Froome and the Inhaler

stumps wrote:

Hi everyone, i got a blister from going hiking in the wrong socks, just thought i would let everyone know, just for transparency

So is that a blister induced by your overuse of EPO, or is it a real sock induced blister - because I don't think your being transparent enough for this forum.

leqin wrote:

stumps wrote:

Hi everyone, i got a blister from going hiking in the wrong socks, just thought i would let everyone know, just for transparency

So is that a blister induced by your overuse of EPO, or is it a real sock induced blister - because I don't think your being transparent enough for this forum.

Lol, you've caught me out !

giobox wrote:

This appears to be another classic sky PR mess. If they'd been upfront about Froome needing an inhaler this would be a non-story. Surely it was predictable a TV camera would eventually catch sight of him using it? Why not get out in front of the story before it happens?

More to the point, why has Walsh missed this one? Oh, I think I know the answer to that!

daddyELVIS wrote:

giobox wrote:

This appears to be another classic sky PR mess. If they'd been upfront about Froome needing an inhaler this would be a non-story. Surely it was predictable a TV camera would eventually catch sight of him using it? Why not get out in front of the story before it happens?

More to the point, why has Walsh missed this one? Oh, I think I know the answer to that!

Enlighten us all Mr armchair director sportif!

It's a non story, for years asthmatics have not required a TUE for there inhalers. But if you were all as smart as informed as you proport to be you'd know that.

If all you do is negativity piss off to football.

madonepro wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

giobox wrote:

This appears to be another classic sky PR mess. If they'd been upfront about Froome needing an inhaler this would be a non-story. Surely it was predictable a TV camera would eventually catch sight of him using it? Why not get out in front of the story before it happens?

More to the point, why has Walsh missed this one? Oh, I think I know the answer to that!

Enlighten us all Mr armchair director sportif!

It's a non story, for years asthmatics have not required a TUE for there inhalers. But if you were all as smart as informed as you proport to be you'd know that.

If all you do is negativity piss off to football.

Correct, below 1,600 micrograms for Salbutamol, above that dose in 24 hours then its a controlled substance - I think it can be used for both a performance enhancement and masking purposes. However, this doesn't get away from the debate around whether asthma in the peloton should be a prevalent as it is thought to be!

But, you're missing the point - the point is: does Froome really have asthma given that its never been mentioned previously? - I believe in his book he explains how he is susceptible to coughs and colds a lot due to his blood parasite condition, but never mentions asthma.

The Walsh reference relates to the fact that he is the ghost-writer of Froome's book, plus has been planted in Sky for various periods and also penned a book about Sky and various press articles! Again, he's never once mentioned Froome's asthma. To some, Walsh is starting to look like a Sky-controlled media outlet! I'm not saying he is, but it all looks a bit cosy!

Regarding not needing a TUE, you are assuming that it was Salbutamol in the inhaler!

Now, if Sky were ever as transparent as they said they would be, we'd already know about Froome's asthma and then I agree, this would be a non-issue.

Their lack of transparency (whilst claiming the opposite) together with their record of not quite telling the truth until they really had to, makes this a real issue!

daddyELVIS wrote:

madonepro wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

giobox wrote:

This appears to be another classic sky PR mess. If they'd been upfront about Froome needing an inhaler this would be a non-story. Surely it was predictable a TV camera would eventually catch sight of him using it? Why not get out in front of the story before it happens?

More to the point, why has Walsh missed this one? Oh, I think I know the answer to that!

Enlighten us all Mr armchair director sportif!

It's a non story, for years asthmatics have not required a TUE for there inhalers. But if you were all as smart as informed as you proport to be you'd know that.

If all you do is negativity piss off to football.

Correct, below 1,600 micrograms for Salbutamol, above that dose in 24 hours then its a controlled substance - I think it can be used for both a performance enhancement and masking purposes. However, this doesn't get away from the debate around whether asthma in the peloton should be a prevalent as it is thought to be!

But, you're missing the point - the point is: does Froome really have asthma given that its never been mentioned previously? - I believe in his book he explains how he is susceptible to coughs and colds a lot due to his blood parasite condition, but never mentions asthma.

The Walsh reference relates to the fact that he is the ghost-writer of Froome's book, plus has been planted in Sky for various periods and also penned a book about Sky and various press articles! Again, he's never once mentioned Froome's asthma. To some, Walsh is starting to look like a Sky-controlled media outlet! I'm not saying he is, but it all looks a bit cosy!

Regarding not needing a TUE, you are assuming that it was Salbutamol in the inhaler!

Now, if Sky were ever as transparent as they said they would be, we'd already know about Froome's asthma and then I agree, this would be a non-issue.

Their lack of transparency (whilst claiming the opposite) together with their record of not quite telling the truth until they really had to, makes this a real issue!

But unlike you, I know what medication comes packaged in inhalers, if you people want to insinuate, get your facts right, or get a life...

madonepro wrote:

But unlike you, I know what medication comes packaged in inhalers, if you people want to insinuate, get your facts right, or get a life...

Great, can you tell me exactly what was in Froome's inhaler?

madonepro wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

giobox wrote:

This appears to be another classic sky PR mess. If they'd been upfront about Froome needing an inhaler this would be a non-story. Surely it was predictable a TV camera would eventually catch sight of him using it? Why not get out in front of the story before it happens?

More to the point, why has Walsh missed this one? Oh, I think I know the answer to that!

Enlighten us all Mr armchair director sportif!

It's a non story, for years asthmatics have not required a TUE for there inhalers. But if you were all as smart as informed as you proport to be you'd know that.

If all you do is negativity piss off to football.

Surely a little rich to accuse others of negativity, then ask them to "piss off to football"? Also, if you are going to use fancy french cycling terms like directeur sportif to make you look like you know what you are talking about it helps when you can spell.

Given how well documented Froome's other medical conditions are, it is a little strange that this one came out of the blue. With Sky's past experience with the media, it's a bit of an own goal that they didn't just come out and tell us before this had a chance to become a headline. Then again, given our past experience with Sky's PR mishaps, perhaps it's not so surprising this has happened. This story was entirely predictable, and could have been easily disarmed by just telling people Froome needs an inhaler before it was broadcast on TV.

As for your assertion it's a "non-story", that's evidently wrong. We are commenting on it on a cycling news website.

Yes Chris I know that feeling well. Several times I've gone off to the doctor with limited breathing either due to asthma or chest infections and they've tested me, replied that I'm reading above average perfectly well and then it's been very hard to convince them, because they've not kept records, that my lung function in terms of flow and capacity was at least 25% below my normal.

I think there is still so little understanding of individuals different levels in so many areas of physiology - hence the biological passports programme and even then as seen recently with Henao there is more to be learned.

shay cycles wrote:

If I wrote a book about cycling I doubt the inhaler would get a mention either.

But hey! this is a Team Sky Rider and also one of our own so he must be cheating mustn't he?

This is a pro rider who said in 2013 he is on a "personal mission to show the sport has changed", riding for a self-proclaimed clean team that promised transparency and a zero-tolerance.

And yet he (and his team) failed to recognise the importance of transparency around Froome's asthma? Does Petacchi's ban not ring any bells for them as to why this could be important?

But then, I suppose that was in the dark days - Froome's 'personal mission' seems to consist of winning in the current era which must be clean, well....because....it's the current era - Afterall, Froome has said that he understands why people still question him and his team, but suggests that "the questions should be asked of people who were winning races five-ten years ago when we know doping was more prevalent".

That's transparency for you!

That's why I'm not a Sky fan.

Well using an inhaler in full public view would seem fairly transparent to me.

daddyELVIS wrote:

And yet he (and his team) failed to recognise the importance of transparency around Froome's asthma? Does Petacchi's ban not ring any bells for them as to why this could be important? ..
That's why I'm not a Sky fan.

WADA have completely changed the rules around Salbutamol since Petacchi's ban - in recognition that Salbutamol isn't performance enhancing for anyone who hasn't got asthma, and for asthmatics it is medicinal. That's why you don't even need a TUE for it any more.

If it wasn't salbutamol in the inhaler but another banned substance then he will get tested anyway as leader of the Dauphine. You seem to think the fact he took something openly somehow makes it more suspicious that doing it behind closed doors?

I'm not a Sky fan either. Or a Froome fan.

stumps wrote:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but did The Climb not get released till 5th June and you have read it already ?, there's me thinking you didn't like Sky....

Just making observations

no, not read it. I will at some point, for a good laugh!

stumps wrote:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but did The Climb not get released till 5th June and you have read it already ?, there's me thinking you didn't like Sky....

Just making observations

I'm not a fan of Sky, nor am I a huge fan of Froome.

I have a signed copy of The Climb.

stumps wrote:

I had exercise induced asthma when i played rugby and had an inhaler purely for when i played................oh but i dont ride for Sky though so its true about about me but a load of shite when its about a Sky rider, oh how sad some people are

1. Who said he's lying about having an EIA diagnosis?
2. Weird it isn't mentioned in book about his development from kid to TdF champion.
3. At the point he took a puff, he didn't look like he was suffering, and if he was he recovered well.

just making observations!

daddyELVIS wrote:

3. At the point he took a puff, he didn't look like he was suffering, and if he was he recovered well.

If you get asthma you can often feel it starting before others would notice - and I imagine a professional cyclist is probably more aware than most how his body behaves so even faster to pick it up.

Additionally, Froome probably has a phenomenal lung capacity so even when a bit wheezy probably still performs better than the average person. An attack makes it harder to breathe than it normally is _for that person_. My wife has fairly bad asthma but is fairly fit from cycling and jogging. According to her peak flow results she has better lung capacity than most of Britain even whilst she is having an attack. She feels it is hard to breathe though and has a massive drop from her normal levels.

As for quick recovery - salbutomal (sp?) is amazing stuff. It is really quick acting if you can get it in.