Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

[Mick F]

I don't know, and I don't care one way or another about Froome or any other athlete. I couldn't give a toss.
All I know about asthma is my asthma and how I take my medication and how my asthma affects me.

Stress brings it on, and being stressed is part of my existence. I get stressed easily and I get stressed before I undertake anything ......... cycling included. Beclazone 100 generally keeps the asthma at bay, but Ventolin isn't far away from me. I take it with me when I cycle, drive the car, go out shopping, and even out for the evening. In fact, I rarely leave the house without it. I have inhalers in every room in the house ........ coffee table in the living room, bedroom bedside table, kitchen table, and even one in the bathroom.

I'm fit and healthy, strong and able, but asthma is always there.
I never know when I'm going to need it. Typing this here and now, and I need a squirt of it.

Stress.
Tight chest.

[NorwichVelo]

Hi Mick i can empathise ive had asthma all my life as does my little girl its a curse which hopefully one day they will cure.

As for Froome and Sky lets just say they are not the saints they said they would be.

Take it easy and keep well particuarly this time of year with all the bugs around.

[Tangled Metal]

While funded by Garmin how was that team doing? I was actually referring to the past team as funded by Garmin BTW. AFAIK it was well funded back then but if wrong I'll stand to be corrected by you probably very my drift.

Their UCI World Tour finishing positions were: 11 (Garmin−Slipstream), 6 (Garmin-Transitions), 8 (Garmin-Cervélo), 9 (Garmin-Sharp), 8 (Garmin-Sharp), 11 (Garmin-Sharp), 16 (Cannondale-Garmin), 8 (Cannondale), 10 (Cannondale-Drapac). I suggest that the two post-Garmin results are bang on trend as consistently upper-mid-table.

According to https://cyclingtips.com/2011/07/le-tour ... m-budgets/ they had the joint second-lowest budget as Garmin-Cervélo, back when Sky was only the joint fourth-biggest spender. You may still be right, but I doubt it.

Well I never. I stand corrected, thanks. Don't know why I thought they were better funded and placed.

So who are the big teams then? Who are up there with sky? It seems I've lost touch with the sport, dropping in and out of watching / following it. Used to be obsessed but lost interest with big mig. Before the cheating came out.

[Tangled Metal]

As for Froome and Sky lets just say they are not the saints they said they would be.

Nobody is a Saint but why did you make that comment? Specifically Sky's misdeeds are what, jiffygate? Wiggins? What has Froome done so far?

This latest sky related matter isn't a doping offence. If he doesn't clear the matter up through conclusive evidence then the worst he'll be found guilty of will be taking too much of a completely legal asthma drug. In the end without the evidence to clear him he'll get a short suspension backdated which won't mean he'll miss the main GTs.

As part of the process it is very likely UCI will state it was an accidental breaking of the rules / limits. No guilt just honest mistake and a short time off to train specifically for one of the big three GTs. That is completely in line with WADA and UCI protocols. Indeed it is in line with similar cases in other sports too.

Personally it's easier to treat it as a doping violation because it's sky and Froome. At least that's the way a lot tweet about it. Guilty in a way the UCI aren't accusing him.

[mjr]

According to https://cyclingtips.com/2011/07/le-tour ... m-budgets/ they had the joint second-lowest budget as Garmin-Cervélo, back when Sky was only the joint fourth-biggest spender. You may still be right, but I doubt it.

Well I never. I stand corrected, thanks. Don't know why I thought they were better funded and placed.

So who are the big teams then? Who are up there with sky? It seems I've lost touch with the sport, dropping in and out of watching / following it. Used to be obsessed but lost interest with big mig. Before the cheating came out.

You may have thought Garmin was bigger because they did a lot with what they had, plus the innovative openness did make them a fan favourite.

I think Movie star and BMC come close but Sky were top spenders.

Big Mig has never been caught or strongly accused, has he? When I last looked, it seemed like he is mostly a freak with a huge lung capacity able to best all rivals enough in a time trial.

[Postboxer]

I thought a lab somewhere had already proved that it's possible to exceed the limit, whilst only having the legal dose, in which case the limit is wrong. I don't know what will happen now, it will be pretty much impossible to recreate the conditions of the day in question, but if they can prove the limit is wrong, then the limit is wrong, I'm not sure how close a to the twice over the limit they would have to get for it to be accepted it was possible to innocently get a reading that high.

Are inhalers that will only allow the legal dose available?

[Paulatic]

I’ve read, from Cycling Ireland's Dr Conor McGrane, that the max dose is around 8 puffs on your inhaler which leaves a reading of around 800. The limit of 1000 it’s said is generous. Also said you’d need 20 puffs to double the threshold. The reason there is a threshold is

Overuse of salbutamol is actually associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. So there is a substantial health risk involved too. It is lethal stuff at those sorts of levels.

The reason it is banned at high doses in sport is for two reasons. One, for the health effect – it is dangerous. And the second is the anabolic effect.

The same doctor mentions use of a nebuliser, we know team SKY have one after jiffygate, could give high readings. We don’t know if they’ve come out with this defence yet. As I said earlier there will be 10 years of Froomes blood tests results somewhere to compare with. I don’t imagine this is the first time he’s been dehydrated or any other such thing.

[Mick F]

Hi Mick i can empathise ive had asthma all my life as does my little girl its a curse which hopefully one day they will cure.

As for Froome and Sky lets just say they are not the saints they said they would be.

Take it easy and keep well particuarly this time of year with all the bugs around.

+1 on all that!

[ChrisButch]

As for Froome and Sky lets just say they are not the saints they said they would be.

Nobody is a Saint but why did you make that comment? Specifically Sky's misdeeds are what, jiffygate? Wiggins? What has Froome done so far?

This latest sky related matter isn't a doping offence. If he doesn't clear the matter up through conclusive evidence then the worst he'll be found guilty of will be taking too much of a completely legal asthma drug. In the end without the evidence to clear him he'll get a short suspension backdated which won't mean he'll miss the main GTs.

As part of the process it is very likely UCI will state it was an accidental breaking of the rules / limits. No guilt just honest mistake and a short time off to train specifically for one of the big three GTs. That is completely in line with WADA and UCI protocols. Indeed it is in line with similar cases in other sports too.

Personally it's easier to treat it as a doping violation because it's sky and Froome. At least that's the way a lot tweet about it. Guilty in a way the UCI aren't accusing him.

amen

[Vorpal]

I’ve read, from Cycling Ireland's Dr Conor McGrane, that the max dose is around 8 puffs on your inhaler which leaves a reading of around 800. The limit of 1000 it’s said is generous. Also said you’d need 20 puffs to double the threshold. The reason there is a threshold is

Overuse of salbutamol is actually associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. So there is a substantial health risk involved too. It is lethal stuff at those sorts of levels.

The reason it is banned at high doses in sport is for two reasons. One, for the health effect – it is dangerous. And the second is the anabolic effect.

The same doctor mentions use of a nebuliser, we know team SKY have one after jiffygate, could give high readings. We don’t know if they’ve come out with this defence yet. As I said earlier there will be 10 years of Froomes blood tests results somewhere to compare with. I don’t imagine this is the first time he’s been dehydrated or any other such thing.

There is good reason not to take high doses. The problem is that the amount in urine might not directly correlate to dosage. In theory, a normal person will metabolise and use roughly 2/3rds of a dose, and the rest will come out in urine, essentially unaltered. That's probably what they are testing for. The problem is, in practice, an individual's body can metabolise all, or none of it. How much is metabolised at a particular time depends on lots of other factors, like hydration, food intake, sweating, metabolic function, and likely some stuff that isn't completely understood, because lots of things about our bodies are like that.

So let us suppose for a moment, that for some reasom Froome was metabolising almost none of his salbutamol that day. That would mean that
a) almost none of it was helping him
b) most of it would turn up in his wee sample

His response would be to take more, which would do the same thing. It would not achieve a dangerous level in his system, but it would certainly increase the amount turning up in urine.

Is that what actually happened? Probably not, but that is why they cannot depend solely on the urine test results. We will find out in due course, and in the meanwhile, he (hopefully) will have learned something from this.

[Tangled Metal]

Blood tests? It's a urine test that the limit relates to. Blood tests would not be comparable.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/09e24xd_de_la_torre_final_report.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjKj4-t2JXYAhUMKMAKHQu3ChQQFgg6MAI&usg=AOvVaw3K93UTaANBGcQCJimeqr-S

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-at-all-times/beta-2-agonists&ved=0ahUKEwjKj4-t2JXYAhUMKMAKHQu3ChQQFggkMAA&usg=AOvVaw0djf3GpTRZMxrxHcZkdIC0

Inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours;

The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.

Just to clarify what the rules are. 800 micrograms every 12 hours Inhaled dose. The test is up to 1000 nanograms per millilitre of urine. 1000ng = 0.001mg. I understand typical inhaler, metered dose is approx 100 micrograms. That's 8 puffs every 12 hours.

My gp told me to take two puffs at a time then wait. Additional 2 puffs later if needed. No limit as it is a safe drug with a safe limit well above the levels you'd need. So that's one set of double puffs every 3 hours. TBH that's not really that much. I've been bad once or twice and needed 4 even 6 puffs in less than an hour.

I don't know the sources that said salbutamol had anabolic effects because all the current, credible research I've seen has said salbutamol does not have such effects in Inhaled form. Something about inhalers not being able to give the very high doses needed to have any such PE effect.

Sources I've read included research and clinical advice papers from the Australian Centre / body for research into asthma plus American medical / sports medicine research bodies. Skim read the abstracts / executive summary. Not got time for a full literature search.

Now there's a lot of experts on twitter and other new media outlets. Some are making claims of making agent and PE properties for salbutamol. The accepted (by most sports medicine research outlets and WADA) view is it does not have such properties in the levels of dose we expect Froome to have taken to achieve this AAF.

Body builders went through a period of injecting salbutamol in many tens of thousands of times over the WADA limit in the open categories (AFAIK that is the category for any drug is legal competitors). It had limited effect but hey marginal gains right? I somehow doubt Froome would risk the huge negatives to such doses for the performance needed for endurance sports. At those levels it's negative performance drug.

In conclusion, nobody in the twittersphere or anywhere knows the truth of this matter. That is why there was a process going on. It's still going on. IMHO the whole matter should have been carried out with the same level of confidentiality as any other sportsperson would experience. It has been said online before that we don't know how many athletes have had high urine concentrations of salbutamol that resulted in AAF and then got cleared by pharmacokinetic studies.

This could happen to Froome but it's a public affair now. Others probably got cleared without the media knowing or caring. Their names are not blighted. If Froome gets cleared there's just so much out there making out he's a doper/cheat that he's going to be labelled so for the rest of his life. That doesn't happen to non-sky cyclists and athletes I reckon.

[Vorpal]

The source I linked above had a meta- study that found no evidence whatsoever that inhaled salbutamol could have any performance enhancing effects. The same study found only very weak evidence, and mixed results, that orally administered or injected salbutamol enhanced performance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21142283

[Vorpal]

I’ve read, from Cycling Ireland's Dr Conor McGrane, that the max dose is around 8 puffs on your inhaler which leaves a reading of around 800. The limit of 1000 it’s said is generous. Also said you’d need 20 puffs to double the threshold. The reason there is a threshold is

Overuse of salbutamol is actually associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. So there is a substantial health risk involved too. It is lethal stuff at those sorts of levels.

This has been taken out of context. Overuse of salbutamol is only an issue long term. That is, cardio-pulmonary side affects are associated with long term overuse, not single day overuse. That has nothing to do with why there is a threshold for racing cyclists.

The threshold is probably set because there is weak evidence to suggest that injected or orally administered salbutamol *may* enhance performance, so they set a threshold that they believed would allow them to disinguish the same substance delivered by inhaler from that delivered by other means.

Salbutamol used to be a banned substance. The anabolic effect of inhaled salbutamol has been soundly disproven, which is why it is now allowed.

[pga]

A difficult case this. Has Sky pushed the boat too far? Twice the authorised amount seems excessive and other riders have been punished for less. What is the effect of severe de-hydration have on riders? I rode the 1983 Brevet des Alpes 260k in under 12 hours. I felt fine all the way but the next day having climbed another col I was severely sick and had to be driven to the overnight stay where I recovered quickly. I put this down to being completely de-hydrated'.

As a ex racing cyclist I have had exercise induced asthma for the last few years. Commuting in urban areas for many years has not helped. When you watch the Tour and other events on TV ity is easy not to realise that the riders are following a mass of motor vehicles of every description including the publicity caravan and the camera motor bikes. They do this day in and day out - no wonder a significant percentage have exercise induced asthma.

If riders had a factory workplace health and safety legislation would protect them but professional cycle racing is not and while the wages of the top riders has increased considerably in recent years they no way compare with those of footballers, tennis players and the like and they still remain subject to the often unreasonable demands of race organisers and sponsors. Some of the treatment I have seen over the years that riders receive in the Tour de France and other top races, especially domestiques, has shocked me.

The jury is out. Froome is not in the same league as Armstrong. He is not as popular in Europe or the UK as his record deserves but neither is Sky who we now clearly see stifling the racing day after day, just as Anquetil, Indurain and Armstrong did. I am glad to be old enough to remember Coppi, Bartali, Bobet, Gaul and those other greats of my distant youth.

[Flinders]

I take a long-term and very common drug that means I can't compete in any sport, I wouldn't be allowed to compete in an official dressage test, never mind a cycling club competition. There are no exemptions or allowed levels of doses for it, and that that. It isn't anything dramatic, it's just a form of HRT I take for a particular condition - in my case, it is the only type I can take because of that condition, other types of HRT won't do. All it does is replace the hormones I would have if I didn't have the illness I have, no more. But it still means I can't compete.

I don't understand why some drugs that have far more obvious performance enhancing effects are not banned, but drugs like mine which in my case simply puts me back to normal levels of hormones are banned regardless of the circumstances.

I am deeply suspicious of the sudden increase in athletes with asthma- not only those who cycle in car fumes. It sometimes seems like every other one of them now has it. I wonder how many would have it if the drugs for it did not also enhance performance?