Cycling UK Forum

I don't have a lot of interest in racing (TBH - it's the post-Lance effect ) but this story is being headlined in the Guardian. Love Froome or loathe him: sad if true. Some years ago I suffered from asthma, and am perfectly familiar with Salbutamol (aka Ventolin) as are all asthmatics. It's hard to see how one could avoid taking a higher-than-legal dose if one's experiencing a bad attack. Remember, asthma can kill. A chap I knew died of an asthma attack whilst only in his 30s.

Hopefully this will be resolved without punitive measures.

661-Pete wrote:I don't have a lot of interest in racing (TBH - it's the post-Lance effect ) but this story is being headlined in the Guardian. Love Froome or loathe him: sad if true. Some years ago I suffered from asthma, and am perfectly familiar with Salbutamol (aka Ventolin) as are all asthmatics. It's hard to see how one could avoid taking a higher-than-legal dose if one's experiencing a bad attack. Remember, asthma can kill. A chap I knew died of an asthma attack whilst only in his 30s.

Hopefully this will be resolved without punitive measures.

+1

661-Pete wrote:It's hard to see how one could avoid taking a higher-than-legal dose if one's experiencing a bad attack. Remember, asthma can kill. A chap I knew died of an asthma attack whilst only in his 30s.

And instead of dying, a cyclist only gets a forced career break/change. Look on the bright side!

I do wonder if it's different for exercised-induced asthma attacks, whether stopping exercising reduces the attack or if by the time it gets that bad, it's too late and drugs are the only solution. Some pros have questioned whether asthmatics should be allowed to use salbutamol to compete in elite able-bodied sport, but of course, some of them are getting beaten by asthmatics, so maybe aren't objective.

Hi,
I have seen an asthma sufferer fighting for life, turning school blazer blue
In ITU from another bed.

Are these reports, details, allegations, a bit premature for the public domain?

Maybe it would of been appropriate to keep this investigation confidential until such time as confirmed proof of guilt.
This news will appeal to the sensationalist making newspaper hacks of our time, many who simply hate cycling and cyclists, and people will now make of it what they want, which may not be even close to the truth or facts of the matter

There'll always be attempts at gaining performance improvements within the bounds by using "drugs" of one form or another. They're competing not only to win but also maintain high levels of income for the team and indirectly themselves. It seems this asthma drug is in the spotlight with wiggins first and now froome. Competing against other athletes who are pretty well equals in performance clearly requires every little bit of extra gain whether it be by a skinsuit or by boosting your own watts temporarily.

It'll all come out in due course about froomes use but even if he got a ban and was found guilty no one should feel bad about him. He, like st david, will likely have a future of commentating ahead of him. It's only foreign riders who have taken substances who are villains . We british do it in the spirit of the rules.

old_windbag wrote:There'll always be attempts at gaining performance improvements within the bounds by using "drugs" of one form or another. They're competing not only to win but also maintain high levels of income for the team and indirectly themselves. It seems this asthma drug is in the spotlight with wiggins first and now froome.

No, different drugs in the scandals: triamcinolone aka kenalog for Wiggins and plain old salbutamol for Froome. I think Wiggins had previously used salbutamol, though, back when it still required an exemption.

old_windbag wrote:[...] It'll all come out in due course about froomes use but even if he got a ban and was found guilty no one should feel bad about him. He, like st david, will likely have a future of commentating ahead of him. It's only foreign riders who have taken substances who are villains . We british do it in the spirit of the rules.

I'm not sure about that. I think David Millar is a complicated character who has openly accepted that he did wrong and tried to explain why and, importantly, mostly accepted his ban with good grace and repented, turning from poacher to gamekeeper, first trying and failing at Saunier Duval, then trying again with Slipstream/Garmin/Cannondale.

I suspect Wiggins and Froome are much simpler case of athletes flaunting with the limits of the letter of the rules and being rather badly advised/supported by team management. So far Wiggins has not been convicted, but has been revealed to have been at best misleading on a couple of things (needles and whereabouts failures IIRC), whereas this Froome case seems like it hasn't even reached a full hearing yet. I agree that probably it'll all come out in due course...

mjr wrote: I think David Millar is a complicated character who has openly accepted that he did wrong and tried to explain why and, importantly, mostly accepted his ban with good grace and repented, turning from poacher to gamekeeper, first trying and failing at Saunier Duval, then trying again with Slipstream/Garmin/Cannondale.

I wonder if david millar had won some major titles when using additives and if he'd never been found out whether he'd open up a few years later and admit to it. I'm sure there's many others perhap sitting quiet knowing that at some point they've gained an accoloade whilst doing wrong. It's much harder to do so nowadays but we've 40-50 years of famous cycling names to look back on.

old_windbag wrote:I wonder if david millar had won some major titles when using additives

He did, or at least close enough to using them that he was stripped of his world championship.

old_windbag wrote:and if he'd never been found out whether he'd open up a few years later and admit to it. I'm sure there's many others perhap sitting quiet knowing that at some point they've gained an accoloade whilst doing wrong. It's much harder to do so nowadays but we've 40-50 years of famous cycling names to look back on.

We'll never know for sure, but I suspect Millar is one who would have eventually confessed to clear his conscience and maybe defend another whistleblower, like Bert Dietz and Brian Holm.

Pensez-vous, nous bouvons l'eau minerale?
- Jacques Anquetil

old_windbag wrote:

mjr wrote: I think David Millar is a complicated character who has openly accepted that he did wrong and tried to explain why and, importantly, mostly accepted his ban with good grace and repented, turning from poacher to gamekeeper, first trying and failing at Saunier Duval, then trying again with Slipstream/Garmin/Cannondale.

I wonder if david millar had won some major titles when using additives and if he'd never been found out whether he'd open up a few years later and admit to it. I'm sure there's many others perhap sitting quiet knowing that at some point they've gained an accoloade whilst doing wrong. It's much harder to do so nowadays but we've 40-50 years of famous cycling names to look back on.

Have a read of his account of it, "Riding Through the Dark", it's a pretty good book IMHO.

Going through the mill seems to have changed him quite him quite a bit. Bearing that in mind, a Millar that had got away with it would probably be a rater different Millar than the one we see today (quite possibly a not-so-good model), so I doubt even the man himself would be able to call that one.

Pete.

The other aspect of things like this beyond this current news event is in the psychology of driven individuals to win. Is it built in to many of those to win at any cost, i.e. that the focus is winning and rules are there for others or to be broken. Not dissimilar to striving to either avoid tax or evade it by big celebrities and those in big buisness. Many of us would never dream of cheating to win but perhaps we simply aren't cut out for winning because of that, it's even been known for driven parents to cheat at an egg and spoon race .

Debs wrote:Are these reports, details, allegations, a bit premature for the public domain?

Maybe it would of been appropriate to keep this investigation confidential until such time as confirmed proof of guilt.

Sample A and B have tested positive, the rider is responsible, can’t be blamed elsewhere. Noticeably the SKY statement very quickly distance themselves from Froome. He might well come out with some plausible reason or excuse but I don’t see how you can doubt the proof of guilt.

It’ll be interesting to know if we are ever told if it was intravenous or inhaled. ( remember the long sleeved rest days? )

Theres a LOT of money to be made in pro sport,money sorts the men out from the boys........

Yep,cream and b@#£&rds rise to the top.

Funny how SKY GC contenders always seem to perform at their best when they are supposedly at their sickest.