David Walsh, the Irish journalist whose investigation of Lance Armstrong helped pave the way for the Texan’s lifetime ban from cycling, has said he has lost trust in Chris Froome as a result of the Team Sky rider’s adverse analytical finding for twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug, Salbutamol.
Walsh, author of the book Inside Team Sky, was embedded with the UCI WorldTour team for much of the 2013 season, a year in which the rider won the first of his four overall victories in the Tour de France.
In September, Froome added the Vuelta title, but Wednesday’s revelation that urine samples taken on Stage 18 of the Spanish race showed double the legal amount of Salbutamol has left him fighting to save that title and escape a ban.
Writing in today’s edition of The Sunday Times, Walsh, who has in the past defended Froome’s reputation, revealed that he had a “fraught, difficult” phone call with the rider on Friday.
He said that the affair “leaves him [Froome] with a question that will take some answering.”
> Chris Froome: “I haven’t broken any rules”
Walsh wrote: “There is a threshold level and Froome exceeded that by 100 per cent.
“He has to explain how that amount of Salbutamol got into his body.
“If the authorities are not satisfied, he will be banned and stripped of his Vuelta a Espana title.
“The greater punishment will be to his reputation,” Walsh went on. “He will be seriously damaged. Four Tour de France victories diminished in one asterisk.”
He added: “The hardest thing about our conversation on Friday evening was telling him that I no longer trusted him in the way that I once did.”
> Bradley Wiggins’ wife calls Chris Froome a ‘slithering reptile’
On 20 September – the same day that Froome was notified of the adverse analytical finding – Walsh defended him on an Irish radio show.
He told the Irish broadcaster RTE: “I believe he’s clean and I don’t see any reason for not believing.
https://www.rte.ie/sport/cycling/2017/0920/906364-david-walsh-i-believe-chris-froome-is-clean/
“The case against Chris Froome is powerful in so many ways, all it lacks is evidence.
“Make up your own mind. I’m making up mind and exercising my right to call this as I see it,” Walsh added.
Meanwhile, his former colleague at The Sunday Times, Irish ex-pro cyclist Paul Kimmage, highly critical in the past over Walsh’s defence of Froome and Team Sky, has written a scathing piece about the rider in today’s Sunday Independent.
AG2R-La Mondiale rider Romain Bardet, who finished this year’s Tour de France third overall behind Froome and Cannondale-Drapac’s Rigoberto Uran, has also been speaking about the controversy.
He told AFP: “This is not good news for cycling. Pretty much everyone gets hit by something like this, cycling’s credibility first and foremost.
“We really could have done without it. It’s not something anyone can rejoice about.
“Let’s hope that a swift and objective probe can clarify the facts and leave no doubts about what happened,” Bardet added.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
41 thoughts on “David Walsh says he has lost trust in Chris Froome due to Salbutamol case”
Thankfully, cycling has more
Thankfully, cycling has more to offer us than Team Sky and its asthmatic riders. Well done, Mo, BTW.
Woldsman wrote:
Indeed, Mo and athletics have had no controversy whatsoever…
alansmurphy wrote:
Thankfully, cycling has more to offer us than Team Sky and its asthmatic riders. Well done, Mo, BTW.
— alansmurphy Indeed, Mo and athletics have had no controversy whatsoever…— Woldsman
And there was no controversy over para athletes being incorrectly categorised either.
alansmurphy wrote:
Mo and his salbutamol-abuse-encouraging coach.
Mo and his unfortunate knack of having dopers take selfies with him, people he claims he didn’t know at all (but often trained with)
Mo and his decision to start training far away from testers after missing two tests because of a “shit doorbell”
Mo and his incredible, superhuman transformation in his late twenties.
B O L L O C K S
Between him and Radcliffe the problem is really clear for cycling – it’s PR.
turboprannet wrote:
But throw in transfusions and motors and I’d still put cycling ahead by a wheel in the Cheating Stakes. I’m sure we can all be proud of the innovation on display.
davel wrote:
If you don’t think athletics has a blood doping problem (Radcliffe and her incredible blood values) I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
If motors ever get proven the sports done for though.
turboprannet wrote:
If you don’t think athletics has a blood doping problem (Radcliffe and her incredible blood values) I’ve got a bridge to sell you.— turboprannet
If that’s all we’re going on at the mo, I might just buy the bridge. It isn’t a van full of blood bags or Tyler’s third party blood… Yet…
There is motor doping – I think the highest level it’s been found so far has been van den Driessche? I doubt it goes higher than that, but when semi-pros racing for a few hundred euro are using them, it sticks another boot into cycling’s credibility, which is already in the gutter.
I’m not saying athletics is cleaner*, but it hasn’t been proven to have covered the spectrum of PED, blood and technological doping so spectacularly as cycling.
*I agree that PR has something to do with it. I’m not sure why we can have evidence of systemic dodginess (Russian/Eastern bloc 70s/80s, US leading up to ’84 Olympics, Balco, Chinese athletes in Beijing, recent Kenyan/Jamaican/Russian programmes) and loads of individual cases of dodginess, including Ben Johnson, and there being any credibility left. I think maybe it’s that the pinnacle of road cycling is seen as more uniform – it’s the pro tour, comprising of teams: of one rider is at it, the team is, and then all teams are… As opposed to athletics, with all its different competitions, and being seen as an individual sport.
Woldsman wrote:
So you have no problem with his association with Salazar?
Midnight Rambler wrote:
Personally, I prefer to take all of the Slytherins as I find them.
Woldsman wrote:
There is so much more to cycling than pro teams!
The sooner people stop putting pro riders on a pedestal and making out they are some kind of heroes / demigods the better. Yes they can pedal a bike faster than you and me but it doesn’t make them better people. They are human, just like the rest of us. Elite sport seems to be corrupt, from the administrators through to the riders, coaches and teams. Not good role models. Grassroots is where it’s at, people who do it for the love of it, not for money or prestige.
Simon E wrote:
Absolutely this sentiment, but I think I’m a lot more cynical than you about grassroots. There seems to be a worrying number of positive results returned from nothing races (I could just be remembering the headlines as an unfair representation).
Certainly the sport that I’m probably closest to, rugby (having played and coached league, and now my boys play union), PED (mainly steroids) use is widespread – and it’s estimated at 1-2 million across the wider population.
davel]
Samples aren’t usually taken at club cycling events so I’m not sure how anyone could draw conclusion about doping/cheating at grassroots level in cycling. There have been a number of positive tests at time trials but again these are national events, not local club or open TTs. I also meant to say that there is also far more to cycling than racing.
Looking at the way rugby union (and the shape & size of the players) has changed in the last 20 or so years I wouldn’t be surprised if substances like steroids & HGH were found to be widespread.
He has good very reason to find it suspicious and, while his first-hand experience may be some time ago he knows better than most that certain things haven’t really changed. I’m not saying he’s always right but he has been there more than once – he was one of Armstrong’s most vocal doubters despite the brickbats thrown at him – and most of us haven’t. And I think he applies the very sound principle of “if it sounds too good to be true…”
Marginal gains=marginal
Marginal gains=marginal manipulations?
There are no miracles in cycling, still.
I am not surprised. It’s the total picture: management style, ambitions, new miracles (marginal gains), the scandals and the non-existent explanations from a team ‘in total control’ of all details.
When the medicine issues start to appear, no control and no details. TUE, jiffy bag, testosterone patches, inhalators. No smoke without a fire. We have seen it all so many times before.
To loose trust in someone so
To loose trust in someone so quickly over one incident that hasnt even run its course is the kind of trust i could do with out.Im sure Froome is finding out who his true friends are very quickly.
john1967 wrote:
It’s not a jounalist’s job to be mates with their subject matter. They’re not meant to be Sky’s PR team.
There’s nothing worse than
There’s nothing worse than “loose” trust.
That was largely armless
That was largely armless enough, no need to get hopping mad about it…
alansmurphy wrote:
Seriously?
Problem with Walsh is that he
Problem with Walsh is that he’s part of a small troupe of journalist who believe rather than telling the story, they ARE the story. Add to this Alan Green and Robert Peston on the BBC.
Walsh’s work on exposing Armstrong was in part good but his holier than thou attitude points to an ulterior motive of self aggrandisement. Maybe he just got lucky that Armstrong was a cheat. He’d be better concentrating on the story and his writing style.
charliepalooza wrote:
Yeah, it’s a bit like when a band does one good song but nobody really cares about anything else they did. Chumbawumba.
charliepalooza wrote:
You forgot the chief inquisitor Dan Roan, he must be on holiday, I’ve not seen a peep from him.
Yawn, a nothing story.
Yawn, a nothing story.
David walsh, a bloke who has
David walsh, a bloke who has made a career out of trying to destroy cycling as a sport. we all know they are all out of their tiny little minds on whatever drugs they can squirrel into their sytem, i Dont need to read anything by Mr Walsh to know this. Wouldnt even read his stuff if it was free. no doubt he,ll be releasing another book about his “investigations” into drugs in cycling soon.
Soon to be seen in Poundland, and even then it’ll be overpriced.
SteveAustin wrote:
Do you understand the difference between performance enhancing and psychoactive substances?
I did enjoy the article
I did enjoy the article written by Kimmage. Don’t hold back!
“The case against Chris
“The case against Chris Froome is powerful in so many ways, all it lacks is evidence.”
Which pretty much sums up Walsh. He believes the case is powerful despite the lack of evidence. A case without evidence is not powerful, it is non-existent. Prejudiced much? Hard to believe that he actually said that himself and still feels so self-righteous that he can use his position to denigrate others who’ve done things he never could.
At that point, he was
At that point, he was defending Froome I thought – wasnt it from the same interview when he said he trusted him?
Either way, Froome still has the opportunity to explain the test value. This isnt the same as a failed test, yet. It might well turn out to be, but the process has to run its course before we get there.
It’s strange that the UCI
It’s strange that the UCI have placed a limit on a substance not on the banned list and not considered performance enhancing by them or anyone else at present. They don’t limit the injestion of a proven enhancer like coffee. If my V02 max was like Froome’s I’d be absorbing twice the ‘legal’ limit too.
Of course they could ban Salbutamol entirely. Then we’d have potentially great athletes unable to perform at their best alongside those without asthma ( or excercise induced asthma). Meanwhile the doping circus of HGH, cortisone, and steroids continues in athletics, football, swimming and rugby un-addressed by Walsh or anyone else. Australian swimming was dealing with this very issue 4 years ago so the UCI have had time to look at the issue themselves.
Now McQuaid is out from under his stone (blaming it all on Cookson of course) and Kimmage and McQuaid are suddenly in agreement that all the lack of evidence of cheating at Sky points to concrete cheating. Zzzzzzz.
I’m getting more bored with this story than I am of Brexit.
WolfieSmith wrote:
As mentioned earlier, or on a different thread, or the blog, but isn’t Salbutamol a masking agent and possibly hiding all sorts of other naughtyness, allegedley?
don simon wrote:
No, it has been proven not to be a masking agent quite a while ago.
Edit to add this bit from WADA’s website –
[i]The detection in an Athlete’s Sample at all times or In-Competition, as applicable, of any quantity of the following substances subject to threshold limits: formoterol, salbutamol, cathine, ephedrine, methylephedrine and pseudoephedrine, in conjunction with a diuretic or masking agent, will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete has an approved Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for that substance in addition to the one granted for the diuretic or masking agent.[/i]
As it says the detection of Salbutamol along with a masking agent or diruetic indicates it isn’t one
DaSy wrote:
There you go, live and learn. Cheers.
don simon wrote:
As mentioned earlier, or on a different thread, or the blog, but isn’t Salbutamol a masking agent and possibly hiding all sorts of other naughtyness, allegedley?— WolfieSmith
Apparently not.
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381
WolfieSmith wrote:
Hilariously, Kimmage’s article appears in the Irish Sunday Independent. If you use their search engine to look for the words Frankie Sheahan and ventolin, or Frankie Sheahan and salbutamol, nothing is found, despite there being dozens of articles mentioning Sheahan. For those who don’t know who Frankie Sheahan is, start here – http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/15368500/sheahan-ban-reduced
WolfieSmith wrote:
But the UCI are just invoking WADA limits, aren’t they?
Paul Kimmage’s column is
Paul Kimmage’s column is typical:
‘Given the list and nature of his ailments, it is no surprise that supplements are his friend: protein drinks and fish oils, beetroot juice and energizer greens. He has used Tramadol but only for back pain, an anti-histamine called Loratadine for an allergy to sun creams; Fluticasone, a preventative spray for asthma, and Ventolin (Salbutamol) when he’s racing and about to make an effort.’
I take fluticasone as an asthma preventer too. And ventolin if necessary. That is because I am asthmatic. Kimmage seems to think that treating asthma is some sort of bizarre quackery. I would have thought that taking a preventer would be less suspcious than just using salbutamol?
Loratadine (Clarityn) is about the mildest anti-histamine going. Guess what Paul, I take the hard stuff, Piriton.
Allergies, hay fever, eczema and asthma are very commonly experienced by the same people as they are all over reactions of the immune system.
Kimmage is doesn’t discriminate, common off the shelf medications are treated like EPO by him, and he even views cod liver oil and beetroot juice as suspicious.
Chris James wrote:
You’re taking it all at face value. Read between the lines.
turboprannet wrote:
Paul’s been writing the same article for 20 years. Paul finds everything suspicious because he made up his mind many years ago that to be a successful cyclist involves taking drugs. His personal history obviously informs his views, but his first hand experience nowadays is about the same as the average man on the street.
what the media chooses to
what the media chooses to ignore is that using asthma drugs via an inhaler does not improve athletic performance – in fact, they try to make the readers believe that it does.
The only way to stop this is
The only way to stop this is no TUEs if you’re not healthy enough to compete, you don’t. Then cycling would be clean.
Going a stage further. Catagorise riders are done in the Paralympics. Just saying.
WADA has no right to deny
WADA has no right to deny anyone the use of a theraputic, non-performance enhancing drug to treat a medical condition. WADA has no right to discriminate against people with asthma and breathing problems. Is WADA to become my doctor? This is a denial of natual justice and a gross over-reach by a bureaucrasy gone mad with power. What sort of puritanical, impractical nonsense is this?
TheDoctor wrote:
TheDoctor wrote:
Doesn’t matter what it does, Wada set a limit, he’s double the allowed limit, therefore ban and sanction the drug cheat.
I believe that any reasonable person as a member of a jury of ones peers would not allow a rule that has no basis in fact and discriminates against a mnority, in this case asthma suffers, to stand. To punish a citizen for doing no wrong is simply immoral and unjust.