I think a good result would be a 12 month ban and the Vuelta title going to a proper racer we can trust, Vincenzo Nibali.
I allowed myself a little s**** at that one. It's pretty good when Nibali, he formerly of Astana and currently of Bahrain-Merida, can allow himself a bit of moral superiority.
[url= http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/46/9/1365 ]here's some interesting stuff[/url] - paper looking at ratios of unchanged drug to conjugate metabolites as a means of distinguishing oral from inhaled dosing. Also states what they think the thresholds for further investigation might be (and state two; one for unchanged drug and one for "all" drug).
I wonder which one the UCI/WADA use (if they don't use both); betting on unchanged drug and that they've doubled the authors' suggestion to avoid doubt. I suppose it's beyond question that they've simply reported the "wrong" one as sky would've shot that down immediately
Caffeine has a limit - about nine espressos. has a heart-rate increasing effect on me that is measurable, but little other effects.
Perhaps this thread is not the place for advice on how to use drugs to help cycling performance, but here goes 🙂 Caffeine doesn't do much until you are really tired, four or five hours into a long ride. Then it really helps. So keep a few caffeinated gels for the end of a long hard effort. If it's a big event you can cut it out for a week or two before the event so you lose some of your tolerance, works even better then!
Do pros take caffeinated gels etc?
I'm finding this quite interesting from a drug performance perspective.
Clenbuterol is definitely a banned drug and has proven performance benefits. Despitee its main function of opening up ypur lungs it has aide effects.. One of which is an anti catabolic effect, it stops muscle wastage when in a calorific defecit (stops your body eating muscle tissue when you don't eat for a prolonged period). That's used by bodybuilders and is widely documented.
Amabuterol is also a bronchial dilater of a similar nature isn't it? That's a genuine question I don't know? If so could this be useful to maintain muscle mass and power through a tour when you've been burning 10,000s of calories for weeks on end... most people would perhaps end up less powerful as a result?
All speculation on my part...
Without detailed pharmacological/physiological understanding, it is impossible to come to a view on the question of naughtiness. There may or may not be evidence linking blood levels with amount taken over time in different environments (pharmacological tests would probably not be on athletes who are actually competing at the time etc. etc.) And of course, those arguments would be deployed by a naughty person as well as an innocent one.
Well this topic has gotten a lot of press and gossip mongers stirred up, has it not.
I enjoyed reading that link to the CyclingTIps/SecretPro insight he did, kinda already knew what he was about to say in it, but still.. from a Pro's point of view it was worth reading.
I do believe that if this particular situation was laid upon a neo-pro or a 2nd/3rd division team rider there would be no question as to the UCI/WADA output and that would be a very lengthy Ban and massive publicity to support both decision and deterrent and bolster the WADA control framework currently in place.
As is it's a Guy that leads a GTour team with Massive Sponsorship and media output distribution networks that could easily pull apart and media destroy WADA and the UCI for that matter.
So, personally, I think this will go the way of the fairies. It'll be gossip until the TDU starts then a charm offensive by the UCI and WADA proclaiming "within tolerances, we have robust control mechanisms in place to test and prosecute anyone who falls foul of the Law"
And Froomy will get Booooo'd to death as he rides up Italy. Morally, thats got to mentally crushing. This could lead to Froomy only targeting One GT a year until retirement and that'll be the TdF, which is fine by me because the TdF IMO is a circus.
What good can come out of this? Landas left, excellent he's far better off at Mov, Thomas needs to be developed into a Tour Leader and this is his opportunity, Kyri will retire at the end of the season and like Wow what a rider he is... yet... as we all know his background was always suspect, not that I'm pointing fingers because I'm a huge fan of his however he is a product of a bygone era is he not.. I do fear for the Spanish Climbers in Sky now.. and Poels because if... and this is a big if...
IF Sky pull funding in any way it's these guys that'll suffer most.. Sky's funding has been in place for sometime now, controversy has always been lain at their feet and to some extent the Brand Sky is suffering because of it. Bad News Stories last longer than yesterdays rolled up newspaper chip wrappers in our era of the Digital New World.. and it's easy to bring old stories back to the fore when Bad News is released against a Brand. And Sky is a Brand, and they're just using the Cycling Team for Advertising streaming...
However cycling has always courted controversy, it's made up of heres and villains.. this is just another chapter in a very long book.
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/former-pro-alessandro-petacchi-disbelief-chris-froome-salbutamol-levels-363098
Interesting firsthand stuff from Petacchi.
Interesting that you raise the business side of it Bikebuoy, with Murdoch selling his stake in Sky to Disney there's definitely potential for change in marketing strategy.
The problem is that pro-cycling is in such a mess after ignoring drug misuse for so many years that any **** sticks.
I've no view on Froome but as its a strike liability offence he should be banned.
Having said that asthmatics are caught between a rock & a hard place. I used to travel a lot with work and found it impossible to control my symptoms with an preventative treatment unless I was constantly on the maximum dose because the environmental triggers were constantly changing (That was traveling in England & Wales probably limited to a 150mile radius). If I stay in one place my sensitivity to these triggers damps down and I can lower the dosage significantly. So controlling asthma on a Grand Tour without risky dosages must be hard.
For me Salbutamol is a performance enhancing drug. At a rough measurement during an attack I can gain up to 75Watts per dose but that is only because I'm starting from a point where pushing a shopping trolley is a challenge. Unfortunately my threshold power still levels off at abysmal regardless of the dose.
I'm not going back on what I said about banning failed tests but I'm pretty sick of seeing comments form 'Ubermensch' who have never experienced problems like asthma (and claim to be able to spot asthmatics because weren't they the weedy kids at school) and think that competing on a level playing field should include not treating conditions.
Read this thread and the Secret Pro stuff and thought about it a few times over the past few days. In all honesty I am shocked by it - I'm not Froome's biggest fan but I honestly did believe he was clean despite the allegations against Wiggins and team Sky in general. To me he just struck me as a bit of a freak of nature and naturally gifted on a bike but not the sort to involve himself in the shadier side. Sadly whether the UCI/WADA press for a ban or not, his reputation is tarnished and I'll struggle to hold him in the same regard as I did before.
The UCI are about as bent as they come. Less a governing body and more a business, they seem to have little interest in improving the image of professional cycling and every interest in lining their own pockets. Allowing the likes of Astana, Katushka and Bahrain to continue to race despite all the allegations against them just makes a mockery of the sport. If Froome isn't banned then it just confirms what others have said already on this thread.
Regarding Sky, again they're a complete joke. I struggle to support a team who are happy to play as close to the line as possible in an effort to win races. The utter BS spouted by Brailsford has just made the situation far worse - stolen laptop? Seriously? It's a business and to make money in pro cycling you need to be winning the big tours. The easiest way (apparently) to do that is to dope.
Pro Cycling (and certainly GT's) are theatre - they need the heroes and villains to entertain the viewers, otherwise you may as well go watch a Sunday club ride. The issue comes when you can't work out who the villains are, as it's currently looking like everyone is. Nibbles/Aru/Astana/Bahrain were the baddies, Sky/Cannondale/AG2R were the goodies. I've stil got a bit of faith in Bardet but the rest of them including Vaughters and Brailsford's teams can do one.
I'll probably still watch the Classics next year as regardless of the doping it's still an awesome spectacle to watch. But I'll not bother with the GT's as frankly with the Sky domination and the lack of someone to root for, there's little interest in it for me.
If he manages to continue racing after this the abuse out on the stsges is going to get even worse.
Devil's advocate maybe but...
Froome is not an idiot. He knows he is under scrutiny, he knows he will be tested, he knows that salbutamol is detectable. It isn't like he has some sort of secret strategy of doping which will evade the testing regime. Salbutamol seems to have negligible performance enhancing effects, certainly not enough to explain his dominance of the GTs over the past few years.
So why would he cheat in this manner?
Can't help feeling that certain people were desperate for him to be shown to be a doper & at this is a golden opportunity to reinforce their perception. (Maybe he is but not with this particular drug)
The utter BS spouted by Brailsford has just made the situation far worse - stolen laptop? Seriously?
The stolen laptop was the doctor, probably to cover up that he DID have records for whatever he'd treated Wiggo with and didn't want to drop Wiggo (with UKAD) and therefore himself (with the GMC) in it. Brailsford is a master of the mealy-mouthed nothing statement like Vaughters is. Interesting that both are at the top of self-proclaimed clean teams that somewhat lack clarity.
I read the interview with the Mail Journo that broke the Wiggins story. Hearing the number of times they changed their story was laughable. OK, its the Mail and yes, possibly the journalist has an ulterior motive but seriously, why lie multiple times when its quite apparent you've been rumbled.
I struggle to support a team who are happy to play as close to the line as possible in an effort to win
Can be said about any top level sporting team, individual. Everyone plays the rules close to the line as possible to gain maximum advantage - Rugby, F1, athletics, Football, NFL... why would you think a Pro cycling team any different?
Froome is not an idiot. He knows he is under scrutiny, he knows he will be tested, he knows that salbutamol is detectable. It isn't like he has some sort of secret strategy of doping which will evade the testing regime. Salbutamol seems to have negligible performance enhancing effects, certainly not enough to explain his dominance of the GTs over the past few years.
So why would he cheat in this manner?
Can't help feeling that certain people were desperate for him to be shown to be a doper & at this is a golden opportunity to reinforce their perception
This is my opinion also. Froome's been using Salbutomol for 10 years, he's well aware of the limits and usage, he knows - because he is - he'll be tested every day.
The easiest way (apparently) to do that is to dope.
Hang on - you think he's doping with Salbutamol?
Taking an easily detectable drug which people see him take and has (if we believe he only used a puffer) no effect whatsoever. Worst. Doper. Ever.
Froome is not an idiot. He knows he is under scrutiny, he knows he will be tested, he knows that salbutamol is detectable. It isn't like he has some sort of secret strategy of doping which will evade the testing regime. Salbutamol seems to have negligible performance enhancing effects, certainly not enough to explain his dominance of the GTs over the past few years.
So why would he cheat in this manner?
If they are going to cheat in the modern era, it's not just about the PED's it is also about the masking agents. It becomes a complex game of pushing the levels and hiding what they are doing. It is quite easy to see how a simple mistake can be made, even by an intelligent man and team.
no effect whatsoever.
It does have an affect, it is just his fanbois who wish to ignore it.
[url= http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=salbutamol+weight+loss ]lmgtfy[/url]
it is also about the masking agents
So are you saying Salbutamolm is a masking agent?
No I am saying that in order to be not caught, cheaters use masking agents as well as PEDs, it could be a complex course of injections, pills and liquids on variable timings that can easily be mixed up, thus why even well resourced and intelligent people make mistakes and get caught.
Dons tin foil hat...yawn
it could be a complex course of injections, pills and liquids on variable timings that can easily be mixed up, thus why even well resourced and intelligent people make mistakes and get caught.
OK but what does the Salbutamol have to do with this?
It is a drug, banned beyond a limit which would normally be used to treat asthma, because it is used to control weight. If you want to argue with the WADA classification, make your arguments to them.
Do you think Froome would be trying to control his weight in the middle of a grand tour MSP?
To me he just struck me as a bit of a freak of nature and naturally gifted on a bike but not the sort to involve himself in the shadier side.
I wouldn't buy into the freak of nature, naturally gifted line.. yes he's better than the average rider on here by a distance, but he was a very average professional cyclist til his mid twenties where he suddenly transformed himself into the best climber and time trialist on the planet. He'd previously been kicked out of the Giro for hanging on to a motorbike to make the time limit.
His sudden transformation at the Vuelta was a shock to his own team, as otherwise they'd have transferred leadership to Froome sooner and he'd have easily beaten Cobo, rather than be made to work for a clearly struggling Wiggins.
His excuse for this transformation was that he was suffering from Bilharzia since 2009 (which doesn't explain why he didn't achieve much before this date, certainly nothing to show he would dominate Grand Tours) but has contradicted himself in interviews about the gender of the doctor who diagnosed him, the year he was diagnosed and the location.
To me it's all a bit donkeys into racehorses.. transformations like this don't happen in cycling..
because it is used to control weight.
Say what? Please explain.
[url= http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=salbutamol+weight+loss ]lmgtfy[/url]
So are you saying Salbutamolm is a masking agent?
Wada do
Diuretics and masking agents
If a Substance or Method is not defined in this list, please verify with your Anti-Doping Organization.The following diuretics and masking agents are prohibited, as are other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).
Including, but not limited to:
Desmopressin; probenecid; plasma expanders, e.g. glycerol and intravenous administration of albumin, dextran, hydroxyethyl starch and mannitol.
Acetazolamide; amiloride; bumetanide; canrenone; chlortalidone; etacrynic acid; furosemide; indapamide; metolazone; spironolactone; thiazides, e.g. bendroflumethiazide, chlorothiazide and hydrochlorothiazide; triamterene and vaptans, e.g. tolvaptan.Except:
Drospirenone; pamabrom; and ophthalmic use of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (e.g. dorzolamide, brinzolamide).
Local administration of felypressin in dental anaesthesia.The detection in an Athlete’s Sample at all times or In-Competition, as applicable, of any quantity of the following substances subject to threshold limits: formoterol, salbutamol, cathine, ephedrine, methylephedrine and pseudoephedrine, in conjunction with a diuretic or masking agent, will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete has an approved Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for that substance in addition to the one granted for the diuretic or masking agent.
It does have an affect, it is just his fanbois who wish to ignore it.lmgtfy
Nice selective quoting. Do you work hard to be such a massive **** or is it natural? What I said, as if you don't know, was that if we believe what he says and he was using only the puffer, it'd have no real effect. Taken in tablet form it's different as we already know.
Klunk - that's not what they say in your quote though. What it says that IF there is a masking agent present in the test, ANY volume of salbutamol will be considered an AAF not just exceeding the 1000 ng/ml limit unless they have a TUE for both salbutamol and the masking agent.
So they're not saying it's a masking agent.
^ wot he said
Cock, now will this mean I will have to hand back my Strava KOMs because I is an asthmatic sand regularly 'puff' before hitting the trails?
Klunk - that's not what they say in your quote though. What it says that IF there is a masking agent present in the test, ANY volume of salbutamol will be considered an AAF not just exceeding the 1000 ng/ml limit unless they have a TUE for both salbutamol and the masking agent.So they're not saying it's a masking agent.
So you have a TUE for the masking agent and not salbutamol ?
Cock, now will this mean I will have to hand back my Strava KOMs because I is an asthmatic sand regularly 'puff' before hitting the trails?
Perhaps Strava can add a 'drug cheat' section as well as age-groups.
[s]Live chat on this about to kick off:[/s]
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2017/dec/14/chris-froome-failed-drug-test-live-webchat
Ahem - I was a bit late and some of you lot are there already... 🙂
This is just like everyone was with Armstrong before that all came out in the wash. Just watching docus about sky makes me think the management have that same ruthless determination as Armstrong and everything that went along with that.
I think it's telling (in a bad way for Sky) that it seems to be the more casual/less-informed fans who are taking this the worst.
Thats true to some extent ^^
But I hardly think the Media that is SKY have a 17yr old intern checking out STW threads for potential slanderous remarks and innuendos.
They might though eh.. 😆
If the Disney deal goes through, I really can't see Mickey Mouse riding a bike up the Ventoux, Goofy Yes, yes I can see a similarity..
[img] 
/revision/latest?cb=20160521222237[/img]
This is just like everyone was with Armstrong before that all came out in the wash.
Not quite. The behaviour on the road is pretty different.
So you have a TUE for the masking agent and not salbutamol ?
The masking agent could, I suppose, have a genuine use so it's possible to get a TUE for it. I would imagine then that the concern is if you have a diuretic or other masking agent in your sample as well as a drug permissible in specific doses that you might be exceeding the dose then using the diuretic/whatever to make it appear you're at a lower level of that drug than you are. Which is why, then, if you have a masking agent TUE and salbutamol present in your sample that you'd also need a TUE for salbutamol.
Seems a bit labyrinthine but makes sense.
Is there an assumption here that pro sports are clean?
What quite is the news?
Any dodgy SPOTY betting going on at the same time 😉
Given that this would have stayed private if not for the guardian/le monde, anyone have any feeling for how many other adverse analytical findings there are that get explained and dismissed and nver brough to the publics attention?
Given that this would have stayed private if not for the guardian/le monde, anyone have any feeling for how many other adverse analytical findings there are that get explained and dismissed and nver brough to the publics attention?
Its a fair question. It'd be nice for the UCI and anti-doping agencies to publish anonymised stats for this sort of thing but I have a feeling all it would do is generate allegations of coverups and protecting Team Sky/French teams/whatever the bete noir of the reader is.
Given that this would have stayed private if not for the guardian/le monde, anyone have any feeling for how many other adverse analytical findings there are that get explained and dismissed and nver brough to the publics attention?
It'd be very useful to have that info, agreed.
Given that this would have stayed private if not for the guardian/le monde, anyone have any feeling for how many other adverse analytical findings there are that get explained and dismissed and nver brough to the publics attention?
The thing is it should have stayed private untill the investigations had run their course. Le Monde/ Guardian aren't concerned about the public interest only their own.
I know it's fun for all the forum "experts" to debate and criticise, but as an Ashmatic I'd trade all the salbutimol in the world for healthy working lungs, pretty sure Froome would do the same.
