Printable View
The figure for cyclists as a whole is over 40%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
By the way, is this a performance enhancing drug?
I thought this was a permissible, but notifiable drug.
If it was banned, there'd be a lot of people racing along with us who'd be stuffed.
The TUE inhalers "bring competitors up to a level playing field " argument is seductive but interestingly was not applied to eg haematocrit levels where humans can also have a natural range (say 0.37 to 0.52).Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Notoriously cyclists took EPO to "level the playing field" but this was declared to be illegal by that paragon of virtue the ICU.
So asthma problem - TUE; natural low haematocrit level - tough!
Why?
As it happens I have a low haematocrit level (not many people know that - and I suspect even fewer care!) and so I am at a disadvantage in fell races.
So life is not only unfair but unfairly unfair.:)
Graham, you are with the greatest of respect quite old but in fairness have a degree of natural talent, plus don’t mind suffering. I am quite fat, have very little natural talent and am a lazy b*gger. Life is a bitch, then you die . . .
Perhaps we need to adjust our mindset slightly and learn to live with the logic that pro-cyclists are telling themselves: Everyone is cheating so I need to just to be able to compete.
Once you get used to that you can start idolising these athletes again as you had previously. And whereas before it was "Froome/Wiggins is the greatest cyclist I've ever seen, and he's riding against a field of really talented cyclists."
Now it's "Froome/Wiggins is the greatest cyclist (who's cheating in a way that most of the time isn't detectable), and he's riding against a field of really talented cheats."
What do you think? Does it lose a bit of the mystique? Was it better when we pretended cycling had suddenly become clean overnight?
First you have to establish they are cheating Noel. It is not cheating to use Salbutomal. It is that his piss has indicated a higher level.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I don't personally understand how the intake of a substance can be regulated by an inhaler that is puffed on as required.
But below perhaps gives some indication as to the futility of anyone using salbutamol as a PED.
You can find plenty of investigations in to salbutomal.
"Inhaled salbutamol, even in a high dose, did not have a significant effect on endurance performance in non-asthmatic athletes"
From research publiched in the British Medical Journal.
Cycling Weekly similarly referring to research almost 2 years ago.
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/la...al-peds-205512
'Chris Froome's drug reading makes his Vuelta a Espana win more remarkable'
from the Telegraph last week by Dr Brian Lipworth
http://medicine.dundee.ac.uk/staff-m...ian-j-lipworth
who seems to know what he is on about.
The article is subscriber only so I've chopped it down a little - redacted seems to be the terminology of the moment :)
"My first reaction on hearing of Chris Froome’s “failed” salbutamol test was one of surprise – that he won the Vuelta a Espana at all given those levels of salbutamol. In my view, that makes his achievement more remarkable rather than suspicious.
Having 2,000ng/ml of salbutamol in one’s urine does not suggest doping to me. In fact, I would happily testify in court to salbutamol having no performance-enhancing benefits whatsoever – aside from the known benefits in dilating the airways in someone with asthma.
Higher doses of salbutamol in the long term can cause muscle weakness, impair cardiac function by increasing heart response and lower blood potassium – all of which would impair rather than improve performance.
To me, Froome’s reading suggests that he, or rather his doctor, was doing a poor job of controlling his asthma. Salbutamol is a short-acting beta agonist. It provides fast-acting relief, but that is all.
Even the reading on its own is useless unless you have context. You would need to know when Froome took the drug, how much he took, how soon he took it before the urine was taken and how dehydrated he was. Taking a random spot urine sample for salbutamol is meaningless as there are numerous factors which could affect this: the type of inhaler can vary levels by at least 50 per cent, and also the absorptive surface area of the lungs in an elite athlete."
Witton you're not being honest here. You've deliberately picked articles that suit your agenda. Let's not forget that you told us years ago that Armstrong was a clean and a 'phenomenal athlete' even when the evidence was pointing to him cheating. Then you and 'Always Injured' got into a tiff with me over comments made regarding Mo Farah and others. 'Always Injured' even resorted to insults calling me a 't***.' for speaking the truth.
Time has shown who's side the facts lie with and it isn't you and 'Always Injured.' You tell us you want to wait for evidence of wrong doing in Froome's case then put together a series of articles and thoughts on why Froome is innocent.
Witton you'd be made very welcome by Brailsford at Team Sky.
Let's look at the facts surrounding Froome taking into consideration his own comments after one of the Vuelta Espana stages and also when he spoke to the press last week after his positive test was revealed.
The maximum permitted dose of Salbutamol is 1600micrograms in 24 hours. The UCI are in agreement here with the manufacturers (Ventolin) recommendations, but not for their inhaler. We'll get back to that.
The maximum amount of Salbutamol (Ventolin) allowed in the urine is 1000units. Basically if you have to take the maximum dose of Ventolin I.e. 1600mcgs, your urine levels should be well within 1000units.
Here's the thing. Each puff of a Ventolin inhaler dispenses 100mcg. To exceed the 1600mcg threshold Froome would have to have had in excess of 16 puffs. In the manufacturers guidelines they recommend no more than 2 puffs. But that doesn't tell the whole story because Froome had 2000units in his urine which would have meant him having in excess of 32 puffs of his inhaler!
Froome lost time to Nibali one day. He said he was feeling well when asked by journalists after that stage. The next day he took time out of Nibali. That was the day he returned the positive result. Froome told us last week when his positive test came through that he'd been feeling unwell so had a few extra puffs on his inhaler.
This is the crux for me. A few extra puffs is 300mcg. So where did all the extra drug come from? A 2000units in his urine equates to a consumption of over 3200mcgs of Ventolin.
He's given himself and the game up just on his own comments. The facts don't correspond to his remarks last week. Salbutamol is a potent performance enhancing drug when used in isolation or in conjunction with corticosteroids. Sports doctors know this and so do athletes which is why they take it.
Just found an article in The Guardian. Not only is he taking Ventolin but he's also allowed to take corticosteroids:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...cility-cycling
Excellent! Many thanks for the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
He is a sensible commentator and I have several of his books.
Here's the thing. Each puff of a Ventolin inhaler dispenses 100mcg. To exceed the 1600mcg threshold Froome would have to have had in excess of 16 puffs. In the manufacturers guidelines they recommend no more than 2 puffs. But that doesn't tell the whole story because Froome had 2000units in his urine which would have meant him having in excess of 32 puffs of his inhaler!
Good points CL. A someone who has been diagnosed with Asthma, 32 puffs in unbelievable. My doctor told me to have a max of 10 puffs during an attack and if there is no change to call an ambulance. No way is 32 puffs reasonable it would have to come via another source.
Your fag-packet calculations are too basic. There are other variables which Dr Lipworth mentioned.
I take your point on the chin regards to Armstrong, but the presumption of innocence is important in my opinion.
Dr Lipworth has admitted he is isn't an anti-doping expert. Additionally his article is very poorly written. He tells us for instance that the reading on it's own is meaningless without context. No it isn't. The reading is the context. It tells us how much drug was in his system. We can't rely on a context, the circumstances given by a professional cyclist because as we've seen they tend to lie a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
http://medicine.dundee.ac.uk/staff-m...ian-j-lipworthQuote:
Originally Posted by CL
I read the original piece and I was rather surprised to note the tone of the article - perhaps Dr Lipworth thinks Dundee needs some publicity or more funding?
The other problem is that newspapers only care about what will sell - usually sensation -and truth and balance don't figure. The DT might have approached a dozen experts before finding one that would give them good copy and that is the view they will print.
Okay, so I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Is there an argument that people with asthma or similar conditions that require long term (performance enhancing) medication to "manage" should be considered as a class of competitor in "para" sports? Of course they could enter the regular TDF etc as long as they didn't take their medication during the race/competition/training phase?
That might sound quite harsh (but I am playing Devil's advocate), but it is also quite harsh that people injured in a car crash may never be able to ride the TDF or people with normal cardio vascular systems etc etc...
What Dr Lipworth is an expert in Salbutamol. He knows how it affects the user and what its benefits and side effects are.
The DT has actually done several pieces since the news came out and they are mixed in their approach and include "Sir Bradley Wiggins' wife Cath calls Chris Froome a 'slithering reptile' after Team Sky rider returns adverse findings"
Historically there are lots of asthma sufferers medalling and competing at the highest level in many sports (including fell runners). My understanding is that treatment is allowed (and should be allowed) in a similar way to cortisone injections, ibuprofen and other such treatments that are to restore a problem to normal, not to enhance the normal.
If Froome or the Doctor has made an error deliberately or accidentally, they should be dealt with appropriately.
But to attack asthmatics, who use inhalers, is counter to the way sport is managed, and actually may put asthmatics off getting involved. I have a few in my group and I certainly know that some asthmatics have represented GB in athletics, even on the mountains.
I had one U13 Girl who used to carry her inhaler in races as she could get quite nasty attacks. She was told at one Mid Lancs meeting in 2014 that she had to hand it to the official, that she wouldn't be allowed to carry it, was upset, didn't race, and we haven't seen her again since.
I just want to make it clear that I wasn't trying to attack asthmatics in any way, I think that as many people as possible should be helped and encouraged to take part in as many sports as possible.
What happened to the U13 girl you mentioned WP is terrible and it is sad if she has been discouraged from taking part since.
I was just (perhaps misguidedly) trying to prompt a wider debate about the use of therapeutic drugs in competition. I'll hold my hands up, I don't know any of the science around Salbutamol or the wider implications so the counter argument to my question could just be shut up PAG you're being naive and stupid and have missed an important point. That's fine, I'm always happy to learn.
If something is not performance enhancing though, why there is an upper limit that someone is allowed to have in their system?
If the rule is that you are only allowed xxx drug up to a certain level, then surely the test needs to be rock solid, otherwise it will always be contested and the result will always be grey?
But the puzzling thing is that it would be such a daft way of cheating. Froome would have known that he would definitely be tested and that salbutamol shows up clearly in a urine sample. So why cheat like this when he would have absolutely no hope of getting away with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
Almost as daft as surviving cancer against all odds, and then risking your life with diy blood transfusions and buckets full of PEDs. No-one would do that either surely . . .
But both can happen at the same time. A problem can be brought back to normal I.e. the lungs, whilst enhancing the normal I.e. muscles, blood etc. And that is the issue Witton and its something you've never understand after all the discussions we've had on here. I don't put you in the same class as the doctors who do understand the issue but evasively pass it off to the public. I just think you don't grasp the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Asthma medications have effects. Main effects and side effects. Most people who take drugs try to avoid or limit the side effects. But some sports doctors and athletes are interested in asthma medications for their side effects. The fact that they open the lungs is one thing but that these drugs also spare adrenaline, increase muscle strength, break down glycogen and fat, increase red cell count and therefore increase endurance, increase the effect of corticosteroids, pump potassium into muscles to make them work harder, is quite another.
That isn't making them normal Witton. Something needs doing about it at the top level. If asthmatics want to compete then they should be allowed but not at world class level where money is to be made by cheating and taking advantage of TUEs. Unfortunately that's the only way of dealing with this problem.
Oh and by the way it's athletes and their doctors abusing the TUEs that are responsible for genuine asthmatics getting a hard time over this. If that is the case as you say.
Derby is right in essence. Perhaps they re-infused him with his own blood and forgot to take into account the Salbutamol already in there. Or maybe the doctor gave him a 2mg tablet instead of a 1mg. Who's knows? Probably not even Team Sky who don't even keep proper medical records.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
How did Tyler Hamilton fail a blood test all those years ago? Because the doctor who took his blood out put somebody elses in.
Anyone you think is clean Chris? Who we can believe in?
I'm not saying that I think Froome is innocent, I've no idea whether he is or not. But the circumstances suggest to me that there might be some doubt. It will be interesting to see if he can come up with a satisfactory explanation. For now I reserve judgement.
As I often ask: cui bono?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Is it in the interest of the ICU to see a multi-Tour etc winner brought low after he has been feted for years as "clean", or
is it time for the all-powerful, rich and dominant Sky to be brought to heel?
It's not about the laboratory but the politics.
Politics and business
Well I've just opened the Fellrunner magazine. On page 11 there is an article headed 'Anti Doping.' Read on and a mountain champion athlete Petro Mamu is named as failing a drugs test. When I tried to find out what substance it was, all I could find in the short time I can be bothered to sift through, was that it was an asthma medication.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Surprise, surprise. Cor I sound like Cilla Black. So in answer to your question, no we can't trust anyone at the top. The authorities are not trying hard enough to catch their stars. And when you have Men like Seb Coe and Brian Cookson running things, any pretence of thoroughness goes out with their own actions and comments.
Even fell running has it going on. I hope Graham B can make efforts to initiate actions that would test the top Men and Women in our sport.
My reply wasn't at you personally. There have been many comments over the years aimed at asthmatics as if the treatment they need gives them an advantage and therefore anyone asthmatic competing at the highest level (Radcliffe has been identified for example in the past) is a cheat.Quote:
Originally Posted by PiesAreGood
That in effect means all asthmatics are cheats, whether it's an Olympic medal or a V50 prize at Stoop.
I don't take that position.
Some asthma medications can give additional benefits.
My understanding is that Salbutamol is not one of those items, so that is why it is not on the banned list. It is in a secondary list to be monitored.
He isn't banned - although of course he might be. There is an onus on him and his team to account for this test result.
CL is technically very strong on these matters. I remember him in a debate about the times taken to climb Alpe D'Huez and the huge range of variables were discussed in trying to calculate if times up the climb could be legitimate without cheating.
So I'm surprised that he uses such simple calculations as X amount goes in, Y amount comes out when so many other factors, including those highlighted by the Doctor could influence the outcome.
Froome may have taken more than he should, his doctor could have administered more than he should, but there could also be a reason for the test result and I await the outcome, as I'm sure we all will with interest.
Another well known commonly used stimulant that is used throughout sport is also again being looked at closely.
http://road.cc/content/news/218871-could-caffeine-be-headed-back-wadas-banned-list
Apologies CL you were right with Lance and I was wrong!!
Why anyone would have this much salbutamol does confuse me.
Possible side effects: common - feeling tense and getting headaches, muscle tremors and dizziness. Uncommon - muscle pain. Rare - Reduction in potassium in your blood, increase in lactate levels and acid levels, sleep disturbance, increased blood flow to the extremities, mouth and throat irritations, muscle cramps. Very rare - insomnia, skin itching, trembling.
Almost all of these would have a negative effect on a cyclist. Any asthmatic knows if you take a few puffs to many of the inhaler you can feel your heart race for a few seconds, hardly likely to make you go quicker.
Extra puffs on the inhaler, I totally understand, I raced (or more correctly I ran slowly in races) carrying my inhaler in my pocket, even used it occasionally!!
So thats my pre race cuppa of the board then. I think they should ban food as its obviously performance enhancing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnK
Do I think Froome is a cheat? Yes. But it's all about definitions.
If the definition is "did he break the rules?" then perhaps not (although this is debatable).
However if the definition is "using substances with the intention to give him an advantage over clean riders", then I think yes. I think the latter definition is more valid.
BTW, I think Wiggins is a cheat for the same reason.
But then I shouldn't cast too many stones. People will look back on my miraculous times and discount them all once beetroot is banned.
:DIndeed. It used to be that you were responsible for what was in your body however it got there - to overcome the "someone spiked my drink, I am innocent" excuse - and that is just a matter of laboratory measurement but once the authorities start accepting exonerating circumstances then it is wriggle room time and politics/ business take over.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
David Miller has said (and there is a man who knows a thing or two about cheating) that Sky are "gaming the system" and this is undeniable. The problem with going close to the edge is that inevitably there is a risk that sometimes you will topple over the line and it is outrageous that, Sky, to pick a team at random, can then start special pleading.
In my view: if you fail the test, you fail the test. and "the dog ate my homework" doesn't cut it.
(Note for CL: the exception that tests the rule is the great but mentally troubled Marco Pantani whom I saw ride and who was killed by the powers that be).https://s.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo36.gif
and it still isQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Pantani RIP
At least beetroot is easy to detect in a urine sample. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
The day before Froome lost time to Nibali. The day after he burnt him off. SoQuote:
Originally Posted by biara
all that drug in his system did him no harm.
Doctors like Lipworth know nothing about the methods used by the doping doctors. And that is not a criticism of them, but it does mean they get drawn into things they don't understand. A doping doctor knows how to dose and stack different compounds for best effect. They are miles ahead of doctors like Lipworth because they specialise in making people faster and stronger, without any concern for breaking protocol or rules.
So when they make comments on performance enhancing effects of drugs like Salbutamol they end up playing to the deceptions carried out by the doping doctors. Lipworth may know about Salbutamols effects in sick people but its easy to drop the context and apply it - wrongly - to athletes.
On a lighter note I found an article. My fag packet calculations have been endorsed by another writer. Does he read the forum? I definitely got there before him as the times of our posts prove. Don't agree with his conclusion though. Here goes:
https://deadspin.com/the-only-soluti...-on-1821436636
I agree. I was surprised to read his comments, including those critical of his peers. In my experience Consultants are reluctant to criticise colleagues especially in areas outside their particular fields of expertise. Perhaps he was flattered to be asked or desires a career as a "go to" media Doctor? His remarks can now be quoted out of context which, I suggest, he will live to regret - possibly in the court appearance he seems to crave.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
Not too bothered about the arithmetic but it's a droll and amusing resume of the mess cycling has got itself into after decades of failing to deal with the fact that for a few million pounds and immortality cyclists (and 100m sprinters) will always cheat if they can get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL