Updated: Team Sky says its policy for the past two seasons is that its riders should not race or train while using the legal but controversial painkiller Tramadol, and believes it should be banned. The team was responding to claims by former rider Michael Barry that he and other Sky riders had used the drug while racing.
In a statement released yesterday, Team Sky said:
None of our riders should ride whilst using Tramadol — that’s the policy of this team.
Team Sky do not give it to riders whilst racing or training, either as a pre-emptive measure or to manage existing pain.
We believe that its side effects, such as dizziness and drowsiness, could cause issues for the safety of all riders.
We also feel that if a rider has the level of severe pain for its appropriate use they should not be riding.
Tramadol is not prohibited by WADA but this has been our firm position for the last two seasons and all medical staff and riders are aware of this.
Our view is that it should be on the WADA list and any appropriate clinical use could be managed through the regulated TUE, or Therapeutic Use Exemption, system.
Barry, who retired in 2012 shortly before it was revealed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) that he had admitted having used EPO while at US Postal, for which he received a six month ban, had made the claim about the use of Tramadol in his new autobiography, Shadows on the Road.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) does not currently included Tramadol on its prohibited list, but in his book the Canadian describes it as being “as performance-enhancing as any banned drug I had taken” and says that “some riders took tramadol every time they raced”.
There are concerns over its potential side-effects, which can include lack of concentration and drowsiness, with Lotto-Belisol team doctor Jan Mathieu blaming it for crashes in the Spring Classics and calling for the drug to be banned and also warning it can be addictive.
In an interview with Jeremy Whittle of The Times [£], Barry said: “I used tramadol at Sky. I never saw it used in training, only in races, where I saw some Sky riders using it frequently.
“The effects are noticeable very quickly. Tramadol made me feel euphoric, but it’s also very hard to focus. It kills the pain in your legs and you can push really hard.
“After I crashed in the Tour de France I was taking it, but I stopped after four days, because it allows you to push beyond your natural pain limit.”
He added: “Tramadol packaging warns against driving or operating machinery, so I can’t see how racing down narrow cobbled lanes at 50km an hour on tramadol can ever be a good thing.”
Teams that are members of the Movement for Credible Cycling (MPCC) have pressed WADA to ban Tramadol, with the anti-doping organisation having told it that “the number of samples containing Tramadol is significant and the very large majority of them originate from cyclists.”
While MPCC members are forbidden from giving their riders Tramadol, there is nothing to stop non-member teams such as Sky or Omega Pharma-Quick Step from doing so as current rules stand, although some might question whether it is in the spirit of the sport.
Last October, Team Sky doctor Alan Farell told Cyclingnews that he backed an appeal from his counterpart at Garmin-Sharp, Prentice Steffen, for Tramadol to be banned both in and out of competition, but admitted that riders on the team had used it during races.
He said it was “an effective pain killer when it’s used in the clinically appropriate scenario. Certainly in our team we would have used it in the past but only when justified.
“We would have prescribed it, very minimally but sometimes if someone had an injury that justified pain killing medication.”
He added: “We would never have used it in training. It’s only a medication that we would have used very minimally and in a supervised environment. I just can’t believe people would use it in a training environment.
“It’s definitely something that we would have as medication within the team but it would only be something that we’d use in the appropriate scenario.”
Barry insists that during his spell with Sky, he never saw banned substances being used.
“I believe Sky is clean,” he maintained. “I know it’s become a cliché but they focus on the little things, as well as having the best riders.
“You have to take into account the little factors and the big factors like budget and riders.
“But I’ve never seen anything to doubt their performances,” he added.

























76 thoughts on “Updated: Team Sky says its riders are not given painkiller Tramadol and it should be banned”
And let the fun commence
And let the fun commence 👿
I’ve had to take Tramadol
I’ve had to take Tramadol after surgery – it’s quite addictive and (dosage dependent) makes you extremely drowsy. Amazing that anyone could ride a bike on it let alone race in a peloton down narrow roads.
Mike_B wrote:I’ve had to take
With you here, I’ve used it also & riding a bike in a high-pressure situation where concentration is paramount, even at the lowest of doses, would be a total nightmare….more than a nightmare, surely nigh impossible!
That said, I could see its attractiveness for managing the likes of DOMS – so I suppose this is a bit grey for some people (personally I think using anything to suppress pain unless you’re injured is wrong, if it’s needed then said person needs to HTFU)
Reminds me of an interview I read recently on the “greyness” surrounding paracetamol use pre-race in Oz and whether or not it should be revisited, again this is grey in that it’s hard to police the justifications for use – such as women using paracetamol for period pain before racing, how would the anti-doping agencies handle something as complicated as this?!
I’m glad I don’t work for these guys (the anti-doping agencies) – must be a complete nightmare.
Is this what Brailsford means
Is this what Brailsford means when he talks about “marginal gains”?
After an operation last year
After an operation last year I was on 30mg codeine for a few days and was completely spaced out. Riding a bike on cobbles like that? Lethal.
I’m sorry, where is the story
I’m sorry, where is the story here? Cycling team used a legal painkiller. Wow, scoop!
Actual outcome: Barry sells a few extra copies of his kiss ‘n’ tell while providing grist to the hate mill for a team he gladly took a salary from for 2 years.
*applauds ironically*
Him Up North wrote:I’m sorry,
It’s on the WADA watch list actually.
Teams abuse it (not just cycling as well) it’s not always for a therapeutic use.
http://inrng.com/2014/04/tramadol/ is a very good article on the matter.
Him Up North wrote:I’m sorry,
+1.
Barry retired in 2012 so this is surely old (or non) news. Alan Farrell, who supports a ban, didn’t join Sky until mid way through that season, presumably after Leinders departed.
The comment that Sky are clean because he didn’t see anything is bollocks. We all know of riders who are clean but see zero evidence of teammates who are later banned for doping. Barry previously denied doping himself, I wouldn’t believe a word he says.
The article states: “While MPCC members are forbidden from giving their riders Tramadol, there is nothing to stop non-member teams such as Sky or Omega Pharma-Quick Step from doing so as current rules stand, although some might question whether it is in the spirit of the sport.”
The spirit of the sport? Don’t make me laugh! It’s dog-eat-dog.
Simon E wrote:
The comment
So can I take it from this that you still dont believe anything Tyler Hamilton said in his book about LA and the numerous people surrounding that messy era?
Just a thought…..
Him Up North wrote:I’m sorry,
This is a pretty big story in my book, especially when a full-time Sky doc was calling for the drug to be banned only 6 months ago, said it was only prescribed minimally at Sky for painful injuries, and that if riders needed such a strong pain killer then they shouldn’t be riding!
Oh the Sky bullsh!t just keeps mounting up!
http://m.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-calls-for-tramadol-ban-in-peloton
Super Domestique: while you
Super Domestique: while you shout bullsh&t, its worth remembering that after his crash on stage 1, Geraint Thomas was taking just ibuprofen to get him through the worst of the next few stages. Alan Farrell was the team doctor at the Tour. Now Thomas was in a hell of a lot of pain, if ever a rider was. But just ibuprofen.
Clearly Farrell wasnt prescribing Tramadol for Thomas.
Equally clearly he and the team are being very sparing in how they use it.
Or is that still bullsh&t in your book?
Sim1 wrote:Super Domestique:
This is directed at me why?
I haven’t shouted anything other than non story!
Sim1 wrote:Super Domestique:
This is directed at me why?
I haven’t shouted anything other than non story!
Sim1 wrote:Super Domestique:
This is directed at me why?
I haven’t shouted anything other than non story!
Super Domestique wrote:Sim1
This is directed at me why?
I haven’t shouted anything other than non story!— Sim1
Oh no! I cant read! It was DaddyElvis.
Sorry, Super Dom….
‘ =D> myself’
Sim1 wrote:Super Domestique
This is directed at me why?
I haven’t shouted anything other than non story!— Super Domestique
Oh no! I cant read! It was DaddyElvis.
Sorry, Super Dom….
‘ =D> myself’— Sim1
Superdom bought Bernie Eisels old bike, so I can’t see him jumping on that bandwagon without thinking about it first! 😀
Sim1 wrote:Clearly Farrell
Correct. My stash is my stash…Bitch!
Oh, you mean….ah right, carry on…
Sim1 wrote:
Or is that still
Sky are full of Bull, or at least DB and his PR team are – starting with the huge dossier they drew up before the team was launched, which spouted all kinds of new-age ethics such as not employing doctors with existing links to cycling – didn’t take long to break this rule, and boy did they break it spectacularly!
It’s the new pot belge. Pain
It’s the new pot belge. Pain killers to deaden the pain in the legs, then mixed with caffeine to re sharpen the reflexes. The original pot belge used morphine and amphetamine to do the same thing. Nothing ever really changes 😀
This comes back to my point
This comes back to my point made elsewhere. If it isn’t banned and it is effective it will be used. I believe that most Pro’s are sailing close to the wind when it comes to drugs.
When Team Sky were founded it
When Team Sky were founded it I was hoping they would set new standards for racing cleanly and fairly, but it appears that ethically they are no different to most teams. Whilst not breaking any rules they disregard their riders health and it’s only a small step from taking Tramadol to popping other illegal drugs.
NeilG83 wrote:it’s only a
Really? It’s only a small step from taking a legal drug that’s not on a doping list to illegal ones that are?
I don’t really see the story here TBH.
Chuck wrote:NeilG83
The misuse of a opiate based painkiller is the story.
glynr36 wrote:Chuck
The misuse of a opiate based painkiller is the story.— NeilG83
Yeah, if you assume ‘use’ and ‘misuse’ are the same thing.
Chuck wrote:glynr36
The misuse of a opiate based painkiller is the story.— Chuck
Yeah, if you assume ‘use’ and ‘misuse’ are the same thing.— NeilG83
The way I see it, and from a few other articles I’ve read.
Use = injured rider using them
Misuse = uninjured rider using them either usually under the guise of a ‘finishing bottle’ to push on harder.
It’s not to dissimilar to the ‘use’ of cortisol for saddle sores.
Take away the grey area, make riders and teams need to get a TUE for tramadol.
Chuck wrote:glynr36
The misuse of a opiate based painkiller is the story.— Chuck
Yeah, if you assume ‘use’ and ‘misuse’ are the same thing.— NeilG83
Really see where you are coming from Chuck.
Another non story opportunity for a heap of speculation and accusation.
NeilG83 wrote:When Team Sky
I agree, I took paracetamol for a headache at the weekend, and will be buying EPO later today. :^o
Hang on, read the article again, this sounds like BS. The issue here isn’t that Tramadol was used – it’s a legit painkiller, to be prescribed only by a doc – of which the team has one (or more). The issue is that the doc says it was only used in ‘clinically appropriate scenarios’, while Barry says some riders took it before every race.
Now, in one breath MB says that Tramadol is as performance-enhancing as anything else he’s taken, and that some riders use it every race, and then in another breath says that Sky are racing clean. Well, which is it? Are riders taking it un-necessarily and gaining a performance advantage, or aren’t they?
Or, is it:
1. Ex-rider has book to sell, slings dirt at avowedly ‘clean’ team – score one for book sales.
2. Ex-rider doesn’t want to be sued by the team, so then contradicts himself with non-inflammatory statement that team is clean
3. The damage is done, because the headlines (which will lead to book sales) will focus on the former, not the latter (see top of this page for example)
Otherwise, surely his scoop would be “I used Tramadol, it’s really performance enhancing, loads of the guys are on it regularly, therefore the only conclusion I can reach is that the performances aren’t clean”?!
Does anyone know where i can
Does anyone know where i can get some?
Asking for a friend.
Have Sky issued a statement
Have Sky issued a statement yet?
ColT wrote:Have Sky issued a
Why the fu*k would Sky issue a statement about the use of a legal painkiller ? Do we need a statement when Froome uses a Vic inhaler or takes a paracetamol . Every teams riders will be taking this it won’t be just Sky
ratattat wrote:
Why the fu*k
Because yet again, there is a conflict between official Sky statements (team doc saying it is used minimally to manage pain from injuries, and agreeing that it should be a banned substance) and the reality (if Barry is telling the truth and hasn’t been misquoted) – i.e. that he saw some Sky riders using it regularly.
Also, not every team’s riders will be taking this drug – for starters MPCC members have banned it. That’s not to say all their riders will adhere to their self-imposed ban, but there is a recognition by a large number of teams that this drug is widely used for performance-enhancement, which is against the spirit of the rules (note Barry says it is as performance enhancing as any other drug he’s taken).
Regarding a statement from Sky whenever Froome uses an inhaler, etc – what I would like to see from the clean, ethical Sky is a full list of all their TUE’s – that would go a long way to revealing just how ethical they really are.
daddyELVIS wrote:Regarding a
The answer to this would be the same as all the other teams; marginally ethical.
Back in the 90s 2 Aussies, Pate and Hall, won the gold and bronze at the world sprint championships, then got done for steroids. Because of the racing format, Fabrice Colas, the French silver medalist, couldn’t take the gold, only the silver.
At the time I remember Cycling Weekly say that “in a subsequent interview Colas demonstrated how thin the line in taking illegal drugs was by listing a string of medication he was taking that would have been as beneficial”.
I think that thin line is even thinner today than 20 years ago.
ratattat wrote:ColT
Alright, calm down, FFS. I asked the question with my tongue firmly stuck in my cheek.
Then again, why not issue a statement to confirm/deny/clarify/whatever? Transparency and all that.
ColT wrote:ratattat
As it happens they did..
ratattat wrote:ColT
As it happens they did..— ColT
Indeed. Now, why the fu*k would they have done that? 😉
Where is a list of all the
Where is a list of all the pro teams that use it?
Just curious to see how much of this is really news or how much is news as its team sky.
Also, when it says
‘in his
Also, when it says
‘in his book Barry describes it as being “as performance-enhancing as any banned drug I had taken” and says that “some riders took tramadol every time they raced”.’
It doesn’t say those were team sky riders does it? I do believe he rode with other teams during his career and taking it further, it says other ‘riders’ not ‘team mates’
Purely going on the article. I’ve not read the book.
No… i can see why a Sky
No… i can see why a Sky doctor would ask for something he knew his riders to be taking to be banned… it does come back to ethics.
What do people want in a clean team sky? Are they happy with the team steering clear of illegal drugs/practices or do they need to also steer clear of anything legal that some people might find questionable?
I am perfectly comfortable that Sky are playing with a straight bat, however that bat may sometimes be a bit ugly.
We’ve all heard the rumours of sleeping pills being used to aid weight loss? Go training, eat your recovery meal and then knock yourself out on pills until tomorrow… stops you eating and maximises recovery time. Its nasty, but it works.
If it’s nothing why are the
If it’s nothing why are the (supposed?) team sky fans feeling the need to dismiss / defend the use of it…
No worries Sim
No worries Sim
^
I’m sure it ensures
^ :))
I’m sure it ensures you’re a hit with the laydees, Superdom 😉
Sim1 wrote:^
I’m sure it
Well my wife now has a road bike if that counts!
The NHS website says Tramadol
The NHS website says Tramadol is for Pain and Severe Pain, most of Team Sky will be in Severe pain during their ride, so using it before every race is not misuse. I take codeine before a ride if I am doing 40+ miles otherwise my back kills.
spence129 wrote:The NHS
A pain killer is not for pain like that, cycling is not severe pain in the slightest.
If you’re popping codeine before every ride I’d take a serious look at your bike fit and do some work on flexibility and core, much better for you than depending on a opiate based drug which long term is not that good for you.
Is it reasonable for us to
Is it reasonable for us to ask for your medical history? No? Personal info and all that, so why is it ok to demand this from athletes?
notfastenough wrote:Is it
Not got a problem with anyone seeing my medical history – apart from a few stiches and a minor back injury from rugby, there’s nothing much else to see.
Why would an athlete have an issue with their TUE’s being made public, unless it became apparent that athletes have more allergies and conditions requiring medication than the average person?
daddyELVIS
I do see where you’re coming from, but the “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear” argument really doesn’t hold water. I wouldn’t tell you my medical history- nothing illegal or performance enhancing, but there are private matters that I won’t discuss.
I also can’t help noticing that as ever with the “nothing to hide…” debate, it’s not what the subject thinks they need to hide that matters, it’s what the observer thinks the subject needs to hide. Whether that’s refusing to disclose your religion to a fascist government, or your hypothetical multi-allergy-but-clean rider who finds that disclosing their medical history results in a shadow over all their performances.
notfastenough
I do see where you’re coming from, but the “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear” argument really doesn’t hold water. I wouldn’t tell you my medical history- nothing illegal or performance enhancing, but there are private matters that I won’t discuss.
I also can’t help noticing that as ever with the “nothing to hide…” debate, it’s not what the subject thinks they need to hide that matters, it’s what the observer thinks the subject needs to hide. Whether that’s refusing to disclose your religion to a fascist government, or your hypothetical multi-allergy-but-clean rider who finds that disclosing their medical history results in a shadow over all their performances.— notfastenough
…except Sky were formed on the basis of clean cycling and ethics, and they were the ones who spouted about the need for transparency. In the wake of the Armstrong scandal why are Sky not pushing for real, honest debate on the doping issue.
If they were as clean and ethical as they say then they would have everything to gain from total transparency and by starting the debate – I dare say you could class it as another ‘marginal gain’ as suspicion and pressure would mount on those teams who refused to follow Sky’s lead.
In reality, they only make statements on doping / ethics when an adverse story breaks. They seem to be about PR and damage limitation than true transparency. If they are against Tramadol use as much as today’s statement suggests, why have they not been publically vocal about the issue?
It is an established fact that lots of riders are taking it during races – if the side effects are as Sky believe them to be, then by not publically demanding that this drug be banned they are endangering their own riders by asking them to ride in a peloton high on Tramadol.
There was a very good article
There was a very good article in today’s Times about all this. Made a very good point of exactly where do you draw the line on “drugs”? What is and isn’t a drug?
And to be honest, when I was on Tramadol (fractured pelvis) it wiped me out totally; on the odd occasions I was awake I was barely able to string a sentence together so if anyone can race a bike on it they’re doing better than me! Although it’s obviously something to do with opiates since both morphine and codeine have very similar effects to Tramadol on me.
Why has Sky still not signed
Why has Sky still not signed up to the MPCC?
netclectic wrote:Why has Sky
The only applicable question here…why indeed?
Velo News has Team Sky’s
Velo News has Team Sky’s statement on the matter http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/04/news/sky-avoids-barry-allegations-says-current-riders-dont-use-tramadol_325617
Euphoric, I have been
Euphoric, I have been prescribed Tramadol, never found it to be, but in in other users maybe that’s the case. When I have had lower back pain it is an effective drug. However never wanted to ride a bike with those circumstances it would be irresponsible. I find it difficult to understand why pro riders would want to?
This is the Sky
This is the Sky statement:
None of our riders should ride whilst using Tramadol — that’s the policy of this team.
Team Sky do not give it to riders whilst racing or training, either as a pre-emptive measure or to manage existing pain.
We believe that its side effects, such as dizziness and drowsiness, could cause issues for the safety of all riders.
We also feel that if a rider has the level of severe pain for its appropriate use they should not be riding.
Tramadol is not prohibited by WADA but this has been our firm position for the last two seasons and all medical staff and riders are aware of this.
Our view is that it should be on the WADA list and any appropriate clinical use could be managed through the regulated TUE, or Therapeutic Use Exemption, system.
So there you go, another non story to try and sell a few more books. It may have been taken in 2010 but it was not banned then and it isnt now. Unless of course your one of the people who see conspiracy in everything Sky do, sad i know but you will always get people like that.
stumps wrote:This is the Sky
This doesn’t quite tie in with what the Sky doc said in Oct 2013:
“Asked if Team Sky used Tramadol during this year’s Tour de France, Farrell said that he could not disclose the medical histories of his riders but he would say that, “if we used it for an injury it would have always been with the riders’ health and safety paramount. Any time we used it, it would have been with the best clinical guidelines and thinking of the riders’ safety.”
“I can’t say who it would have been used with but we would have used it throughout the year for any moderate to severe injury if pain warranted it. It’s certainly something that we would have used in the past but very minimally. It’s something that we’d want to use in the future in order to provide adequate pain relief.”
Team transparency, yes, but
Team transparency, yes, but that doesn’t equate to telling individuals “if you ride for us, you forfeit your inalienable right to medical privacy”
notfastenough wrote:Team
Given the sports past, I think it only reasonable that riders are asked to waive that right. Its the only way to restore trust. Fair? Maybe not, but that’s the reality of the situation.
giobox wrote:notfastenough
Ok, so let’s say they waive that right. Rider x takes y substance for control of condition z. You think that would prevent a shadow from forming over that rider? Sorry but we’ve seen time and again that this isn’t the case. Chris Froome’s Bilharzia (spelling?), that long-standing virus that was dogging JTL (notwithstanding the wider investigations regarding him, obviously). Rumours abound. Sure, it would be interesting to know, but I really don’t think it solves anything.
That depends what the TUE is for. Let’s take a different tack. How about embarassing medical stuff? Female rider x is taking IVF drugs to help her become pregnant. Do the sport’s challenges justify the rest of us knowing that her and her partner can’t have kids? This stuff can be a major cause of stress and depression – you really think the rest of us have the right to know? In fact, let’s assume we do that. Then some joker posts on the internet that IVF drug x could somehow enhance performance – next thing you know, that rider’s stresses are just piling up; can’t have kids, needs fertility treatment, AND accused of being a doper! Sorry no, the only people privy to that info, and deciding whether it’s performance enhancing (and therefore remove the rider from the racing programme) are the doctors.
There could always be
There could always be agreement on exclusions, e.g. STD’s – but come on, saddle sores, asthma, hay fever, hormonal disorders – I bet these feature heavily in the peloton as conditions requiring TUE’s. And it would be telling if these conditions were represented within the peloton to a greater extent than in normal society.
How can any sport be serious about fighting doping if it can’t show that the TUE system isn’t being abused?
notfastenough wrote:Team
Listing TUE’s is hardly a massive invasion of privacy.
Surely, a public list of TUE’s such as: ‘Rider-X takes a certain drug under a TUE for asthma’, or ‘Rider-Y has applied a certain cream under a TUE for saddle sores’ is not unreasonable given that we are apparently in a new era of clean cycling.
Sky never shut-up about Froome’s medical history!
I guessing that if we had full knowledge of current TUE’s in issue in the pro peloton we would be shocked by both the number and the recurrence of certain conditions.
This has always been my
This has always been my biggest worry when you look at the performances of some of sky’s riders. Given their resources it is easy to imagine them being able to take advantages of practices that whilst technically legal and within the rules, go against the spirit of the sport and the spirit of the rules.
To me this seems a much more likely problem than US Postal style team doping programs.
They might do, and I can’t
They might do, and I can’t say those riders are clean, but you know what? If I sat on a saddle for 5 hours a day, and rode through the countryside a lot when the pollen is high, I might need a. saddle sore cream, and b. hay fever meds. That doesn’t mean I’m doping. I’m not saying that other riders aren’t doping, I’m saying that we as the public don’t get to sit there behind a keyboard and just arbitrarily decide whether a rider is clean or not based on these things. What you’re advocating is a massive over-simplification of the medical issues that can affect a person.
Put it another way: Running a country is, I suspect, massively complex. Part of the problem affecting politics is that policiticans want votes, and everything is aired in public for consumption by lowest-common-denominator media like the Daily Mail. This causes the politicos to make stupid decisions based on knee-jerk reactions, easy vote-winners, and no incentive to think beyond the next election. So you take a complex subject, but apply dumbass decisions driven by heckling from the public who understand very little of the issues.
When you ask if particular conditions are over-represented in the peloton, that’s statistics. Statistics only work across a dataset. Any individual can be different – cleverer, stronger, weaker, big feet, small thumbs. You can’t reasonably apply statistics to assume the worst of anyone who falls outside the norm, or you might as well cry ‘witch!’ and start burning people at the stake.
As an aside, there was a lot of talk about both (IIRC) Steve Redgrave and Paula Radcliffe – I think they might be diabetic and asthmatic respectively. Thoughts?
I do a bit of jogging and
I do a bit of jogging and cycling and ran a lot in my younger days. One running event I went to, the winner was stripped of the title for a banned substance (1992 comrades mararthon) and at the time a medical person said in an interview that if they checked every participant, most of the field would actually be disqualified, typically due to over the counter drugs! Anyway, I never felt my performance ehnanced (even now), but then again I aint no pro!!!!
Sky just cant be trusted. In
Sky just cant be trusted. In addition to this I have heard that they ride in black to power solar cells that drive a small electric motor to power the cranks. That’s why Rapha changed the branding of the material from Fuel Black to Cool Black. This means the electric motors in the crank dont need a battery as this had hampered Cancellara when he was routinely using one…it was to heavy to have a stack of 9v batteries in the seat tube. this is why Sky dont do so well in the Spring classics: not enough sunshine, to much grey Flanderian sky. Come Tour time though and the sunflowers are out and Sky can shoot along. Look at Chris Froome on Ventoux last year (though to be fair he apparently had to switch the power cells to his shorts as was in the yellow jersey). He also apparently powered the electric motor using a dynamo. When he turned the pedals it powered a dynamo that provided electricity that in turn powered the pedals. Thats why he pedals so much faster to escape Quintano, and only does so in a big crowd so people cannot here the whirring. Don’t ask me where I got all this information, but let’s just say ‘I know people’.
brackley88 wrote:S When he
=)) Love it =))
Sky just cant be trusted. In
Sky just cant be trusted. In addition to this I have heard that they ride in black to power solar cells that drive a small electric motor to power the cranks. That’s why Rapha changed the branding of the material from Fuel Black to Cool Black. This means the electric motors in the crank dont need a battery as this had hampered Cancellara when he was routinely using one…it was to heavy to have a stack of 9v batteries in the seat tube. this is why Sky dont do so well in the Spring classics: not enough sunshine, to much grey Flanderian sky. Come Tour time though and the sunflowers are out and Sky can shoot along. Look at Chris Froome on Ventoux last year (though to be fair he apparently had to switch the power cells to his shorts as was in the yellow jersey). He also apparently powered the electric motor using a dynamo. When he turned the pedals it powered a dynamo that provided electricity that in turn powered the pedals. Thats why he pedals so much faster to escape Quintano, and only does so in a big crowd so people cannot here the whirring. Don’t ask me where I got all this information, but let’s just say ‘I know people’.
I don’t want to add any fuel
I don’t want to add any fuel to the Team Sky doping suspicions argument, and I really have nothing against the team or how they race, but I have a couple of comments related to this story.
The first is the very premise of “marginal gains” employed by Sky and many other top level teams. Conceptually, they would use the most expansive definition of legal means to improve performance, despite ethical or long-term health risks. Whether it is the (non)homologation of the Olympic time trial bikes or the alleged use of Tramadol, it’s all about bending the rules to find better performance. It shouldn’t be surprising when these stories break, as pushing legal boundaries is the core of the marginal gains ethos. Heck, even the Garmin doctor looked into the benefits and risks of Tramadol.
Secondly, the PR response by Sky is curiously crafted. In “None of our riders should ride whilst using Tramadol”, by using the word “should” instead of “do”, it may imply that team riders continue to use Tramadol, just not under direction by the team. My impression is that the PR response was crafted by the legal department to protect the team management and put all of the responsibility for Tramadol use on the riders. Anyway, just my two cents.
What a shame – no more inane
What a shame – no more inane smiling as Sky drags a resentful group up those long long climbs . . .
I cant be bothered to trawl
I cant be bothered to trawl through all these comments so would just like to ask if anyone has mentioned caffeine yet?
A very powerful stimulant and performance enhancer but perfectly legal and one that probably each and everyone of us uses on a daily basis.
If caffeine landed from outer space tomorrow i am sure it would be banned. Its probably no more or less ‘dangerous’ than Tramadol
Some Fella wrote:I cant be
Perhaps you should have read the article:
And you’re not suppose to drive or operate heavy machinery whilst taking it.
I see most of you are still
I see most of you are still in denial…
Do you think if I broke out
Do you think if I broke out the co-codamol on the chainy it wouldn’t hurt so much?
On the subject of caffiene –
On the subject of caffiene – I think it’s banned over certain quantities by the UCI isn’t it? Might be wrong but I’m sure I heard that recently.
I can has espresso. I can not has three. :*(
mooleur wrote:On the subject
It used to be up until about about 6-7 years ago I think, not anymore though.
stuke wrote:mooleur wrote:On
It used to be up until about about 6-7 years ago I think, not anymore though.— mooleur
AHHH sweeeet *nails the second espresso* 😀
I am stunned that this drug
I am stunned that this drug is not on banned list! I have worked here in Ulster with Addict services & Tramadol has long been a problem !! 😕 !!