Forum menu
I struggle with long sentences... but...
For those who think he was cheating, what benefit does salbutamol have for ONE day of abuse? You'd have to assume if 1000ng is legal for inhaler use then they can test for it accurately (blah blah about whether it's a fair test can be left to the UCI and CAS) that they'd have popped him if he'd been abusing the drug for the entire race.
If we accept that the tests didn't find anything suspicious either before or after the day in question, how was that single day benefitting him?
All the arguments about Froome using salbutamol either intravenously or in tablet form don't answer what he'd get out of it for such a short time. I get it if he'd been over the limit for half the race or even between races but it seems the reported ability to lose weight, build muscle, whatever would require a bit more than one day of trying to cheat.
All the arguments about Froome using salbutamol either intravenously or in tablet form don’t answer what he’d get out of it for such a short time. I get it if he’d been over the limit for half the race or even between races but it seems the reported ability to lose weight, build muscle, whatever would require a bit more than one day of trying to cheat.
Rationally you're right, but strictly speaking, the issue isn't whether he benefitted from exceeding the WADA limit on inhaled Salbutamol, it's just whether he exceeded the limit. It might seem counter-intuitive, but he doesn't need to have obtained a performance advantage, just to have consumed too much of the stuff.
So in terms of the rules, it doesn't make any difference whether he benefitted or not, just that he potentially broke the rule. The rest of it is down to a combination of personal opinion and carefully selected 'google facts' that support whatever you believe to be true.
I’m loving the obfuscation from the fanbois.....you guys are finding it really hard to even accept the concept that Froome might have cheated....
Laughable.
I think it is a really tricky one, but the main thing is that it needs to be cleared up soon, it has been left hanging far too long and there needs to be a definite answer or statement from ASO and WADA.
What rarely seems to be addressed is why this was leaked, and how these hackers came from Russia trying to fling as much muck as possible just before the Olympics where they as a team were banned, seemingly as a smoke screen to what is pretty much the state-sponsored doping of the Soviet era?
I suppose i can speak with a little authority, in that i did my BSc in Sports Science and dissertation on drugs in sport (although it focused mostly on my sport of rugby, but was mainly on steroid usage).
I am no Sky fan-boy at all, i was happy as larry when Yates was doing well, and genuinely thought it would be good for the sport if Froome didn't win the Giro, i'd love to see one of the French riders win TdF again i think it would be great for the sport.
But, i think that Sky have the money (although Katusha and BMC aren't far off at all in budget) to explore every option open to them, i do think that they have operated in that grey area a few times with Tramadol and the like and i do think that Brailsford can be his own worst enemy, constantly talking like a marketing man and failing to really address the Wiggins issue, i'd much rather listen to David Millar reporting or to Mitchelton-Scott's Matt White, as despite both being ex-dopers, they at least seem to say what they think not what people and sponsors want to hear.
The one thing i cannot get round is this "is the tiny gain that Froome may have got from an increased Sabutomol usage for one single stage, worth the immense risk to his image, to the team and to his future career knowing full well as leader and a GC contender that he would be tested at the end of the stage?"
My thought there is no, he hasn't failed a "dope test", he had an anomaly, that's why it's not made public, it's for the rider to try to explain this anomaly. In the same way that a body builder is not going to gain anything from a single dose of anabolic steroid before a gym session, Salbutomol isn't anabolic, it's effects for a single large dose for one day would hinder more than help, it can cause a dry mouth, it can mess up kidney function and can make the heart race harder, all things that would be of no use to him?
For anyone that has that type of inhaler, try taking about 10 puffs in a row, see what it does to your heart rate and back of your throat?
I just cannot see what gain he would of got from a single stages overdosing, when the risk was just to high. The test is a simple one, and a number of sports scientists have come back saying the test is flawed, because the same dosage taken under different conditions, gives different results.
So i am not defending Froome, i am talking from my limited understanding and have had a good read of a number of my old text books and a number of good sports science websites (not Cycling Weekly!)
Why are people not as angered by Astana being at the start line, from memory they have 5 riders banned which meant they definitely not taken part last year, but got round it by 4 having taken PED's and the 5th having taking cocaine, which is not down as a PED?
I loved watching an in-form Contador race and dancing on the pedals up a hill, but why was he no treated with the same scorn? This is what i don't understand, not defending Sky, but don't understand why the hatred for only one team from here (and the French!)
Can’t see the performance benefit from Salbutomol, having been on an inhaler and before that tablets for years but still don’t think he should be riding till its resolved. There are plenty of other riders like Petacchi who have been caught out by this in the past.
On the other hand keeping a professional sportsman in limbo for 9-18months because the process is overcomplicated or underfunded seems ridiculous.
If an athlete is under investigation, they can not participate in any UCI event until the conclusion of the investigation.
All of them? Including the ones that are (properly) being kept confidential right now? And the ones that actually are due to duff testing and methods, but are waiting for due process to reveal that?
This. So yes, he should race and be allowed to race until he has been found to be doping.
And we don’t need to no either. Providing he can explain the adverse results to the relevant authorities we should never have known anything. The general publics involvemnt should only happen if he can’t and recieves a ban/sanction.
I've no argument with that. The point I was making is that despite all the speculation, no-one here knows anything about the detail of the case, so we have to wait for the outcome of the AAF process.
For anyone querying how Salbutamol could be a performance enhancer, have a look at the WADA web page that has been referenced previously. WADA's view is that Salbutamol can enhance performance when it is not used in the permitted fashion, i.e. large doses orally or intravenously, rather than via inhaler. I'm not a doctor or sports scientist, so I can't explain the science, but that's why there's a test.
i find it funny how butt hurt all you sky fanboys are getting. It's not just your cheating **** we want rid of, it's all of them. Otherwise it would be hypocracy, which is your dept. 😉
Plus how many were arguing that because Wiggins doping TUE wasn't cheating because it was 'approved' (even Sutton admitted it as gaming the system ffs). Now froome has an AAF higher than that others have had bans for, you want to not apply to him?
And please, dope tests are letting people through because fancy lawyers can be bought to argue that the test is flawed (no test is 100% water tight). Past dopers have called out how testing is an IQ test and how they can be gamed (classic not in for the testers, maybe the hotel didn't notify them....). Lance Armstrong never tripped the BP on his come back, you think he did that clean?
As a thought. In an effort to prove why the anomaly occurred, does that mean that Froome has had to spend a lot of time training in a lab somewhere, taking very high dosages of Salbutamol?
Effectively this is just one massively drawn out plot by Sky to get the long term benefits of high usage, which so far is working well.
Effectively this is just one massively drawn out plot by Sky to get the long term benefits of high usage, which so far is working well.
Really ? You think ?
Froome might have cheated
Neither WADA or the UCI think that he cheated, he hasn't failed a drug test. WADA have essentially said "this is odd, can you explain please?"
i find it funny how butt hurt all you sky fanboys are getting. It’s not just your cheating **** we want rid of, it’s all of them. Otherwise it would be hypocracy, which is your dept.
As Metalheart ramps up one must wonder if he is taking something to enhance his performance here.
If you read the posts I would say people are trying to establish the facts and what has gone on.
You however already know what has happened, why and what for - evidence seems to play no part in it.
Really ? You think ?
No, I don't as it happens. I think he's racing clean and should be allowed to continue to race until evidence to the contrary.
I would be genuinely interested to know how they would begin to prove the anomaly though without inadvertently gaining an advantage.
Despite it being quoted so, Sky can't try and replicate the issue with Froome, i think the rumour came after Froome was seen doing some really long rides in very hot conditions in SA on Strava.
There is no way they can replicate exactly the conditions, the fatigue, the drug levels etc with enough control to satisfy any sports scientist. Plus if it does have a performance gain, then they are not going to let him take a load more of it. My issue he tested fine for all other stages, a single stage of taking a large amount will do very little, it is like going to a single bike ride in a month and thinking you have grown fitter. Something with such a small gain if any, needs to be accumulative, such as going for 3 bike rides a week for 3 months, and he tested low the rest of the days, which is what confuses me.
My issue he tested fine for all other stages
Assuming that the clean samples are legit. My gut feeling, vox populi, tinfoilhat suspicion is that something was done that meant it wasn't over the limit in the other samples and whatever was done didn't work or wasn't done properly on the day he tested over the limit.
So for the people who think Froome shouldn't race and no other riders with AAF should race either....
What happens if Froome is found to be clear of the AAF but he didn't race? Sky will have lost out their sponsorship opportunities, the team will have lost out on their main target of the year - so all riders are impacted financially and commercially. Froome himself will miss out on millions from winnings and sponsorship opportunities. Does he get that money back? (If he is found to "guilty" then any prize money will be paid back, pretty sure sponsors will have caveated their deals as well)
Another similar question, what if it is a Trek rider or a Wanty rider who had an AAF but are subsequently cleared of it, someone who is fighting for their contract, paid low amounts of money and limited sponsorship which would be affected by not being allowed to race the TDF. Someone who has actually done nothing wrong but just needs to go through the process to clear the AAF.
So, should both riders not be allowed to race? At this stage surely we don't know enough information as to make that call? Personally I think the process should be followed, at the end of the process then the decision of a ban and who won what races can be made.
If I thought I was clean and hadn't taken anything that would result in a ban, then I would fight it and at the same time I would expect to be allowed to race and earn my living.
In this thread I don't really see Sky Fan Bois per se, just people saying process needs to be followed and that the rules should be applied equally whether it is a Sky GC contender or a domestique of a smaller financed team.
I'm not a Sky fan, I have a genuine dislike of Sir DB, I don't trust anything he says. In fact, whenever he speaks I generally think that he is lying and covering something up - even if he was reading out a shopping list I'd still think he was lying. His article on the BBC isn't nice to read, at least to me, but that's just because it seems like usual Sky PR nonsense. But we should still treat Sky and Froome the same as any other team and rider.
Neither WADA or the UCI think that he cheated, he hasn’t failed a drug test. WADA have essentially said “this is odd, can you explain please?”
That doesn’t explain why riders with lower levels have received bans in the past?
That doesn’t explain why riders with lower levels have received bans in the past?
They have a process for deciding this, that is what they are going through at the moment.
Rationally you’re right, but strictly speaking, the issue isn’t whether he benefitted from exceeding the WADA limit on inhaled Salbutamol, it’s just whether he exceeded the limit. It might seem counter-intuitive, but he doesn’t need to have obtained a performance advantage, just to have consumed too much of the stuff.
I'm mostly interested in the "why" as a driver for whether he may have done it or not. I've not read anything that says that there's any SHORT term gain based on science not the gamut of opinion between "My mate Dave reckons it makes you ride uphill like a rocket" or "I've got asthma and it doesn't do anything at all". I don't particularly like Froome (I do applaud his attempts to "animate" races though after being called boring) but it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me with the evidence available.
He's either going to be able to prove (or obfuscate adequately to an equivalent level) that he did the right thing but it produced the wrong result or he's getting banned. Sadly the argument becomes more about hysterical screaming from the usual suspects who will never be satisfied with any outcome short of Froome being banned.
Anyway, I'm sure this will be settled before he retires from cycling in a few years. Maybe.
An alternative view is they said explain your technical infringement of our anti doping rules to our satisfaction or we'll need to sanction you (like we have to do to others in a similar situation).
We can all play whatabouttery. No doubt you won't like mine either.
And I notice no-one wants to take on testing not picking up Lance. Funny that.
Koolaid all round it is then. Chin chin.
“It’s not a black and white concept though, Drug Testing has rules and limits, these things are in the hard to measure/factor/analyse grey areas which is why they are in a separate section of the drug testing world.”
Be very careful what you wish for!
The next thing you’ll hear is “so & so needs x powerful steroid shot for y symptoms....”
Hang on, we’ve been here before haven’t we ‘Brad’??
You may have a heart of metal, but seem to have a brain of cheese...(winky emoji!)
as to why the anti-doping tests didn't pick up Lance? Do you not think testing has changed slightly since? Not saying it is perfect, but the Passport system has come in now where every athlete has to document where they are 24 hours a day (how Lizzie Armistead got into trouble - cannot see anyone tearing her apart for bad diary keeping?), they are are tested after every race and a lot more off season now if they are a GC contender, you can't compare the Armstrong years to now, thankfully.
I am not saying everyone is clean, far from it, but i would hope that things have moved on a great deal at least, the very fact that we are waving our handbags about a slight infringement for Salbutomol and not massive amounts of every PED under the sun washed down with some juicy blood bags, shows things must have changed for the better a bit?
I am no defender of anyone taking any PED. I played pretty high level rugby for a premiership club in Union, paid my way through uni playing rugby league and then for the army, i watched time and time again where my opposite number on the front row of the scrum was smaller than me at the end of one season, only for him to come back the next season twice my size, spotty and with a bad attitude, at one point steroids were absolutely rife, and testing was non-existent even when it was abused really badly.
My favourite is bodybuilding, have you ever seen the size of a Mr Olympia contestant compared to a Natural Mr Olympia contestant?!
(how Lizzie Armistead got into trouble – cannot see anyone tearing her apart for bad diary keeping?),
You missed the thread here then...
about a slight infringement for Salbutamol
It wasn’t just a slight infringement, was it? Froome’s supporters keep saying this (and trying to downplay the rather superhuman way he rides) but it doesn’t make it true.
An alternative view is they said explain your technical infringement of our anti doping rules to our satisfaction or we’ll need to sanction you
Funny you should say that, as that's exactly the process they're following, except that it's not a technical infringement, it's triggering a high level on a urine test that's not a fail but puts the onus on him to show he could give that level without exceeding the permitted dosage.
Cynically, he might've been switching out his piss every day, and his masseuse couldn't find him before his post stage drug test. Alternatively he might've been particularly dehydrated on a day when his asthma was needing the max. dose to control.
The speculation on his case is the very reason that these findings are supposed to be treated with confidentiality unless the athlete is unable to explain the findings.
I'm not a fan of Froome or Sky or any current pros really, but it's clear that a lot of the leaks have come from a country with a huge drugs programme across a variety of Olympic disciplines. It's almost like they are trying to compare a TUE (i.e. drug use pre-approved by an independent panel) with systematic PED programmes at a national level.
If he gets banned, fine. If he doesn't, fine. The people making these decisions are more expert than me with more knowledge of the case than me.
It wasn’t just a slight infringement,
I think people are calling it a slight infringement in performance enhancing terms. Nobody on here or anywhere else has explained how a one-off ingestion of this particular drug during the course of a race could help him.
As much as I dislike Sky, I don't think its fair to link Lance's drug taking to Froome's adverse analytical finding. At least not yet anyway.
Yes Lance used to say he had never tested positive, ergo, I don't dope. However that's not a fair comparison to Froome's AAF. We know Armstrong was a serial liar, but didn't he fail a drug test in 2001 and also four failed tests in 1999? From memory he submitted a backdated TUE and was helped with the cover up. In 2005 the UCI also retested samples from 1999 and found EPO, however having no B samples (a completely different story) meant no further action was taken. I'm sure paying money to the UCI didn't do him any harm.
So just because another rider who was also very successful was a serial cheat doesn't mean everyone currently is (they may be - but evidence is needed). Froome may be taking all sorts but at this moment in time there is only evidence to suggest an adverse reading of a drug he has permission to use.
My personal thoughts are that to do what they do for 3 weeks then they must be glowing permanently. But that's just a personal opinion. I wouldn't be hurt or happy if Froome is found to have "cheated".
"slight infringement" was meant in terms of the Armstrong Years...
As to the harping on about "Froome's supporters"...actually read my posts above?
And as to Froome's "superhuman" ride. it was good, but it wasn't superhuman, how come we talk about Froome in terms of one stage being superhuman, yet 2 1/2 weeks of Yates riding above and beyond his normal form was just good riding?
Please confirm exactly how salbumotol allowed Froome to ride the descent faster than his competitors who were all waiting for each other to chase?
As stated if you read above, i am no fan of Froome, but i come at the subject with at least some knowledge, i really wanted Yates to do it, his giving it everything, then blowing up spectacularly was exciting to watch and showed what he gave to stay ahead those 2 1/2 weeks, he absolutely emptied himself, whilst Froome was falling off his bike and struggling to keep up, Yates was in the red a lot, whilst Froome had yet a lot more left in the tank i think?
The issue that a lot of people forgot is that over the weeks of a Grand Tour riders fatigue, there will be an accumulative affect, so it is often not a case of one rider getting faster towards the end, it is more a case of the aren't deteriorating as fast, they are going less slow as the others. Froome has done this numerous times now and he has the stamina of a few more years over Yates.
Its easy. Your innocent until proven guilty. That's the law in most of the world. Anything else is just speculation. So I see no issues with him continuing to race.
Many have argued that Froome should not of turned up at the Giro, but they organisers paid him a no doubt very healthy appearance fee to be there, which he accepted...
Did we do STW handbag-waving-high-horses about the Giro start being in Israel or did i miss that to?
Yeah, some of us were pissed off about the Giro starting in Israel.
No-one listened though, the ASO said it would evoke harmony in an region split by religion.
So that’s ok then. Doesn’t seem to have made any difference whatsoever.
Did we do STW handbag-waving-high-horses about the Giro start being in Israel or did i miss that to?
I think there was just a "Really?" and a disappointing look
Harmony to a region? i must have missed the bit where the rode through Palestine in a show of unification!
Any way back to the arguments... funny how this thread is on 5 pages and the thread on actually discussing the race is on 2!
e thread on actually discussing the race is on 2!
Possibly because there’s nothing to discuss about the racing for a whole month?
Whereas so much new stuff is happening in the Froome AAF case.
Errr...
I think it has finally distilled down to the he is guilty regardless (see also witch trials) and the evidence is going to be very interesting and have some implications for testing going forward.
You know when people resort to fanboi claims their arguments are a bit dead
You know when people resort to fanboi claims their arguments are a bit dead
Typical fanboi! I will come back and haunt your arse once I am dead, so there, ad nauseum... 😉
As much as I dislike Sky, I don’t think its fair to link Lance’s drug taking to Froome’s adverse analytical finding
the point, that you seem to have missed, is that on lances comeback he had to comply with the BP and he still managed a top three finish (although he claims he didn’t dope, yeah, right) but he didn’t trigger any sanctions. So, if the BP could be gamed then, it can be gamed now.
In the giro he picked his stage and went for it, what, 80km out and managed to take time on the climbs, the flats as well as the descent on his own... and that isn’t superhuman? At least Yates had the decency to disintegrate 🤣 the immediate reaction from (ex) riders (don’t forget Philippa York and Sean Kellys reactions) a bit like LAs Sestriere ‘99 ride. A genius troll, in plain sight. Chapeau!
you seriously think 4 consecutive GTs is “normal” and doesn’t raise an eyebrow? Wow! I’ve a couple of bridges to sell, maybe your interested?
i come at the subject with at least some knowledge
I’ve watched the the sport of pro cycling since the early eighties, I’ve learned a thing or two as well. When it’s too good to be true, it isn’t. HTH.
In the giro he picked his stage and went for it, what, 80km out and managed to take time on the climbs, the flats as well as the descent on his own… and that isn’t superhuman?
Hmm, well, y'know just go back to the video above. you have decided the facts and the evidence is not for you. Nothing will change your mind,, you could live with the guy 24/7 and still think he was getting the drugs through a magic vapour etc. of you coudn't see anything else
you have decided the facts and the evidence is not for you
well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
can you even contemplate that he might, you know, actually be a doper? I mean, he went through such a miraculous transformation in just three weeks! 🤣
can you even contemplate that he might, you know, actuallybe a doper? I mean, he went through such a miraculous transformation in just three weeks!
I can contemplate the possibility, can you contemplate that he might not be?
“the point, that you seem to have missed, is that on lances comeback he had to comply with the BP and he still managed a top three finish (although he claims he didn’t dope, yeah, right) but he didn’t trigger any sanctions. So, if the BP could be gamed then, it can be gamed now.”
+1.
The dopers have always been ahead of the testers.
If you don’t believe me watch Icarus & hear it from the horses mouth....
"in the giro he picked his stage and went for it, what, 80km out and managed to take time on the climbs, the flats as well as the descent on his own… and that isn’t superhuman?"
Where have you been? The point is it wasn't a super human effort. It was meticulously planned beforehand, sky team members placed out at strategic points to keep him fed - no other team had thought to do that for their riders - are you suggesting that not keeping them fed didn't hamper their performance? Forget drugs, if you don't get your carbs in then you're going nowhere fast. He made almost all of the time up on the descents and flats not the climbs, he was less fatigued than Doumoulin and Yates who had been racing hard for two weeks - especially Yates who was gong to crack whatever, and Froome hadn't been full on racing, that the Sky train was out if full force and organised, no other team was organised, and when Froome went nobody chased him down as they were all a bunch of individuals and DM left it way to late to try to chase him down and couldn't live with his speed of descent, wasn't fed properly or supported by any of his team or any of the other riders who were all fanning about slowing down the pace and riding a completely different race. And also Froome's numbers were not superhuman. But yeah, ignore all that meticulous planning and the fact it was an all or nothing play by Sky who rolled the dice and took a chance and it paid out for them, it's much simpler to just say he was doping off the back of one irronious result for a substance that is not banned and no other (as far as I'm aware) unusual results through all the testing he's had over the years.
If the system can be gained and Froome is doing it then the assumption has to be that everyone is. And I assume his drugs tests post stage 19 are clear? I've not heard anything yet.
Just face it, Froome is one of the best riders out there, if not the best, but the difference is the Sky team and their approach. They simply do a better job than any other team. Froome didn't win stage 19 by himself. He was helped by his team (unlike any of his competitors), but it was ultimately sealed by the woeful mistakes and errors of his competitors. their race craft was left wanting that day and left themselves looking amateur with way too much to do in the face of the organised onslaught from Sky. It was a classic smash and grab job.
I don't know if Froome is doping, it will come out eventually. I hope he's not, but if he is then he'll get what's coming to him and he'll deserve it.
Froome should be racing because the rules and system says he can - it's that simple. It's black and white, binary. If you don't like the rules then don't blame Froome and Sky. Froome isn't being afforded any special treatment and due process is being followed - it's happened before with other riders. The organisers of the TDF could prevent him from racing, but if they do that and Froome clears his name then they will have egg on their face and that would be just as damaging outcome than letting him race only for him to be retrospectively banned. Credibility works both ways...searching out the genuine dopers and addressing any anomalies of the process fairly and clearing any innocent riders.
As to other riders crying foul, well they would wouldn't they. They were made to look pretty pathetic. Classic case of sour grapes and a bit of politic playing - the best way to beat Froome is to try to get him banned from racing, so it suits them to add fuel to the fire of doubt and suspicion.
you seriously think 4 consecutive GTs is “normal” and doesn’t raise an eyebrow? Wow! I’ve a couple of bridges to sell, maybe your interested?
I take from this that you have already decided that he is a doper & that the Salbutamol AAF is just a convenient stick to beat him with.