“Completely untrue” – Chris Froome dismisses report that he has accepted salbutamol ban

alansmurphy wrote:

Surely 'chances are' + 'maybe' on an internet forum are somewhat behind the medical expertise of the poor teams like Bahrain Merida and BMC. Chances are maybe someone fucked up with a prescription drug...

No it's a conspiracy, somebody spiked his drugs!

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Bit like the referendum, this whole episode has been released to the public before there is sufficient information to make informed conclusions.

We are now forced to take an opinion that may or may not be proven wrong, or never proven.

For instance... the fall out from there being no sanction is untenable. It would make too many people question the integrity of the sport at an organisational level.

So there will be a sanction.

It doesn't matter what evidence is provided, Froome can not be seen to get away with this. Which in turn will set a precedent for all future Salbutomal cases. 

This would be sad, if under Sky's scrutiny, genuine problems with the current salbutomal regulations were discovered. 

 

As for Contador. I had no doubt in my mind that Bertie enjoyed the spoils of illicite performance enhancement. A proper old school chugger from the school of early noughties spanish origin. 

That said, the clen case was a freaking joke. A tiny level of clen was found in his system on one day, nothing the day before, and reducing returns on subsequent days tests. All evidence pointed towards accidental ingestion... or an amazingly calculated dosing to suggest such as event. 

The case should have been thrown out. It wasn't. Why not? I believe there are two options;

1. he was such a known doper that the authorities went for the jugular on even the most minor infraction

2. because he raced through his investigation, a minor six month sanction as quite commonly used on similar accidental ingestion cases, could not , in all good grace be applied.

Its worth thinking about the two above when it comes to Froome. 

 

Precedent from this case? Google Frankie Sheahan - WADA sold the pass on precedent over ten years ago....

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Bit like the referendum, this whole episode has been released to the public before there is sufficient information to make informed conclusions.

We are now forced to take an opinion that may or may not be proven wrong, or never proven.

For instance... the fall out from there being no sanction is untenable. It would make too many people question the integrity of the sport at an organisational level.

So there will be a sanction.

It doesn't matter what evidence is provided, Froome can not be seen to get away with this. Which in turn will set a precedent for all future Salbutomal cases. 

This would be sad, if under Sky's scrutiny, genuine problems with the current salbutomal regulations were discovered. 

 

As for Contador. I had no doubt in my mind that Bertie enjoyed the spoils of illicite performance enhancement. A proper old school chugger from the school of early noughties spanish origin. 

That said, the clen case was a freaking joke. A tiny level of clen was found in his system on one day, nothing the day before, and reducing returns on subsequent days tests. All evidence pointed towards accidental ingestion... or an amazingly calculated dosing to suggest such as event. 

The case should have been thrown out. It wasn't. Why not? I believe there are two options;

1. he was such a known doper that the authorities went for the jugular on even the most minor infraction

2. because he raced through his investigation, a minor six month sanction as quite commonly used on similar accidental ingestion cases, could not , in all good grace be applied.

Its worth thinking about the two above when it comes to Froome. 

 

But contadors actual ban was only 6 months in reality (because of the drawn out process/timing)even though he was stripped of the titles. So he'd managed to keep racing and importantly staying fit all that while which is a huge advantage compared to say someone getting a proper 2 year ban.

peted76 wrote:

But the doping thing just doesn't add up to me.

Only someone who was naive to the point of idiocy or wholly ignorant of the past 30 years of doping scandals in cycling could say this and mean it.

If you ask me what "just doesn't add up" is a palmares that goes from winning the Anatomic Jock Race in August 2009 to second in the 2011 Vuelta via ninth in the 2010 Tour de Haut Var. (No, I don't buy the Bilharzia bullshit.)

surly_by_name wrote:

peted76 wrote:

But the doping thing just doesn't add up to me.

Only someone who was naive to the point of idiocy or wholly ignorant of the past 30 years of doping scandals in cycling could say this and mean it.

If you ask me what "just doesn't add up" is a palmares that goes from winning the Anatomic Jock Race in August 2009 to second in the 2011 Vuelta via ninth in the 2010 Tour de Haut Var. (No, I don't buy the Bilharzia bullshit.)

There is plenty that doesn't add up... plenty.

That's not to say there wasn't funny business afoot, as clearly there was something going on. I can't believe that Chris and sky would be so stupid to let Chris puff away to such am excessive extent as required.
Neither do I believe that Chris has a physiology that randomly changes how it metabolises salbutamol on a given day...
So was it a fuck up with a masking agent, or use of other medication that changed the way Chris processed salbutomol that day... or just a gross fuck up on the part of Sky... I don't know, it doesn't add up.

As for Froomes ability... You need talent, luck, and good contacts to turn pro. 15 years ago there were barely any UK pros. Not because we weren't producing good athletes, but because we didn't have the contacts and pathways for riders to follow.
Those UK pros that made it then were exceptional, they had to be as their talent had to compensate for lack of contacts.
That was British riders looking to get on the continent. How good then would a rider from Africa need to be to not only turn pro, but get a ride with one of the world's best team's with no obvious results?

Tonlool at Froomes early results and use this to gauge natural talent is being insultingly simplistic. Cycling management knows what talent looks like and Chris was snapped up despite him doing anything but fitting th e standard mould.

Pilot Pete wrote:

Or maybe the opposite; if I get no relief after 4 puffs I’m getting worried. Normally (as a mild asthmatic) one puff (less than the recommended dose) will stop the slight tightness of a mild asthma attack in me. 

If if it doesn’t work, I’m suffering  a shortness of breath and I’m starting to get that tightness in the chest. The last thing I would be thinking of doing, let alone being able to do, is to ride my bike. Note I said ride my bike, not race it, certainly not at the limit of my ability; I’d be physically unable to get anywhere near it. And I’m a very mild asthmatic who has not been hospitalised with asthma for over 25 years...

So it does make me wonder just what the hell was he trying to achieve with so many puffs of a Salbutamol inhaler....as obviously it wasn’t working. Surely on medical grounds a nebuliser would be what was required(same drug in a much greater dose) which is what they would put you on if you turn up at A&E with mild asthma that was not responding to your inhaler.

I honestly want to believe he was just trying to deal with his asthma, as there is no performance enhancement in taking Salbutamol, but the question of continual consumption in an attempt to deal with it, which evidently wasn’t working(or was it as he managed to keep riding!), yet still being able to hang on on one of the toughest races in elite sport needs explaining in my opinion, to a mild asthmatic who wouldn’t be able to cycle to the hospital if I was experiencing asthma that did not respond to Salbutamol...

PP

How dare you question St Chris's integrity! I want to believe in his innocence. I must believe in his innocence as he's British and great and better than everyone else. Brits don't cheat except that Linford Christie fella and maybe one or two footballers and a couple of rugby players. Especially British cyclists don't cheat, Sir Brad wasn't proven to be a cheat and Tom Simpson is a fucking hero! Sir Chris will be proven that nothing could be found to find him guilty as the dog ate his perscription, thusly allowing me to shout from the rooftops that he wasn't found guilty due to lack of something or other, and that will be good enough for me. How dare you!

don simon wrote:

 

Sir Brad wasn't proven to be a cheat 

True

don simon wrote:

and Tom Simpson is a fucking hero! 

The 2 things with Tom should be separated as should the context. Laterly, I get that the same argument could be made with Lance "they were all doing it" but it's the levels they went to, the deceit etc. Simpson was drinking brandy, was ill, was popping pills, at a time when menthol cigarettes and red wine were healthy; it was a lack of science that's part of the sad story as opposed to using science and power to make fortunes.

I think Tom's hero status is more born out of being the first to take on France, the English gent character, the ridiculous fight and desire in his performances, the success and in a large part the very public and saddening downfall. How many music stars gain hero status beyond their relative talent from departing early?

Curiously, on the Simpson ride up Ventoux in July, more foreign riders were partaking in the organised ride than British (from my straw poll of being passed). So maybe us Brits aren't as tolerant as we think, defending our own. They loved him!

don simon wrote:

Sir Chris will be proven that nothing could be found to find him guilty 

Good news.

Pilot Pete wrote:

Or maybe the opposite; if I get no relief after 4 puffs I’m getting worried. Normally (as a mild asthmatic) one puff (less than the recommended dose) will stop the slight tightness of a mild asthma attack in me. 

If if it doesn’t work, I’m suffering  a shortness of breath and I’m starting to get that tightness in the chest. The last thing I would be thinking of doing, let alone being able to do, is to ride my bike. Note I said ride my bike, not race it, certainly not at the limit of my ability; I’d be physically unable to get anywhere near it. And I’m a very mild asthmatic who has not been hospitalised with asthma for over 25 years...

So it does make me wonder just what the hell was he trying to achieve with so many puffs of a Salbutamol inhaler....as obviously it wasn’t working. Surely on medical grounds a nebuliser would be what was required(same drug in a much greater dose) which is what they would put you on if you turn up at A&E with mild asthma that was not responding to your inhaler.

I honestly want to believe he was just trying to deal with his asthma, as there is no performance enhancement in taking Salbutamol, but the question of continual consumption in an attempt to deal with it, which evidently wasn’t working(or was it as he managed to keep riding!), yet still being able to hang on on one of the toughest races in elite sport needs explaining in my opinion, to a mild asthmatic who wouldn’t be able to cycle to the hospital if I was experiencing asthma that did not respond to Salbutamol...

PP

Someone was bound to say this, so I'll take one for the team.

Your experience of asthma is not the same as mine. Mine may not be the same as Chris F's. I have ridden TT's with what my dioctor defines as asthma symptoms, and been able to note the difference in performance. It's a standard part of my warmup to do a quick check over myself and ask whether I need to use an inhaler.  This season I may even use a peak flow meter to try and systematize that. I probably ahve to, because I don't want to end up with an adverse analytical findign should UKAD decide to randomly pick me out to check if there's any clenbuterol in the many pies I eat as part of my training routine.

Howver, given that there have been cases where an adverse finding has been explained away, and WADA have accepted that (do I have to mention Frankie Sheahan again) I'm well aware that there may be evidence that the average level within WADA limits is an unreliable measure....

kitkat wrote:

Like Bertie had to eat 40kg if contaminated steak to get the reading he did, I’d like to understand how many puffs he had to take before he reached 2000 whatever’s. Or can it be taken another way? Basically, how did he physically do it? 

The limit is 800mg per 12hrs. Froome had double that amount. So 1600mg is 16 puffs of a 100mg blue inhaler per 12 hours. If you need 16 tokes per 12 hours, you're not fit to be on a bike, you should be in bed, certainly not technically the fittest rider in the race i.e. race leader. It's fishy as fuck.

Thelma Viaduct wrote:

kitkat wrote:

Like Bertie had to eat 40kg if contaminated steak to get the reading he did, I’d like to understand how many puffs he had to take before he reached 2000 whatever’s. Or can it be taken another way? Basically, how did he physically do it? 

 

The limit is 800mg per 12hrs. Froome had double that amount. So 1600mg is 16 puffs of a 100mg blue inhaler per 12 hours. If you need 16 tokes per 12 hours, you're not fit to be on a bike, you should be in bed, certainly not technically the fittest rider in the race i.e. race leader. It's fishy as fuck.

An asthma suffer will along in a minute to tell you this is normal and they did this on an Evans sportive.

Thelma Viaduct wrote:

kitkat wrote:

Like Bertie had to eat 40kg if contaminated steak to get the reading he did, I’d like to understand how many puffs he had to take before he reached 2000 whatever’s. Or can it be taken another way? Basically, how did he physically do it? 

 

The limit is 800mg per 12hrs. Froome had double that amount. So 1600mg is 16 puffs of a 100mg blue inhaler per 12 hours. If you need 16 tokes per 12 hours, you're not fit to be on a bike, you should be in bed, certainly not technically the fittest rider in the race i.e. race leader. It's fishy as fuck.

He didn't have double the 800mg. He had a test which is an output suggesting the input may have been excessive.

It's not that hard to understand.

kitkat wrote:

Like Bertie had to eat 40kg if contaminated steak to get the reading he did, I’d like to understand how many puffs he had to take before he reached 2000 whatever’s. Or can it be taken another way? Basically, how did he physically do it? 

They are not allowed to take it any other way.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You mean that possibility if he had an organ problem that didn't dissipate the Sal from the previous day (hence his very low test level the day before and poor performance) which meant he had a concentration level that was abnormal due to the abnormal functioning of the organ that processes that chemical.

Again, the most tested athlete in sport, on one day, knowing he's under the spotlight every single day and will be tested every day in competition decides to 'dope' (which is the wrong term anyway), sorry but I just don't buy it.

I can just imagine what Froome is thinking going by the judges/jurists/executioners/

Oh I'll just have a fuck ton load of this so I can perform on this one day even though I know it gives me no advantage and that I know I'll be tested and immediately found out then have my title stripped, name and family dragged through the media, possibly get banned, even taken to court for reparitions, have people finger pointing at me for the rest of my life and called a cheating cunt, sure, gimme some more of that shizzle!

BS

Which is exactly whaty happened to Contador.

don simon wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You mean that possibility if he had an organ problem that didn't dissipate the Sal from the previous day (hence his very low test level the day before and poor performance) which meant he had a concentration level that was abnormal due to the abnormal functioning of the organ that processes that chemical.

Again, the most tested athlete in sport, on one day, knowing he's under the spotlight every single day and will be tested every day in competition decides to 'dope' (which is the wrong term anyway), sorry but I just don't buy it.

I can just imagine what Froome is thinking going by the judges/jurists/executioners/

Oh I'll just have a fuck ton load of this so I can perform on this one day even though I know it gives me no advantage and that I know I'll be tested and immediately found out then have my title stripped, name and family dragged through the media, possibly get banned, even taken to court for reparitions, have people finger pointing at me for the rest of my life and called a cheating cunt, sure, gimme some more of that shizzle!

BS

Which is exactly whaty happened to Contador.

So you don't understand the difference between Clen and Sal, so no, not exactly what happened with Clenbutarol Bertie.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

don simon wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You mean that possibility if he had an organ problem that didn't dissipate the Sal from the previous day (hence his very low test level the day before and poor performance) which meant he had a concentration level that was abnormal due to the abnormal functioning of the organ that processes that chemical.

Again, the most tested athlete in sport, on one day, knowing he's under the spotlight every single day and will be tested every day in competition decides to 'dope' (which is the wrong term anyway), sorry but I just don't buy it.

I can just imagine what Froome is thinking going by the judges/jurists/executioners/

Oh I'll just have a fuck ton load of this so I can perform on this one day even though I know it gives me no advantage and that I know I'll be tested and immediately found out then have my title stripped, name and family dragged through the media, possibly get banned, even taken to court for reparitions, have people finger pointing at me for the rest of my life and called a cheating cunt, sure, gimme some more of that shizzle!

BS

Which is exactly whaty happened to Contador.

So you don't understand the difference between Clen and Sal, so no, not exactly what happened with Clenbutarol Bertie.

You obviously haven't read your own post.

don simon wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

don simon wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You mean that possibility if he had an organ problem that didn't dissipate the Sal from the previous day (hence his very low test level the day before and poor performance) which meant he had a concentration level that was abnormal due to the abnormal functioning of the organ that processes that chemical.

Again, the most tested athlete in sport, on one day, knowing he's under the spotlight every single day and will be tested every day in competition decides to 'dope' (which is the wrong term anyway), sorry but I just don't buy it.

I can just imagine what Froome is thinking going by the judges/jurists/executioners/

Oh I'll just have a fuck ton load of this so I can perform on this one day even though I know it gives me no advantage and that I know I'll be tested and immediately found out then have my title stripped, name and family dragged through the media, possibly get banned, even taken to court for reparitions, have people finger pointing at me for the rest of my life and called a cheating cunt, sure, gimme some more of that shizzle!

BS

Which is exactly whaty happened to Contador.

So you don't understand the difference between Clen and Sal, so no, not exactly what happened with Clenbutarol Bertie.

You obviously haven't read your own post.

Have a read of this re contador 

http://nyvelocity.com/articles/interviews/behind-the-scenes-of-the-conta...

check12 wrote:

don simon wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

don simon wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You mean that possibility if he had an organ problem that didn't dissipate the Sal from the previous day (hence his very low test level the day before and poor performance) which meant he had a concentration level that was abnormal due to the abnormal functioning of the organ that processes that chemical.

Again, the most tested athlete in sport, on one day, knowing he's under the spotlight every single day and will be tested every day in competition decides to 'dope' (which is the wrong term anyway), sorry but I just don't buy it.

I can just imagine what Froome is thinking going by the judges/jurists/executioners/

Oh I'll just have a fuck ton load of this so I can perform on this one day even though I know it gives me no advantage and that I know I'll be tested and immediately found out then have my title stripped, name and family dragged through the media, possibly get banned, even taken to court for reparitions, have people finger pointing at me for the rest of my life and called a cheating cunt, sure, gimme some more of that shizzle!

BS

Which is exactly whaty happened to Contador.

So you don't understand the difference between Clen and Sal, so no, not exactly what happened with Clenbutarol Bertie.

You obviously haven't read your own post.

 

Have a read of this re contador 

 

http://nyvelocity.com/articles/interviews/behind-the-scenes-of-the-conta...

Just as a synopsis, that article demonstrates without any shadow of doubt that he was doping to enhance performance, does it?

I'm not going into the ins, outs and bullshittery, except top say:

"

You mean that possibility if he had an organ problem that didn't dissipate the Sal from the previous day (hence his very low test level the day before and poor performance) which meant he had a concentration level that was abnormal due to the abnormal functioning of the organ that processes that chemical. eaten a dodgy steak, knowing that Spanish farmers can be little rogues.

Again, the most tested athlete in sport, on one day, knowing he's under the spotlight every single day and will be tested every day in competition decides to 'dope' (which is the wrong term anyway), sorry but I just don't buy it.

I can just imagine what Froome  Contador is was thinking going by the judges/jurists/executioners/

Oh I'll just have a fuck ton load of this so I can perform on this one day lovely tainted steak even though I know it gives me no advantage and that I know I'll be tested and immediately found out then have my title stripped, name and family dragged through the media, possibly get banned, even taken to court for reparitions, have people finger pointing at me for the rest of my life and called a cheating cunt, sure, gimme some more of that shizzle!

BS"

don simon wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You mean that possibility if he had an organ problem that didn't dissipate the Sal from the previous day (hence his very low test level the day before and poor performance) which meant he had a concentration level that was abnormal due to the abnormal functioning of the organ that processes that chemical.

Again, the most tested athlete in sport, on one day, knowing he's under the spotlight every single day and will be tested every day in competition decides to 'dope' (which is the wrong term anyway), sorry but I just don't buy it.

I can just imagine what Froome is thinking going by the judges/jurists/executioners/

Oh I'll just have a fuck ton load of this so I can perform on this one day even though I know it gives me no advantage and that I know I'll be tested and immediately found out then have my title stripped, name and family dragged through the media, possibly get banned, even taken to court for reparitions, have people finger pointing at me for the rest of my life and called a cheating cunt, sure, gimme some more of that shizzle!

BS

Which is exactly whaty happened to Contador.

It's not though is it.  Contador had clenbuterol which he claimed was from contaminated beef, nothing to do with asthma.