G (and the group he's with) climbing it in, yes, 45 minutes, plus some seconds. Depends on where you measure start of the climb, of course.

Views and comments?

Tried an Asthma puffer on some alpine climbs recently, it was like having 10% more lung capacity for 10/15 minutes after each intake.

Evidence? Placebo? 😉

Views and comments?

Better training and equipment, of course.

Was Lance flat out when he set his time?

Were conditions the same?

Was it measured at the same point?

But logically that's hard to believe and that's the problem. On a human level I struggle to see Sky as cheats but there are many practical difficulties with that position.

Were conditions the same?

Lance would have claimed it - tail wind (there's a joke there somewhere for those in the know...)

Personal insight, take it or leave it.
is t there also less need now to take Lance type substances when the same is now achieved by weight managment, training at altitude and oxygen tents?

Because those are all new things which nobody had thought of 15 years ago?

Tried an Asthma puffer on some alpine climbs recently, it was like having 10% more lung capacity for 10/15 minutes after each intake.

In which case you probably have Asthma ! As I understand it, the inhalers don't benefit those who don't suffer. Also EIA is common among endurance ahletes because endurance training strains the lungs.

Have you ever done a peak-flow test? I was recently told I had EIA and so did some comparison with my friends. Unmedicated I score 450, with an inhaler I can get up to 550. Amongst my cycling buddies, the shortarses were at 650 and 700, whilst the guy who is a just slightly shorter and older than me was at 800.

Note the inhaler doesn't increase your lung capacity, but the flow of air into your lungs. Asthma makes it harder (and more exhausting) to take a deep breath.

Interesting. I used to do annual peak flow tests because I occasionally did soldering in work. Was never that awful, but not that great either and sometimes took several attempts to "pass". Fairly sure I don't have asthma in a normal sense, but have had breathing difficulties when exercising occasionally. How would I go about getting diagnosed with EIA if I do indeed have that?

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/56/9/675.full

This, and other studies, suggest there is no significant performance enhancing effect to inhaled bronchiodilators, but go on to say there was a perceptible lessening of breathlessness at the beginning of exercise, which would tally with what wilburt experienced. I'm not sure how that marries with the overall conclusion, in this era of marginal gains.

My PF is currently about 525, and was down to 350-400 a month or so ago. It's been a crap year! 800 PF - that's just unfair.

You don't even need a TUE for the most common inhalers. This is from the UCI website:

Beta-2 agonists for asthma (Salmeterol /Salbutamol/Formoterol)
You do not need to submit any TUE if you take inhaled Salmeterol, Salbutamol (up to a daily dose of 1600 ?g) and/or Formoterol (up to a daily dose of 54 ?g).

Terbutaline or other beta-2 agonist
If you take Terbutaline or any other beta-2 agonist for the treatment of asthma, you must submit a TUE for asthma and a full medical file to confirm the diagnosis of asthma and/or its clinical variants. The medical file should include:

A detailed medical history and clinical review;
Lung function test with spirometry;
Bronchodilator response;
Bronchial provocation tests.
To assist your doctor in completing the correct tests, and providing the correct medical information, we suggest that he or she consults the WADA Guidelines on Asthma click here.

If the TUE for Asthma is completed correctly with valid test results, the UCI TUE Committee may grant an approval for up to 4 years.

[img] [/img]

I am not a clinician, but are you saying that someone with a chronic diagnosis of asthma doesn't need to submit a TUE?

Love the tour! , Just ask the likes of Nibali, Contador etc , "have you turned up in the best shape you could for this years tour? think they would all say no , so any superhuman efforts by Froome are not as amazing as they may be!!
As a pretty average 47 year old rider who does the same 50 mile route most Wednesdays , there is weeks when 18 mph is fine and weeks when 15 mph is torture!!
Give them a chance ,as a good judge of character I`d say team Brailsford is what he preaches!!!

hmmmm - I'm sure Salbutamol was previously banned. I wonder if that was the 2009/2010 difference.

I'm never entirely sure why beating the times of known dopers from the past is seen as so unlikely, even if you disregard entirely the race context within which the times were set. (As the twitterati are prone to do)

Every aspect of the sport has improved massively, ("ha ha ha inc drugs lolz" - saved you the effort.) kit, training, tactics etc, riders are visibly skinnier and more fragile. Just because he was dominant at the time doesn't mean a doped Armstrong will forever remain the pinnicle of cycling performance.

How would I go about getting diagnosed with EIA if I do indeed have that?

Go and see your GP and ask for a spirometry test - or tell them your sysmptoms. In my case I was first told I had it 15 years ago - my problem was a persistant cough after running, particularly in cold air - but hardly ever used my inhaler as I pretty much gave up running instead ! Over the years I've learnt that I'm a diesel engine - great for long journeys, but rubbish if an intense effect is required - and have tailored my activities accordingly. I also assumed I simply had rubbish lungs - frequently get altitude sickness on skiing holidays.

The trigger this year was a 50 mile road taking in some of the steepest hills in the NYM (Glaisdale, Rosedale, Blakey, Street) on a cold day in Feb. Stubbornly refusing to stop on the hills, it was then weeks before I could take a deep breath without coughing.

Obviously this has nothing to do with doping in le tour, but hopefully useful info....

Ivan - some good points but I'm not sure that they're all right.

I agree that Lance et al probably shouldn't remain the gold standard forever but we've seen in other sports which are maybe more consistent and measurable (eg athletics) that implementation of stricter controls has lead to changes in the results being recorded on a par with the theoretical benefits of doping - 10% give or take IIRC. 10% can be gained back but it's a significant amount at that level and I wonder if we've grown accustomed to significant year on year improvement as a result of doping rather than through natural means - ie underestimating the time it takes to make those improvements naturally.

Every aspect of the sport has improved massively? I'm not sure I agree with that. Bikes remain the same weight and while bearings have got better (ceramics, etc) and bikes more aero I don't buy the hype from the manufacturers that they've improved massively.

Similarly, I disagree that (top GC) riders are visibly skinnier and more fragile - that was very much the case by the early 2000s

Training? Yeah, I'll agree on that one, particularly the likes of Sky but as I said above, it's hard to know how much that's gaining? Or for example maybe it doesn't actually gain that much but it does improve consistency.

Tactics? well, not really beyond the above - Tactics we see today aren't really all that different to what we saw in the USPS days (and I'm not talking doping, just the tactic of setting a high pace so that the more explosive climbers can't gap the more steady pace of the more rounded riders).

[quote=IvanDobski ]Every aspect of the sport has improved massively, ("ha ha ha inc drugs lolz" - saved you the effort.) kit, training, tactics etc, riders are visibly skinnier and more fragile.

That's a kind of Armstrongesque statement I'm afraid. Nothing has actually improved massively in the last 10 years.

riders are visibly skinnier and more fragile

[img] [/img]

When did power meters get introduced? Was that pre or post Lance era?

I'd have thought that would have made a substantial difference not just to training but also the ability for a rider to most effectively pace themselves up a hill.

According to Wikipedia (usual caveats apply) power meters were introduced around the time Greg Lemond was racing in the mid to late 1990s. They have been commercially available since 1989.

my problem was a persistant cough after running, particularly in cold air

Boardman was certainly using an SRM powermeter back in the mid 90s.

#torsoinlake, who is the rider in the pic? Looks like Rasmussen?

Michael 'Chicken' Rasmussen.

Michael Rasmussen was known for his care for detail when considering weight. With a low weight (60 kg) he was usually one of the lightest riders in his class. He was known for peeling off unnecessary stickers from his bike, not wearing the Livestrong wristband which was common among many Tour de France riders, due to the additional grams. He used to count each grain of rice before eating and had water with his breakfast cereal, instead of milk. He only carried one water bottle holder and his Colnago Extreme-C bike weighed 6.81 kg, only 10 g more than the minimum limit.

Contador will be struggling now he has to ride the tour against all his rivals and without his special steaks and chef to make them for him. IMHO he shouldnt be allowed to race, he still gets the benefits of his cheating so why should he be allowed to race?

An interesting and balanced article I thought:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/07/news/road/commentary-on-froome-and-not-knowing_378393

(Ironically found on the clinic Froome doping thread.... 😀 )

That's a kind of Armstrongesque statement I'm afraid. Nothing has actually improved massively in the last 10 years.

True, apart from the attitude towards doping among the peloton (hopefully).

I heard Richie Porte moaning about armchair experts not knowing how to interpret riders' data even if they had access to all of it - and let's be honest he's right isn't he?

Personally as a layman I don't find it suspicious that Froome can go as quick as Armstrong up one climb. Maybe if he managed it up all of them, every day though.

But Lance wasn't even really a climber to begin with was he?

It wasn't that armstrong was a great climber it was that he arrived at the end a mountain stage looking like he was out on a lazy sunday afternoon ride while everyone else was in the gurning world championship.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

My goodness - that top pic is Froome? He has genuinely lost a lot of weight!

metalheart good Velonews link.

Personally as a layman I don't find it suspicious that Froome can go as quick as Armstrong up one climb. Maybe if he managed it up all of them, every day though

The point wasn't that Froome went up quicker than Armstrong, the point was that domestique (super-d!) Geraint Thomas did it quicker.

Make of that whatever you want.

On the ITV coverage earlier they did a piece on the questions being asked, not unreasonably had a pop at Jalabert, not unreasonably made a plea for informed journalism rather than wild accusations. Then ****ed the whole thing up by handing back to Ligget for the commentary.

The point wasn't that Froome went up quicker than Armstrong, the point was that domestique (super-d!) Geraint Thomas did it quicker.

Make of that whatever you want.

Yes it was, you're right.

I'd take the same view though TBH. It's only suspicious if Gee's doing it every day on every climb.

But it sounds to me like he's had to back off a bit over the last couple of stages.

You're right, chakaping, and I'm pleased about that

above 7w/kg

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-repeats-call-for-implementation-of-power-data-passport/

Personally I think Froome is clean but I can see why some are suspicious (and if Froome was a Kazakh rider for Astana I'd be suspicious to). I have a hard time believing Sky (with all their links to BC) would risk doping within the team and I don't think Froome could get away with it without the team knowing.

As for his performances, the problem with him in the TdF so far is he hasn't had a bad day yet and he's always finished looking the strongest of the GC contenders - that is certainly unusual (for a clean rider).

His Dauphine performance was understandably more credible IMO, the days when he attacked hard he suffered the next day, I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen the same so far in the TdF - although the 4 Alps stages might be when it happens. Unless the 4 other main GC contenders really are sick or strangely out of form it's hard to understand how he can be so dominant day after day.

I hope he wins and I hope he's clean - British cycling would take years to recover credibility if he wasn't

above 7w/kg

But he's guessing the weight. I am concerned about the performances but a lot of this theorising with numbers with only part of the formulas is just BS and sensationalist - I'll bet that if the figures had come out less exciting they wouldn't have been mentioned.

I'm not sure he is so utterly dominant as some think - bertie is struggling after the giro and Nibali isn't going as well this year, didn't look so great at the dauphine so not surprising he's off the pace still (he should ride in the autobus for a few days and target a stage win that isn't AdH because that will be carnage).

It's between froome and Quintana an they are fairly evenly matched - and if you compare the finish at Mende to some of the dopefuelled duels of yesteryear (rasmussen vs contador in 2007) then you can see that todays riders don't go into the red repeatedly like others did - froome claws his way back

Berie and Nibbles are struggling because they fear the random night-time tests and are riding clean.

The fact that Froome grew up at an altitude of 5,500 feet explains why he climbs by spinning in an easy gear and transferring the load to his very efficient cardio-vascular system. His nearest rival as a climber seems to be Quintana, who would also have grown up and trained at altitude.

As he had done during an appearance on France Télévisions earlier in the week, Brailsford said that he would like the UCI to analyse the power data of all riders along with their blood profiles, a concept that was previously proposed by BMC doctor [b]Max Testa [/b]in an interview with Cyclingnews in 2011.

from the linked article ^

Was anyone else tickled by the name of the Dr in context of the disucssion? 🙂

This little bit from the ITV4 coverage yesterday was pretty good...

About 4m25s in for the Jalabert bit.

Quintana, who would also have grown up and trained at altitude.

He still lives there. Gets some stick from some of the specialist press for not racing loads and for living in Colombia but he says it gives him balance in his life and that he finds it odd that some riders expect him to go to a hotel away from his wife and kids to train when he can be with them AND train at altitude. TBH although he and Froome are hardly fascinating characters to listen to, I quite admire their preference to let their riding do the talking.

As an aside, has anyone else read the TdF Rouleur? I think the whole magazine has gone a bit special. Over successive issues they've had a two part Lance love-fest followed by a Contador "He's been found guilty but he probably was innocent" style piece.

Contador will be struggling now he has to ride the tour against all his rivals and without his special steaks and chef to make them for him.

My cycling mag with a review of the TdF last month came with a flyer from a butchers. I really don't know if that was deliberate windup or someone in the marketing department didn't really put two and two together!

one of the lads on a club run had two bottles of yellow liquid aboard yesterday--it was christened Froome Juice...

personally , i would be shocked and horrified if the sky boys were up to naughtiness--i cant see how it would be possible and why would they want to? -seem to be doing a fine job as it is! hey have targetted this one race unlike some of the others who seem to have other targets--

Apologies if this is not the right place but I have a road racing question so thought I'd ask it here.

I get that riding at speed behind your team mates gives you less drag so you save energy. But I see that the leaders will still sit in the shadows of their team mates when going up long steep climbs. Is there still an aero advantage at the slower speeds or another reason they stick behind their mates?

IIRC that was covered earlier but

- At the speed pros ride, there is an aero advantage
- it gives you something to focus on
- your team mates will ride at the pace you want rather than that dictated by your competition (in theory at least)

i would be shocked and horrified if the sky boys were up to naughtiness--i cant see how it would be possible and why would they want to? -seem to be doing a fine job as it is!

Er... Isn't that rather circular reasoning?

Team Sky do seem to be campaigning an awful lot for UCI collaborative action to demonstrate / prove their position.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/20/dave-brailsford-team-sky-uci-tour-de-france-chris-froome

Would love to hear other teams' opinions on this one, Astana anyone....??

IIRC that was covered earlier but

- At the speed pros ride, there is an aero advantage

1/ Drafting gives a 30-35% benefit over being the man in front
2/ Wind resistance (for the same frontal area, and assuming no head or tailwind) is proportional to V^3

So if speed uphill is halved compared to on the flat, (v/2)^3 gives 1/8 of the benefit of drafting on the flat = 4-5% benefit vs riding into the wind on the flat. So, much smaller benefit in actual terms than riding into the wind at full lick, but still easier, and when you're on the rivet, I guess every little helps in getting you as far up the hill as possible before you have to do it all yourself.

Berie and Nibbles are struggling because they fear the random night-time tests and are riding clean.

While we're (kind of) talking about, when teams have a train on the front, why do they keep a rider there until he's burned out, why don't they TTT it?

Would love to hear other teams' opinions on this one,

Say the right things in public but fight it in private or when it affects them - see MPCC rules and Astana for a good example.

Team Sky are saying the right things and that's really positive. Froome is also quite candid, probably beyond what the Sky PR team are comfortable with some of the time. I hope it's not just PR though.

pondo - TTT you need 5 riders to finish. Teams will burn out up to 4 riders (of their 9) in the TTT as that's the fastest way. Mountain top, only the team leader needs to set a good time so everyone else can be burned out.

So do I Nemesis, but I don't recall hearing other teams pushing as hard for that kind of transparency, albeit controlled to the "industry experts" as opposed to open media.
We will see obviously, it's just such a shame that the sport is still being dragged into the gutter.

Kin itv4!

pondo - Member

I'd thought that, and was immediately saddened that my automatic assumption is that they (Berie and Nibbles) were dopers.

let's be honest, neither of them have a totally clean slate on this matter.

Nibbles by association, Bertie on account of him being a cheating ****.

pondo - TTT you need 5 riders to finish. Teams will burn out up to 4 riders (of their 9) in the TTT as that's the fastest way. Mountain top, only the team leader needs to set a good time so everyone else can be burned out.

All of this is a question of faith.

One man's "he lives with his family at altitude" is another man's "he lives in a region so remote the testers can't reach him". Horner in remote Colorado anyone?

We may never know a lot of the stories. It wouldn't surprise me at all if dear old Jens or Cancellara or any other of the supposed clean heros did the odd naughty stuff, if only early on in their careers... doesn't detract from the enjoyment of watching the racing though

While I desperately want Jens to be clean, East Germany and then some of his team choices combine to give me doubts. Frankly, I doubt anyone of his era was entirely clean throughout their entire career.

Exactly CFH

+1 on Jens for sure! Still a top bloke.

Cancellara... Dunno. Aside from mechanical doping obviously 😉