Team Sky’s Chris Froome could be stripped of the Vuelta title he won in September and faces a potentially lengthy ban after testing positive for excessive levels of an anti-asthma drug during the Spanish race.
News of the failed drugs test was broken by the Guardian and French newspaper Le Monde following a joint investigation, and has subsequently been confirmed by world cycling’s governing body, the UCI, and by Team Sky.
The anti-doping control, conducted on 7 September after Stage 18 of the Vuelta, found that the 32-year-old had twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug, Salbutamol, in his urine.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) permits athletes to use the drug provided the level does not exceed 1,000 nanograms per millilitre. No therapeutic use exemption (TUE) is required.
But Froome, who in July secured his fourth Tour de France victory in five years before going on to claim victory in Spain, returned a reading of 2,000 nanograms per millilitre.
Both the rider, who used the drug with an inhaler to treat his asthma, and Team Sky are adamant he did not exceed the dose permitted under WADA rules, which is a maximum of 1,600 micrograms (mcg) over a period of 24 hours and no more than 800mcg over 12 hours.
Froome was notified of the adverse analytical finding on 20 September. Later that day he won the bronze medal in the individual time trial at the UCI Road World Championships in Bergen, Norway.
Analysis of his B sample confirmed the results of the A sample, and the UCI said that “the proceedings are being conducted in line with the UCI anti-doping rules.”
It added: “Pursuant to article 7.9.1. of the UCI anti-doping rules, the presence of a specified substance such as Salbutamol in a sample does not result in the imposition of such mandatory provisional suspension against the rider.”
In a statement, Team Sky said that due to Froome’s asthma getting worse in the final week of the Vuelta, he increased his dosage of Salbutamol on the advice of the team doctor, but within the permitted level.
It added: “The notification of the test finding does not mean that any rule has been broken. The finding triggers requests from the UCI which are aimed at establishing what caused the elevated concentration of Salbutamol and to ensure that no more than the permissible doses of Salbutamol were inhaled.”
Froome said: “It is well known that I have asthma and I know exactly what the rules are. I use an inhaler to manage my symptoms (always within the permissible limits) and I know for sure that I will be tested every day I wear the race leader’s jersey.
“My asthma got worse at the Vuelta so I followed the team doctor’s advice to increase my Salbutamol dosage. As always, I took the greatest care to ensure that I did not use more than the permissible dose.”
He added: “I take my leadership position in my sport very seriously. The UCI is absolutely right to examine test results and, together with the team, I will provide whatever information it requires.”
Sir Dave Brailsford, team principal at Team Sky, said: “There are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. We’re committed to establishing the facts and understanding exactly what happened on this occasion.
I have the utmost confidence that Chris followed the medical guidance in managing his asthma symptoms, staying within the permissible dose for Salbutamol. Of course, we will do whatever we can to help address these questions.”
That Froome uses an inhaler to treat his asthma has been public knowledge for several years. In 2014, he was shown using one during Stage 2 of the Critérium du Dauphiné.
He said at the time: “I have had an inhaler since childhood, I have exercise induced asthma. It is ok. I didn’t need a TUE.
“I don’t use (the inhaler) every time I race, normally only when I have a big effort coming up.
“Given sports history, people are obviously looking for a reason. There’s no reason to make a big deal out. It’s completely allowed by the UCI.
“It’s a bit of a surprise everyone is talking about it,” he added.
The attention that today’s news will bring is less surprising, with Froome at the very top of the sport having won four Tour de France titles and now the Vuelta.
He has said he plans to ride the Giro d’Italia in May as he seeks a third consecutive victory in a Grand Tour, before attempting to win the Tour de France for a record-equalling fifth time.
All of those plans are now in doubt, as is the question of whether Froome will keep his Vuelta title and even if he is found not to be at fault, he could still be handed a ban.
Meanwhile the news alone of the failed test will not only damage Froome’s reputation but also further tarnish the image of Team Sky in the wake of the recent UK Anti-doping investigation.
Riders including Alessandro Petacchi and Diego Ulissi in 2014 have received bans in the past for excessive levels of Salbutamol after failing to satisfy the authorities that they remained within the permitted dosage.
Petacchi, who was found to have a reading of 1,320 nanograms per millilitre at the Giro d’Italia in 2007, was banned for a year, although the Court of Arbitration for Sport was clear that he did not intend to cheat.
Ulissi, with a result of 1,920 nanograms per millilitre at the 2014 Giro d’Italia, got a nine-month ban.
However, Leonardo Piepoli, who tested positive for the drug during the same edition of the Giro d’Italia as Petacchi with 1,800 nanograms per millilitre, escaped sanction.
Last year, Simon Yates missed the Tour de France after he was banned for four months after testing positive for excessive levels of another anti-asthma drug, Terbutaline.
The doctor at his Orica-GreenEdge team had failed to apply for a TUE to permit the British rider to use the drug, and while the UCI ruled that it was a non-intentional anti-doping rule violation, it still imposed the ban.
80 thoughts on “Chris Froome faces ban and losing Vuelta title after failed drugs test”
The anti-Froome guy on here
The anti-Froome guy on here will be shooting his load right now.
Damn you Froome, just when people were starting to believe again.
If Froome going positive in
If Froome going positive in the middle of a grand tour isn’t going to change your mind about Sky, then its time to admit nothing will.
It’s all very well to say “oh but they push the rules to the limit”, but they can’t then complain when they’re caught 100% over the line.
I’m just baffled that so many
I’m just baffled that so many procyclists appear to suffer from asthma
simonmb wrote:
Very common in high end athletes – not just cyclists.
But can he still win SPOTY?
But can he still win SPOTY?
Somewhere in the world a
Somewhere in the world a laptop is being stolen…
I’m no Dr, I’ll happily admit that, but I find this a bit troubling:
“In a statement, Team Sky said that due to Froome’s asthma getting worse in the final week of the Vuelta, he increased his dosage of Salbutamol on the advice of the team doctor, but within the permitted level.”
Surely, if an activity is aggrevating a medical condition then the best course of action would be to pack it in and retire from the race? Not increase the dosage of your meds? I totally get the mindset of an athlete in a winning position but this does not strike me as sound medical advice.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
History says that the money and the winning will trump good medical advice. A recent case was Phil Jones getting 6 pain killing injections before the England game. Tantamount to physical abuse.
His asthma getting worse probably means that his breathing was getting a little more laboured and extra dosage may have helped. But in essence, yes, he should probably been told to get off the bike as he’d be getting into dodgy territory on the old doping scale.
Hopefully nothing will be found an there will be no case to answer which will clearly prove innocence.
don simon wrote:
What has been said cannot be unsaid…
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Asthma is something you live with. If I’m wheezing and need three puffs instead of one, I don’t just pack in the ride and get off the bike. Thats not how it works.
I believe Froome is a rider of integrity but I doubt Team Sky’s doctors / managements ethics. I can see a scenario where they crossed into a grey area believing a particular level of dosage wouldn’t register in a test so advised Chris to go over the recommended limit.
McVittees wrote:
Surely, if an activity is aggrevating a medical condition then the best course of action would be to pack it in and retire from the race? Not increase the dosage of your meds? I totally get the mindset of an athlete in a winning position but this does not strike me as sound medical advice.
— McVittees
Asthma is something you live with. If I’m wheezing and need three puffs instead of one, I don’t just pack in the ride and get off the bike. Thats not how it works.
I believe Froome is a rider of integrity but I doubt Team Sky’s doctors / managements ethics. I can see a scenario where they crossed into a grey area believing a particular level of dosage wouldn’t register in a test so advised Chris to go over the recommended limit.
— Rapha Nadal
Yeah, I get that as I’m Type 1 diabetic and just have to get on with it much in the same way as you have to.
However, neither you nor I are professional cyclists (I assume) who have a calendar/season/future major races to prepare for and we can have the next week off if we feel a bit under the weather. For the longer term rider health, and race plans, I would be of the opinion that a rider should be pulled from the race if he’s requiring a boost in meds or struggling because of a condition.
To be honest; I thought it’d be the hidden motor that got him, not this!
Rapha Nadal wrote:
I’m T1 too and though not a pro, certainly push the limits. I had been super-careful leading up to my Ventoux trip and I’m not quite sure what got me be I awoke in the hotel about 4am doused in sweat, lying on the floor, facing the wrong way. I was in a total mess. It didn’t stop me though, I fuelled up and carried on a little gingerly, I’m sure you can relate to how my body felt before I even started.
The point being, hidden somewhere in there, that if you have a long term condition you learn to live with it but also don;t want to succumb to it. So if Froome usually had lets say 8 puffs a day that usually returned 800 in order to stay below the limit, maybe he had 10 anticipating it would take him to the limit. The problem being it isn’t an exact science. I’ve started a ride with sugars around 10mmol expecting the ride to reduce the levels but the body can go into ‘shock’ and start pulling sugar stores and increasing them…
alansmurphy wrote:
Yeah, I get that as I’m Type 1 diabetic and just have to get on with it much in the same way as you have to.
However, neither you nor I are professional cyclists (I assume) who have a calendar/season/future major races to prepare for and we can have the next week off if we feel a bit under the weather. For the longer term rider health, and race plans, I would be of the opinion that a rider should be pulled from the race if he’s requiring a boost in meds or struggling because of a condition.
To be honest; I thought it’d be the hidden motor that got him, not this!
— alansmurphy
I’m T1 too and though not a pro, certainly push the limits. I had been super-careful leading up to my Ventoux trip and I’m not quite sure what got me be I awoke in the hotel about 4am doused in sweat, lying on the floor, facing the wrong way. I was in a total mess. It didn’t stop me though, I fuelled up and carried on a little gingerly, I’m sure you can relate to how my body felt before I even started.
The point being, hidden somewhere in there, that if you have a long term condition you learn to live with it but also don;t want to succumb to it. So if Froome usually had lets say 8 puffs a day that usually returned 800 in order to stay below the limit, maybe he had 10 anticipating it would take him to the limit. The problem being it isn’t an exact science. I’ve started a ride with sugars around 10mmol expecting the ride to reduce the levels but the body can go into ‘shock’ and start pulling sugar stores and increasing them…
— Rapha Nadal
I’ve been waiting for you to arrive…
What you’re describing there is a hypo (not meant to be patronising btw). And a bad one at that. Imagine if that had occured on Ventoux. I can’t remember the last time I had a severe hypo (T1 for 33 years now) to the levels you’ve outlined but I sure as hell wouldn’t go riding up Ventoux straight after! Funny how the body wakes you in a time of crisis though, isn’t it. When I was younger, my Dad found me UNDER my bed one nght after a particularly bad hypo!
Indeed, and as said previously, we learn to live with our conditions and get on with it. However, there comes a point where comon sense should prevail over a Dr just telling you to increase a dosage of a particular medicine instead of retiring from a race on medical grounds – quite literally no shame in doing that. Tim Wellens did it in this years Tour if a recall correctly. I don’t feel that it’s the right advice for a medically trained and, one assumes, qualified person to be giving. I’m sure that team Dr still has a duty of care to patients in his/her care.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
I’m T1 too and though not a pro, certainly push the limits. I had been super-careful leading up to my Ventoux trip and I’m not quite sure what got me be I awoke in the hotel about 4am doused in sweat, lying on the floor, facing the wrong way. I was in a total mess. It didn’t stop me though, I fuelled up and carried on a little gingerly, I’m sure you can relate to how my body felt before I even started.
The point being, hidden somewhere in there, that if you have a long term condition you learn to live with it but also don;t want to succumb to it. So if Froome usually had lets say 8 puffs a day that usually returned 800 in order to stay below the limit, maybe he had 10 anticipating it would take him to the limit. The problem being it isn’t an exact science. I’ve started a ride with sugars around 10mmol expecting the ride to reduce the levels but the body can go into ‘shock’ and start pulling sugar stores and increasing them…
— alansmurphy
I’ve been waiting for you to arrive…
What you’re describing there is a hypo (not meant to be patronising btw). And a bad one at that. Imagine if that had occured on Ventoux. I can’t remember the last time I had a severe hypo (T1 for 33 years now) to the levels you’ve outlined but I sure as hell wouldn’t go riding up Ventoux straight after! Funny how the body wakes you in a time of crisis though, isn’t it. When I was younger, my Dad found me UNDER my bed one nght after a particularly bad hypo!
Indeed, and as said previously, we learn to live with our conditions and get on with it. However, there comes a point where comon sense should prevail over a Dr just telling you to increase a dosage of a particular medicine instead of retiring from a race on medical grounds – quite literally no shame in doing that. Tim Wellens did it in this years Tour if a recall correctly. I don’t feel that it’s the right advice for a medically trained and, one assumes, qualified person to be giving. I’m sure that team Dr still has a duty of care to patients in his/her care.— Rapha Nadal
If you look at American sports – baseball, football and basketball – you will see that the team doctors first allegiance is suppose to be to the team owner not the athletes. In fact some of them have been caught allegedly over prescribing prescription pain killers to keep players on the pitch/field when injured leading to the players being addicted and then overdosing.
It is also why in football in England that Eve Carneiro got sexually insulted by José Mourinho as she put the health of the individual players first rather than the team peformance.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
I’m T1 too and though not a pro, certainly push the limits. I had been super-careful leading up to my Ventoux trip and I’m not quite sure what got me be I awoke in the hotel about 4am doused in sweat, lying on the floor, facing the wrong way. I was in a total mess. It didn’t stop me though, I fuelled up and carried on a little gingerly, I’m sure you can relate to how my body felt before I even started.
The point being, hidden somewhere in there, that if you have a long term condition you learn to live with it but also don;t want to succumb to it. So if Froome usually had lets say 8 puffs a day that usually returned 800 in order to stay below the limit, maybe he had 10 anticipating it would take him to the limit. The problem being it isn’t an exact science. I’ve started a ride with sugars around 10mmol expecting the ride to reduce the levels but the body can go into ‘shock’ and start pulling sugar stores and increasing them…
— alansmurphy
I’ve been waiting for you to arrive…
What you’re describing there is a hypo (not meant to be patronising btw). And a bad one at that. Imagine if that had occured on Ventoux. I can’t remember the last time I had a severe hypo (T1 for 33 years now) to the levels you’ve outlined but I sure as hell wouldn’t go riding up Ventoux straight after! Funny how the body wakes you in a time of crisis though, isn’t it. When I was younger, my Dad found me UNDER my bed one nght after a particularly bad hypo!
Indeed, and as said previously, we learn to live with our conditions and get on with it. However, there comes a point where comon sense should prevail over a Dr just telling you to increase a dosage of a particular medicine instead of retiring from a race on medical grounds – quite literally no shame in doing that. Tim Wellens did it in this years Tour if a recall correctly. I don’t feel that it’s the right advice for a medically trained and, one assumes, qualified person to be giving. I’m sure that team Dr still has a duty of care to patients in his/her care.
— Rapha Nadal
Your control must beat mine hands down. With 3 young kids (going back a decade) and a wife working nights unspent many years in a ‘comfort’ zone running high. This has meant neuropathy in the feet and sight issues and I’m now targeted to keep between 4-6mmol which is a ridiculously small window, I spend a considerable amount of time on the hypo limit I’m afraid. Probably stupid riding up but it was the final day of the trip, whether it contributed to my demise on the descent who knows, still wouldn’t change it.
I suppose my point was that if Froome has dealt with this a long time he’ll have coping strategies as anyone with a LTC will. If he’s been advised to take x% more or a supplementary drug that has had an impact it’s likely to be bad luck or a genuine mistake. If he was being tested every day and all others are correct you have to wonder, if they were trying to cheat, how they cocked up so massively!
McVittees wrote:
This
tonyleatham wrote:
+1
mingmong wrote:
+2
According to the guardian
According to the guardian article there seems to have been a previous case when a rider was significantly over the limit and escaped sanction.
2 other riders received bans.
I don’t really know how Sky can prove he only stuck to the recommended dosage?
I thought they established
I thought they established that asthma medication, well this type, didn’t give any performance advantage?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
As noted somewhere else. Doesn’t it have masking qualities though?
don simon wrote:
Those aren’t the rules though. Sky don’t get to decide what is and isn’t performance enhancing. Remember Contador got stripped of a Tour for clenbuterol, which certainly isn’t.
And to the people attributing it to 3 puffs instead of 1 on an inhaler, come on…
Jackson wrote:
As noted somewhere else. Doesn’t it have masking qualities though?
— don simon Those aren’t the rules though. Sky don’t get to decide what is and isn’t performance enhancing. Remember Contador got stripped of a Tour for clenbuterol, which certainly isn’t. And to the people attributing it to 3 puffs instead of 1 on an inhaler, come on…— Yorkshire wallet
They knew he would be tested Jackson, so if they were going to deliberately cheat would they not have found a better way? Medication doesn’t work in a linear fashion especially when the body is under such physiological stress. Probably why there has not yet been a ban and investigations are happening.
I mean, conspiracy theory time. Maybe they got inhalers from a French pharmacist, would have been better getting them from a trusted source delivered in a jiffy bag… Oh the irony!
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
There have been a couple of studies that claimed it did enhance performance but then still more studies that contradict it. I’m paraphrasing the Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salbutamol#Doping
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Quite, the whole point of allowing it is to bring you into line with someone who does not have asthema. Physical exertion doesn’t restrict your breathing if you don’t have asthema, in CF and many others case it does.
Sky have played the medical
Sky have played the medical necessity card already on Wiggins sketchy injections of steroids into his thighs.
Unfortunately even if this is more innocent the bleating about doctors and asthma again from Brailsford just sounds like the boy who cried wolf and won’t be believed.
It’s unlucky for Froome because any goodwill to believe Sky has already been cashed in.
joshpedal wrote:
It’s not ‘unlucky’. Unfortunate, perhaps. Unsurprising, definitely. But not unlucky. That suggests some degree of luck is involved.
I would be very surprised
I would be very surprised indeed if Froome had deliberately taken over the permitted dose of a medication he is well known to take, when he knows full well that he will be tested for it every day during a grand tour.
I wonder whether there is a metabolic explanation for his blood level being higher than usual for the permitted dose?
Very disappointing news though. 🙁
As for those saying that if you have exercise induced asthma, you should pack in sport rather than use your inhaler within permitted levels… words fail me.
ANd besides, isn’t there no evidence that inhaled Salbutamol increases performance: http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/are-asthma-medicines-unofficial-peds-205512
So are people suggesting that he took it orally? 🙁
DaveE128 wrote:
Who said that?
don simon wrote:
That’s how I understood the following:
DaveE128 wrote:
Just the race and not sport. Which does make sense. But as he said after the stage, he felt fine and definitely wasn’t ill.
Which is strange…
don simon wrote:
The “it” in “pack it in” refers back to “an activity”, i.e. competitive cycling. I took “and retire from the race” as being the explanation of the immediate consequence.
DaveE128 wrote:
That’s how I understood the following:
Surely, if an activity is aggrevating a medical condition then the best course of action would be to pack it in and retire from the race? Not increase the dosage of your meds?
— DaveE128
— don simon
Just the race and not sport. Which does make sense. But as he said after the stage, he felt fine and definitely wasn’t ill.
Which is strange…
— DaveE128
The “it” in “pack it in” refers back to “an activity”, i.e. competitive cycling. I took “and retire from the race” as being the explanation of the immediate consequence.
— Rapha Nadal
if I meant “retire from the sport” then that’s what I would’ve written. Just to clarify.
DaveE128 wrote:
This. If – allowing the cynical interpretation of marginal gains – you’re trying to get the maximum permitted benefit from a medication, you at least make good and sure you stay under the limit!
There is a body of evidence
There is a body of evidence suggesting athletes do suffer from asthma more than the general population. For example, from the IOC:
https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/IOC/Who-We-Are/Commissions/Medical-and-Scientific-Commission/EN-IOC-Consensus-Statement-on-Asthma-in-Elite-Athletes.pdf
One key snippet:
Long-term intense endurance training may be associated with an increased risk of development of airway hyperresponsiveness and asthma in the elite athlete. Environmental factors, such as allergens, chlorine derivatives, pollutants or cold air exposure may contribute to the development of airway inflammation and functional changes. Their penetration into the airways will be enhanced by the high ventilation required during intense exercise. The changes in lung function and airway responsiveness may be at least partly reversible after cessation of long-term endurance training.
The WADA code on Salbutamol use states: “Inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours”
A standard salbutamol inhaler is 100 micrograms per puff. So 800 micrograms in 12h is 8 puffs. Or 4 instances of 2 puffs each time. It’s not a crazy amount over the course of a racing day.
WADA goes on to say: “The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.”
So, now Froome has to go through such a study. If he can demonstrate that 8 puffs in 12h results in urine concentration of 2000ng/mL, then he’s off the hook.
“It’s a bit of a surprise
“It’s a bit of a surprise everyone is talking about it”
Daftest thing I’ve read for quite a while….
Salbutamol when taken as a
Salbutamol when taken as a tablet has a different efficacy and works very well for weight loss and as a stimulant. Taken inhaled it is supposed to get your lungs to where they can be, not better than anyone else.
It has been used for years for weight loss and performance enhancement and I’m not buying any other story off Sky.
Why is it Sky seem to get fingered for low octane old school doping so often? Kenacort, Salbutamol etc.
the 8 puffs thing assumes 100% of the drug is absorbed into the system perfectly. you’re looking at nearly twice that in reality, especially if you’re doing it while going up a mountain and not stood still taking it like the pictures in the leaflet.
A lot of people expected some sort of positive in his lifetime, I’m most surprised it’s for old hat doping and not your EPO etc.
Wiggo must be laughing his bits off.
I’m not saying Froome is
I’m not saying Froome is innocent, but Sky have made a lot of enemies and are pretty much public enemy number one. The biggest cheats in the peloton will not get caught because they make friends and, if I might throw in a slightly confusing metaphor, make sure to greese the wheels.
So the Prednisolone Kid gets
So the Prednisolone Kid gets stung for puffer abuse. Well I never. If he doesn’t get a ban then the UCI and Sky are in it together.
If I needed 2000ng to control my asthma I’d be in A&E on a nebuliser.
derek n clive wrote:
Think you’re getting your ng & µg confused. As a mild asthmatic, my standard single dosage is 100µg = 100,000ng. We’re talking 2,000ng (2µg) in 1 ml of urine here, not dosage taken.
To be honest, the WADA dosage limit of 800µg in 12 hours doesn’t seem a lot – even at my average club level I’ll take between 200 and 400µg before a race depending on how I’m feeling and what the weather’s doing, and I’ve got a mate with worse asthma than me who I climbed Ventoux with in the summer who dosed up with more than 800µg before we set off.
No idea what that equates to in terms of urine content, but I can’t imagine dehyrdration does anything but concentrate the ‘mineral content’.
Capt Caveman wrote:
It’s actually ng/ml as quoted in this article. I just couldn’t be arsed to type the /ml. But you crack on pal.
Capt Caveman wrote:
Salbutamol is used as a reliever,not a preventer in asthma treatment,pro athletes excepted I guess as the preventer medicines require TUEs.and whilst I agree and would use salbutamol almost as a psychological comfort blanket, if I told my doctor I was using my blue inhaler like you or your friend did,they’d be prescribing much stronger preventer medicines. The blue inhaler is for when your asthma is out of control, it’s not the way to treat or contain it.
Capt Caveman wrote:
well, bladder volume is ~350 ml, that mean Froome had 700ug only in the bladder at that exact moment, add to it several urinations a day. On top of it only 80% are removed with urine pls the half life of the drug is 2.7-5.5 hours. So you need to take at least 1750ug during the race and not urinate even once before the drug test to reach 2000 ng/ml.
Capt Caveman wrote:
Agree, dehydration will increase the concentration of substance in the urine. I hope he’s able to prove the doseage that he took and that the test is shown to be flawed.
Derek or Clive,
Derek or Clive,
Some riders have been banned, others haven’t. I’d imagine the investigations have been ongoing for months and the results will hold more credence (possibly) than your opinion.
It really doesn’t matter what your body needs, it is unlikely that many of your physiological attributes match up. I don’t need hair dye but it doesn’t make me better than Peter Sagan.
alansmurphy wrote:
My sister is an anaesthetist (perviously a Doctor with many years in A&E) she’s also a very keen cyclist. She’s always been surprised Froome was allowed to ride the Romandie in 2014 when he was on Pred (and obviously she knew all about the gear that Wiggins was taking). In her professional opinion, nobody – not even a professional athlete – needs 2000ng of salbutamol in their system and if they do then they need serious medical help.
If he’s not banned then it’s fixed and the UCI will be mud.
derek n clive wrote:
erm…
Could you ask her to explain this then:
“Petacchi, who was found to have a reading of 1,320 nanograms per millilitre at the Giro d’Italia in 2007, was banned for a year, although the Court of Arbitration for Sport was clear that he did not intend to cheat.
Ulissi, with a result of 1,920 nanograms per millilitre at the 2014 Giro d’Italia, got a nine-month ban.
However, Leonardo Piepoli, who tested positive for the drug during the same edition of the Giro d’Italia as Petacchi with 1,800 nanograms per millilitre, escaped sanction”.
There may be many many reasons his reading was such including miscalculation, tampering, physiological anomolies, cheating… That’s what the investigation is for.
alansmurphy wrote:
Your reply makes no sense. What point are you trying to make?
This is absolutely ridiculous
This is absolutely ridiculous, he needs his drug so he can ride, there’s nothing ‘performance enhancing’ about it. that is bollocks.
I too use an inhaler. I know the struggle, it’s real. Still a champion.
Karbon Kev wrote:
oh dear.
I remember mumbling to my
I remember mumbling to my disinterested wife when Wiggins and Brailsford were knighted that i really hope they are clean and what a nightmare it would be if any wrongdoings came out. Now Froome, oh dear. I think i will stay up and watch the cricket tonight, may as well have 2 teams disintegrate at the same time
Nano, one thousand millionth
Nano, one thousand millionth of one. Micro, one millionth of one.
Derek, you’ve used a relative
Derek, you’ve used a relative’s expertise and then linked it to your opinion on what the UCI should do. If she could clarify why the UCI have banned 2 of those riders but not the 3rd it may help us to decipher why you formed that opinion…
Am i the only person here
Am i the only person here that has struggled to find the words “failed drug test” in the UCI report?
According to the UCI statement an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) as been detected. Particular attention should be made to the word ‘potential’ in their statement.
It is not unsual for the media to jump on things like this and make sweeping generalisations that could ruin a sports persons career. I notice that the BBC this morning had “Failed Drugs Test” plastered all over their pages. This afternoon that has been changed to “faces questions over adverse results” so someone has seen sense, maybe a lawyer nudged the editor?
Cycling has a chequered history meaning that we all have suspicions when someone performs well. Sadly that is a fact and we have commonly been proven correct.
We must however stop this defamation of a career over something that , at this time, has not been proven.
One thing we’ve also ignored
One thing we’ve also ignored is that the Vuelta organisers, the UCI and the Froome Sky machine must all think there’s doubt in here.
Not sure why more immediate action wouldn’t have been taken at the Vuelta and why Sky would announce the Giro if they didn’t think all would be cleared up…
Just heard a doctor
Just heard a doctor/specialist chap explain it all on Radio 4 news (5 pm edition). Seemed fairly straight forward and easy to understand as to how levels could be higher. I’m with Froome on this as I don’t think he has a cheating cell in his body.
efail wrote:
If only there was an objective, scientific way of finding out exactly what is in someone’s body.
FFS sports people get asthma;
FFS sports people get asthma; it has been forever thus. Either deprive asthma sufferers of a sports career or get over it. It’s all fairly boring now.
Legin wrote:
If they all get it then there is no need to level the playing field.
The whole hysteria around
The whole hysteria around this is totally frenetic at the moment considering the fact that not all of the relevant details are in the public domain. There are load of “web informed” salbutamol experts putting in their opinions as well as loads of Froome fans vouching for his integrtiy. There are comments on the virtues of salbutamol as a PED, others to say it won’t help and some saying that it is a commonly used medication that should be available to all. One thing that no one has mentioned, is that as the leader of any Grand Tour Froome will have been tested every day. If this is the only abnormal result, what about all the tests before and after? If there is one abnormal test among 20 others, can people be certain that the testing procedure followed protocols on that one test? Before, any conclusions can be drawn, the facts need to be known. However, it is certain that this will be one more battle that Team Sky would, no doubt, not have to deal with.
Velovoyeur wrote:
Where were you when Contador was getting slated? He could have done with a bit of support like this…
Velovoyeur wrote:
We could always ask Brian “I’m friends with Sky” Cookson seeing as was presiding over the sport at the time.
You might say that being
You might say that being professional would be keeping your levels just within the limitations of the law.
Now, imagine that you ran at that level all the time, lovely jubbly. A bit of stimulation and all the other benefits, no sanctions.
Would it be too far a stretch that maybe one day, despite being off your tits on your meds you had an asthma attack and needed to supplement your dosage… boom, you are going to test positive.
Marginal gains gone wrong.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Bullshit conjecture like the rest of this sodding forum.
I really believe that Froome
I really believe that Froome is the victim of someone who was rather out of his depth.
When you look at the doctor’s CV it doesn’t look that impressive. Certainly, there is a lot of mention of sports people and clubs many at a high level in their chosen professional sports. Sky have selected a doctor who has had experience and training in treating the general public for a multitude of ailments at a basic level, with some postgraduate qualification in sports.
There is nothing on his CV to suggest that he has any expertise in calculating the residual values for salbutamol when given to a genetic “freak” under an extreme workload.
Looking at the dosages per
Looking at the dosages per puff he could have achieved this from literally 10 puffs anyone having an asthma attack doesn’t really give a fuck how many puffs it takes for the symptoms to start easing off!
Can a short basketball player
Can a short basketball player wear platform shoes to make himself taller? Can a swimmer with small feet compete wearing flippers? Can a boxer with a glass jaw wear a helmet? Can a cyclist who sometimes struggles to breathe under exertion take meds to help him breathe? All these are levelling the field for those who are competing where genetically maybe they shouldn’t be. Why is the cyclist example acceptable but the others not? I would have loved to be a pro cyclist but physically I can’t so I’ve chosen a career that suits my strengths rather than my weaknesses
rdmp2 wrote:
Maybe there needs to be a ‘para tour’ for those who need medical assistance to compete.
rdmp2 wrote:
Ultimately I’d like to see who can win these events without any medical assistance and has been purely genetically gifted by the gods. If not for medical science then Chris Froome wouldn’t be a winner and it’s medical science, whilst essential to everyday life, muddies the waters of sport.
I’ve got long levers so I struggle with certain weight exercises, should I be allowed steroids if I wanted to compete in certain sports, just to take account of this? Sport shouldn’t be about an equal playing field and if Froome essentially has a disability, then this would stop him from achieving success if we took all medicine away for these events.
It’s a bit odd really because if Lewis Hamilton has a puncture then he has to come in and lose time, he doesn’t get 15s taken off his time at the end of the race, or if his engine blows then that’s it. We’re essentially asking those in charge to make allowances for physical failings.
If you’re not on the dope,
If you’re not on the dope, you won’t cope!
12/06/2017 , per Brian “I’m
12/06/2017 , per Brian “I’m friends with Sky” Cookson
http://road.cc/content/news/233520-sir-bradley-wiggins-and-team-sky-should-have-their-reputations-reinstated-says
Not a very good timing apparently
If Froome gets banned from
If Froome gets banned from the 2018 Giro ( which the stakeholders in the Pro Tour are allegedly paying him $10M to appear in ) for one failed test on a substance not even enhancing enough to be on the TUE list – let alone the banned list I would be very surprised.
WolfieSmith wrote:
Salbutamol is not enhacing enough? You need to enhance your knowledge or your education.
Salbutamol is plenty enhancing when the others aren’t taking any.
Salbutamol is administered in
Salbutamol is administered in acute cases of asthematic attack. The only next step is steroids.
If you as a cyclist are riding uphill and you can’t breathe then perhaps it’s your limit. Hint, hint. You don’t go on about taking substitute medication in order to make it so. So blatantly, incredibly daft.
Ban the cyclist, twice or thrice.
Most spectators will agree that this isn’t the first time we’ve seen sick men rising up from their death beds at Team Sky to finish a GT in podium style.
is this really a bit of a non
is this really a bit of a non story escalated out of proportion maybe? I mean he’s not been a darling of the press in some areas, but really going to town on 1 anomaly out of a gazillion daily tests?
Or was it fumes from a hidden motor that made him wheezy?
Let’s call Oprah Winfrey to investigate – she’ll get to the truth.
Crashboy wrote:
Everyone should be allowed to cheat just the once…
don simon wrote:
ROFL 🙂
Why not go the whole hog and
Why not go the whole hog and do like they do in motor sport and have “standard” and “fully modified” classes? What a moral and ethical tin of worms that would open up.
Even then Sky would be right on the boundary of what constituted standard v modified.
What also strikes me as funny
What also strikes me as funny is that Henao got suspended after posting some dodgy blood result, Tiernan-Lock had the same fate when he returned some dodgy results. All staff with jaded pasts got the sack.
But Froome? Nah, don’t worry about it!
Sprinters are not
Sprinters are not physologically suited to hill climbing, can they set off an hour in advance or use a motor on gradients over 6%?
Rapha, not sure anyone has
Rapha, not sure anyone has said don’t worry about it, more investigate it. I hope they do and come up with some findings that are clearly understandable and deemed legitimate (or clearly not).