Cycling thread
- Thread starter Bruce Wayne
- Start date
No doubt the latest sky doctor will not be allowed to testify like the last one, under herr brailsford
It's a technicality, and quite possibly one that will result in him serving a ban, but the notion that he's taken something to improve his performance is daft and only serves the agenda of those who already have their minds made up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/...g-reading-makes-vuelta-espana-win-remarkable/
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. In layman’s terms, it’s like putting a sticky plaster over asthma for a few hours.
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.
It is not an exact science. The 1000ng/ml limit itself is an arbitrary one. I am no doping expert, but I can see no rationale that those levels of salbutamol could improve his performance.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/...g-reading-makes-vuelta-espana-win-remarkable/
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. In layman’s terms, it’s like putting a sticky plaster over asthma for a few hours.
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.
It is not an exact science. The 1000ng/ml limit itself is an arbitrary one. I am no doping expert, but I can see no rationale that those levels of salbutamol could improve his performance.
- Dr Lipworth works at the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
arminisgod
Player Valuation: £35m
Very one sided that Bruce, I've read plenty on other reports where taking high doses at altitude can give you up to 29% gain!!
Pretty obvious what's happened he had a shocker of a day in the vuelta, then amazingly recovered overnight to destroy everyone bar contador the next day. They got the recovery cocktails wrong. Bad mistake and one him and sky should hopefully pay for
Pretty obvious what's happened he had a shocker of a day in the vuelta, then amazingly recovered overnight to destroy everyone bar contador the next day. They got the recovery cocktails wrong. Bad mistake and one him and sky should hopefully pay for
Azzurri
Player Valuation: £70m
British doctor writes article in support of “British” cyclist who rides for British team. Every little helps.
My (Czech) wife, who is medically trained, also shrugged her shoulders yesterday upon hearing the news. It's not performance enhancing at all.
Of course it's obvious to you. You've been convinced he's a cheat for ages (unlike Bertie bizarrely). Maybe look up some reports on confirmation bias.
The facts as they stand are that WADA accept that this isn't performance enhancing, but have imposed a limit on a substance that is not banned. Froome is over that limit on one day of the Vuelta and now has to undergo tests to prove why that reading was an abnormality. Given the text I quoted above from WADA themselves about changes in body mass affecting readings, that seems like something they would be able to do I would imagine. Time will tell, but what I'm sure of is that whatever the result of this further testing (that should be conducted privately lest we forget), you will be convinced he (and Sky) are cheaters because that's what you've always been convinced of.
Russian athletes must be looking at British cyclists and thinking "that's the way to do it".
Aye, taking stuff that gives you no performance benefits at all. Sock it to 'em boys.
Azzurri
Player Valuation: £70m
Genuine question @Bruce Wayne, if it isn’t performance enhancing or illegal, why do WADA care?
I couldn't care less if him and Wiggins were doped to the eyeballs, indeed when I look at their sport I wonder how anyone puts themselves through that without drugs. But, Bruce, you stick at it, the world loves a trier.
That is the question. I've no idea to be honest with you.
I haven't done multi-stage events (although plenty of amateurs do), but have done the equivalent of a grand tour stage several times. Suffice to say, these guys are a whole other level of fitness than me, but it's not beyond comprehension.
Armel
Player Valuation: £15m
That’s one sided isn’t it. There are loads of others who say that it can be performance enhancing. Loads of team doctors and others - again even before Froome. That’s the reason why it’s on the list, because some say it can be (even before Froome so it’s not to single him out). Even so a team as advanced as Sky should have been able to foresee the consequences of losing weight, doses, food or whatever that influences the level. You want a special treatment. That’s unfair.
Tony Martin has a point.
I just find it funny that Sky are labelled as criminal masterminds, yet apparently dope their star rider with a drug that has debatable benefits, that is easily detected in urine tests that he'll take every day, and that he lists on those tests that he takes.
He probably will be banned, and his achievements tainted, but it's hard to believe it isn't down to amateur hour from the team more than anything else.