El Keniano wrote:
Dry air helps wrote:
Norway even tries to induce it in their skiers.
Such a high incidence of asthmatics in cycling. Predisposed, perhaps?
Anyway, not looking good for Froomey:
Qty allowed under WADA rules: 1000 ng/ml
Alessandro Petacchi: 1360 ng/ml - Banned for 1 year.
Diego Ulissi: 1900 ng/ml - Banned for 9 months.
Christopher Froome: 2000 ng/ml ...?
Well going by cycling logic Froome will get less than Ulissi.
Paula Rekcliffe wrote:
He took a normal puff of his inhaler but he became severely dehyrdrated after his superhuman efforts in hot Spanish weather. This artificially increased the level of the drugs in his test result plus the laboratory equipment may have not been calibrated correctly. Several British athletes have been shown to have been victim to these unfortunate circumstances, they might be genetically susceptible. Maybe the IAAF should run a study to prove this.
? classic, you wouldn't be picking on my good friend Gary Rekrunner by chance? Stop it, stop it immediately, oh maybe a little. ?
Not defending the levels that he had, but taking an inhaler before exercise is a logical use. Many people have exercise induced asthma and are prescribed inhalers to use before normal exercise. Of course his levels go beyond normal use.
It's because his lungs are twice the size of a normal person. Each puff doubles the intake.
I have just read on Twitter "the asthma drug for which Chris Froome has tested positive is often recurring in positive drug test as it covers the use of other drugs".
Is this true? does anyone have any info on this? It would therefore be largely irrelevant if the salbutamol is performance enhancing if it is actually just masking other drugs.
What was the poor man supposed to do racing against all those cheating Spaniards and Italians?
Dr Bassindale said there are a number of reasons why the test result could have been so high - but the main explanation in athletes would be dehydration.
"When the body is dehydrated, it can increase the concentration of the drug in the system," he said.
Tribe wrote:
Not defending the levels that he had, but taking an inhaler before exercise is a logical use. Many people have exercise induced asthma and are prescribed inhalers to use before normal exercise. Of course his levels go beyond normal use.
I would argue that if you have to take a drug beyond normal food and water just to compete in a race then you should not be allowed to line up - you are not healthy enough period. The current rules have opened the door to all this TUE BS (e.g. creatinine infusions, high dose corticosteroids, high doses of other "astma" drugs etc) which is just the same, in spirit, as doping. They need to be torn up and rewritten.
milermb wrote:
According to the journalist who broke the story the permitted levels of the drug amount to 16 puffs a day of a standard inhaler. My doctor prescribed 2 puffs prior to exercise. Froome had DOUBLE the acceptable levels in his sample - equivalent to 32 puffs in a single day.
Something not right here! (To say the least!)
gotcha. so YOUR usage was totally legit, fair, and on the level. But everyone else's makes them worse than Lance and Hitler combined!!!!
Face it, you're a cheater.
I'm 60 years old with an arthritic hip, waiting for surgery on this, so I may be a "cheater" but what I am not any more is a competitive athlete! My prescription for an inhaler was purely so I could continue to enjoy what exercise I currently take.
Anyhow, my post was intended to make the point that with anything remotely resembling "normal" use of an inhaler - like what most people who suffer from the same illness as Froome would use - it is pretty much impossible to reach the levels of drug in the system that was found in Froome.
The most innocent explanation is that the Team Sky doctor miscalculated how much Froome could safely use the drug without producing a positive test and that the "overdose" was a genuine mistake/accident. There are more sinister explanations, however!
Yeah, so basically the doctor was optimizing the volume of the drug inhaled compared to testing standards - not treating a disease through appropriate treatment.
Which can be pretty much figured out when one speaks about 32 puffs... Seeing what 2 of these do when you get a crisis, what a nice fresh breeze on La Vuelta, Cabron !
Why is it surprising that Froome or anyone else will push the boundaries of legality to get a win? Why settle for one puff if 2 can get you up a mountain faster even if its not necessary, but still under the legal limit? This is the sort of thing that happens all the time and no one can really prove there is cheating going on.
milermb wrote:
The most innocent explanation is that the Team Sky doctor miscalculated how much Froome could safely use the drug without producing a positive test and that the "overdose" was a genuine mistake/accident. There are more sinister explanations, however!
milermb wrote:
The most innocent explanation is that the Team Sky doctor miscalculated how much Froome could safely use the drug without producing a positive test and that the "overdose" was a genuine mistake/accident. There are more sinister explanations, however!
It would mean he took 32 puffs in place of 16. Well, he really sucks in counting !
Or, more likely, he takes the salbutamol under the form of pills in place of puffs. In that case, the mistake is very more likely to happen. But he won't use that defence though, knowing that the only way allowed to take salbutamol is the puffs.
Froome keeps saying 'everyone knows I have asthma' and that it was really bad after the previous stage. Is there any vid or pics of him having an attack (ever)? Did he do an interview after this 'bad' stage?
Boots on the ground? wrote:
Froome keeps saying 'everyone knows I have asthma' and that it was really bad after the previous stage. Is there any vid or pics of him having an attack (ever)? Did he do an interview after this 'bad' stage?
I think that that is more of a dig at Bradley Wiggins who suddenly claimed to have severe asthma that required required high dose steroid injections given only during the Grand Tours after the Russians leaked his TUEs.
Boots on the ground? wrote:
Froome keeps saying 'everyone knows I have asthma' and that it was really bad after the previous stage. Is there any vid or pics of him having an attack (ever)? Did he do an interview after this 'bad' stage?
Yes.
https://youtu.be/KkggVB9oruQNot exactly at death's door....
So if you took blood from someone using salbutamol then reintroduce that blood would that affect the reading?
This post is from a physician on another forum I read:
There is a plateau effect for inhaled salbutamol and it does little if you don't have asthma, exercise-induced or otherwise.
Oral salbutamol, on the other hand, does have performance enhancing effects outside of pure bronchodilation. That's where the studies showing increased sprint power, anabolic effects, improved recovery time, improved energy generation etc come from. There's also data showing acute dosing (single dosing) is better than chronic dosing (1-3 weeks).
Oral salbutamol is a banned substance, inhaled doesn't need a TUE. The dose ceiling set for a positive test is based on what the majority of people sticking to the maximum prescribed inhaled dose are unlikely to go above. If you take it orally, you are much more likely to go over the dose ceiling. If your asthma is bad enough that we (speaking as a chest physician) consider oral salbutamol, you shouldn't be competing in stage races from a medical safety perspective.
Given Froome's never tested positive before and other people who have couldn't reproduce that result under controlled attempts to clear their name, there's a reasonable chance he was doping with oral salbutamol.
This came out three months later only because journalists uncovered it. No reason that the most important rider in the sport testing positive for A and B samples with massive levels of a drug that is both a masking agent and has those positive effects on performance should be reported to the public, right? How complicit are the upper levels of cycling today in covering up doping?
This is mostly BS. Like getting Al Capone on tax evasion because they can't prove the real crime.
That salbutamol is illegal above 1000 ng/ml, yet tramadol is still OK to use shows how much of a farce WADA is. There are so many substances that are dramatically more effective than salbutamol that one must understand what's really happening in such cases: again, like Al Capone, they are using anything they can prove because the real stuff that Sky and the other big pros are doing is too hard to get evidence of.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year