Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Now we have something / quite-a-lot to discuss and celebrate.
brynpoeth
Posts: 9848
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby brynpoeth » 2 Jul 2018, 8:38am

mjr wrote:There have been some awful cheating incidents to secure last place over the years, especially when the giro awarded the maglia nera. Most famously, Luigi Malabrocca puncturing his own wheels!

Oh no, is nobody clean and honest in cycle sport? :wink:
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16712
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby Vorpal » 2 Jul 2018, 10:29am

http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/1 ... t-findings

Chris Froome cleared by UCI and WADA over salbutamol test findings

Team Sky rider keeps his 2017 Vuelta a Espana title and is clear to ride in 2018 Tour de France
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10059
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 2 Jul 2018, 10:53am

Hi,
That's ok then..............
Priority Is Still 500K In 24..Just Dreaming...Stay Focused Guys And Keep Sharp...
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

Flinders
Posts: 3007
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby Flinders » 2 Jul 2018, 11:17am

Tangled Metal wrote:I wouldn't use horse racing as a positive role model personally.

A betting man I know (not a problem better just someone who bets on horses mostly but also football I believe for fun and only because he enjoys following the sports he's into) once told me about how to pick a winner. He said watch what a certain jockey is doing. When you spot a series of poor results (usually on a promising horse he rides) place a bet on him to win. He's pulling up the horse to get better odds. I believe it was some jockey called Richard but I didn't pay attention. Needless to say this guy I know used to use him as a banker. Apparently there were other similar riders. I think some got pinged for something.

Of course it sounds like they have a way of handling doping. It's questionable whether guilty until proven innocent and even if you are proven innocent the sanction stands is a western European style of justice. It seems potentially unfair.

However with Froome it's unfair that he got singled out for the leaking of his AAF against UCI and WADA rules and procedures. Would it happen to a French man or a cyclist in a French team? Plus it's taking too long to sort out (I think but don't know because most AAF investigations go on without making the public attention unless they have no defence and get sanctions).

Whatever your views of Froome the system has completely broken down in his case.

PS thank you for mentioning Ullrich and "without doping" in the same post. It got a chuckle from me. Seriously though, do you not think the profiling was probably too find those physically able to perform but also mentally likely to be manipulated into cheating? A physically natural athlete with the mental strength to say no to potentiality damaging drugs or to ask questions is likely to say no it defect or something. You want physically suitable but compliant kids to work on surely?


Horse racing has a problem with 'stopping' but that's a betting issue rather than a doping one. I'm not aware of cheating to lose being a feature of cycling. Also, racing is stuffed with examples of where some people get off charges other lesser known people would be pilloried for, but I'd say that's no different to cycling.
The main difference is that in horse racing, if a horse is over the limit it is disqualified whatever the reason, because it has had the 'benefit'. Until cycling adopts that policy, it will remain as bent as a nine bob note. Now that's clear to me, I won't be bothering to watch any of the men's the tours this year, with maybe the exception of the Tour of Britain. Maybe not even that if sky are all over it. it seems that cycling has learned absolutely zero from the Armstrong case. Covering up and fudging trouble in a sport with the batty idea that it will save a sport's reputation just junks it in the long term.
It should not be a question of leaking test results, because the results of those tests should be public from the moment they have been done.

I see no reason why asthma medication is allowed at all, any more than many other medications are for other people with different long standing conditions. Again, I refer you to horse racing. The idea there is that if a horse is not fit to race without being propped up by medication, it is not fit to race. And if it is congenitally unfit to race without medication, then in its own interests, it needs to find another job to do. That's the attitude cycling takes to a drug I have to take- in that case there are no acceptable limits to it at all. But then that's a drug only women have to take, so hey, it won;t affect anyone important or who we care about will it? But if you do decide to let some specially favoured illnesses (odd how often the medications for favoured illnesses are advantageous isn't it?) be treated, and establish limits beyond which it is decided there is an unfair advantage, you either enforce that limit by disqualification beyond that limit, or you might as well forget the whole thing and let anyone take anything or cheat any way they like.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16712
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby Vorpal » 2 Jul 2018, 12:05pm

Flinders wrote:I see no reason why asthma medication is allowed at all, any more than many other medications are for other people with different long standing conditions. Again, I refer you to horse racing. The idea there is that if a horse is not fit to race without being propped up by medication, it is not fit to race. And if it is congenitally unfit to race without medication, then in its own interests, it needs to find another job to do. That's the attitude cycling takes to a drug I have to take- in that case there are no acceptable limits to it at all. But then that's a drug only women have to take, so hey, it won;t affect anyone important or who we care about will it? But if you do decide to let some specially favoured illnesses (odd how often the medications for favoured illnesses are advantageous isn't it?) be treated, and establish limits beyond which it is decided there is an unfair advantage, you either enforce that limit by disqualification beyond that limit, or you might as well forget the whole thing and let anyone take anything or cheat any way they like.

Humans are not horses, and may need medication for things like depression that horses are not treated for.

So should someone who is 'propped up' by an anti-depressant not be allowed to race? Will that help? Taking their career away probably won't do much to help the depression; giving them a choice between taking medication and their career is almost as bad.

Where do we stop? Disallowing paracetemol and ibuprofen?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12955
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby mjr » 2 Jul 2018, 12:07pm

Vorpal wrote:http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/15264/11416100/chris-froome-cleared-by-uci-and-wada-over-salbutamol-test-findings

Chris Froome cleared by UCI and WADA over salbutamol test findings

Team Sky rider keeps his 2017 Vuelta a Espana title and is clear to ride in 2018 Tour de France

How do they do that, Des? ;)
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

brynpoeth
Posts: 9848
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby brynpoeth » 2 Jul 2018, 12:09pm

I would be eligible to ride the TdF, I do not take any medicines
Not even on super TUEsday :wink:

Anyone else here eligible?
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12955
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby mjr » 2 Jul 2018, 12:23pm

MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Flinders
Posts: 3007
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby Flinders » 2 Jul 2018, 12:40pm

Vorpal wrote:
Flinders wrote:I see no reason why asthma medication is allowed at all, any more than many other medications are for other people with different long standing conditions. Again, I refer you to horse racing. The idea there is that if a horse is not fit to race without being propped up by medication, it is not fit to race. And if it is congenitally unfit to race without medication, then in its own interests, it needs to find another job to do. That's the attitude cycling takes to a drug I have to take- in that case there are no acceptable limits to it at all. But then that's a drug only women have to take, so hey, it won;t affect anyone important or who we care about will it? But if you do decide to let some specially favoured illnesses (odd how often the medications for favoured illnesses are advantageous isn't it?) be treated, and establish limits beyond which it is decided there is an unfair advantage, you either enforce that limit by disqualification beyond that limit, or you might as well forget the whole thing and let anyone take anything or cheat any way they like.

Humans are not horses, and may need medication for things like depression that horses are not treated for.

So should someone who is 'propped up' by an anti-depressant not be allowed to race? Will that help? Taking their career away probably won't do much to help the depression; giving them a choice between taking medication and their career is almost as bad.

Where do we stop? Disallowing paracetemol and ibuprofen?

Actually, in racing yes. In racing 'bute ( an anti-inflamatory) is banned in racing. For the very sensible reason that an injury that requires it ought to mean a horse is rested and not raced. You cannot even give a racehorse chocolate, because there is a substance in it -theobromine- that would cause it to fail a drugs test. Hence polo mints, which are 'safe'. When it comes to drugs, horseracing (though not perfect by any means) is a positive gold standard compared to human sport. The antidepressant thing is a red herring. If the AD drug enhances performance, it shouldn't be allowed as that would be unfair to the other competitors, if it does not, it's fine. If you can only take one that enhances performance, that's the same hard luck I have with my drug, which also does. I can't compete, even in very low level amateur sports.

Incidentally, horses can suffer from stress/depression.....as can all animals. And they are treated for it- with drugs. And if they are taking one that is banned for racing, they can't race until they are better and it's out of their system.

I'd suggest if you need antidepressants to race, you need to stop racing and get treated properly for the depression- racing is sufficiently stressful to mind and body that it's hardly a suitable activity for someone who is ill.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 5082
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby Tangled Metal » 2 Jul 2018, 1:07pm

Salbutamol is not subject to a TUE if taken via an inhaler. It's not a banned substance.

The test is based on urine concentration but that is not an accurate correlation with dose taken, it is an approximation hence it doesn't get a ban just an adverse analytical finding. This allows the athlete to carry out tests and provide evidence to show that the high reading doesn't correlate to going over the allowed dose.

Froome was something like just 269nanograms per litre when adjusted for dehydration under wada protocols. That's 19% over the AAF trigger threshold. What is interesting Froome had 21 tests carried out over the course of the Vuelta and only one AAF result. That result was within his expected variance for legal intake.

Basically innocent. There is no grey area here, he's innocent of doing anything wrong with regards to salbutamol intake during the Vuelta last year.

If you want to question a cyclist based on this test you need to understand the test is being seriously questioned. It's not a doping test capable of having a fixed limit / threshold.

As for use of salbutamol use there's such as underlying condition that doesn't get identified until the body is put under stress such as high intensity activities. Asthma may be common in elite sportsman but it could be their exertion level is highlighting a condition that goes undetected in the general population. I don't know how true that is and I'm sure it lot don't neither. Either way I'm high intensity sports there is a higher incidence of EIA across a wide range of such sports. It's not just cycling. Could that not indicate something other than cheating?

As not showing asthma treatment to those athletes diagnosed with it under some elite argument that if you're not able to do it without drugs you shouldn't be allowed to do it with type argument. Well I do wonder how many top athletes will be left. What constitutes unfair treatments? Is the ice baths in Rugby unfair? Cooling damaged muscles and joints is certainly helping recovery and is like a drug in its positive effect. What about sleep? It's important for recovery. Pain relief isn't allowed obviously.

Then the straight suspension / DQ for a dodgy test. Really? Imagine if the horse test fit a substance that's legal but only up to a certain side was so inaccurate that horses would fail it when they've not taken too much of it. I bet you the horse racing authorities wouldn't introduce such a test into their automatic DQ system. That's what we're talking about. A near useless test. I bet no horse has been banned except after failing a verifiable blood test. That is a direct correlation between overdosing levels and the blood test result. If they had such a test and Froome failed it I would agree with you Flinders.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16712
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby Vorpal » 2 Jul 2018, 3:06pm

Flinders wrote: The antidepressant thing is a red herring. If the AD drug enhances performance, it shouldn't be allowed as that would be unfair to the other competitors, if it does not, it's fine. If you can only take one that enhances performance, that's the same hard luck I have with my drug, which also does. I can't compete, even in very low level amateur sports.

Incidentally, horses can suffer from stress/depression.....as can all animals. And they are treated for it- with drugs. And if they are taking one that is banned for racing, they can't race until they are better and it's out of their system.

I'd suggest if you need antidepressants to race, you need to stop racing and get treated properly for the depression- racing is sufficiently stressful to mind and body that it's hardly a suitable activity for someone who is ill.

I'm confused. It's okay if it doesn't enhance performance, but an asthma medication that doesn't enhance performance is not okay?

As for antidepressants, I have to admit that I didn't know that horses were treated for depression with medication.

For humans, what is 'being treated properly for depression'? What if they have been treated and medication is part of ongoing treatment? How is medication not being treated properly?

If medication is part of ongoing treatment, why should they be prevented from participating in competitive sport? If horses are treated for depression with medications, why are they not banned from racing until they can race without medication?

It seems to me that saying 'if you need antidepressants to race, you need to stop racing and get treated properly for the depression' is rather like suggesting a diabetic shouldn't participate because they are ill. They have a condition that requires medical treatment, but doesn't necessarily prevent them from participating in competitive sport.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Jul 2018, 4:07pm

Flinders wrote: ... I see no reason why asthma medication is allowed at all,...


I don't know much about this at the elite level, but that's a sweeping statement and to base it on horse racing seems bizarre. Once upon a time, asthma seemed rare. I can only remember one contemporary from my school days who suffered with asthma and they had been shipped out of London to be in fresh air. My elder son has asthma and now aged 45 he's still very active in sport including playing soccer with a team mostly consisting of men in their twenties. When he was a child and before we got it under control, I've seen him in a paroxysm - real distress - when somebody began mowing the grass next to the soccer pitch.

Visit a primary school today and you may be surprised - as I certainly have been - by the number of children with inhalers, and AIUI, it's caused by air pollution.

On Saturday, my childcare duties included taking one of my grandsons to soccer. No need for his inhaler he insisted but I insist even more than he can and needless to say, after a lot of committed running in the heat with his granddad urging him on, he was brought off needing his inhaler as I had anticipated. Quickly OK again after a couple of deep puffs. In no normal meaning of the word is he a cheat.

I don't pretend this is easy but sweeping statements are no answer. If WADA adopted the line I quoted, they'd rightly face legal challenges based on human rights, which the gee gees don't enjoy. AFAIK, race horses that can't perform are converted to dog food etc.
=======================================================================
I've remembered that when my elder son was at primary school six mile / 10K fun runs were popular and he ran loads. I've never seen any fun in running, but I used to run too, just in case he had an asthma attack. As he grew older, he learned how to manage it himself.

brynpoeth
Posts: 9848
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby brynpoeth » 2 Jul 2018, 8:56pm

Horses are people too

But why is a horse who breaks a leg put out of her misery? (shot, killed, murdered) :(
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2183
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby The utility cyclist » 2 Jul 2018, 10:27pm

For the naysayers HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:lol:

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2183
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Goodbye then .. Chris Froome

Postby The utility cyclist » 2 Jul 2018, 10:37pm

Flinders wrote:If they seriously want to clean up cycling, then maybe take a leaf out of horseracing's book. If a horse is over any limits, it's disqualified, however it occurred, even accidentally; the limit is absolute. The punishment for the trainer (in cycling that would be the cyclist and/or team) is then decided later on the evidence. When in one case a few years ago the substance responsible came from feed which had been accidentally contaminated at the manufacturer's plant, those trainers whose horses had been involved were given more or less zero punishment, but the disqualifications still stood.
Egregious doping, at the other end of the scale, can get someone banned from owning, riding or training horses, racing, racecourses, and even training stables, for life.
The disqualification is done purely on the basis of being over the limit set, any punishment beyond that (bans, fines, exclusion from racing altogether) reflects the degree of blame the inquiry allocates after the evidence has been considered.

It takes away the reason for doping positively if you are disqualified if you're over the limit, no exceptions.

(the advantages of doping a horse to lose are different, of course, but the rules are the same)

Froome did not exceed any doping limit, what bit of that has passed you by in the whole charade? :? Everything you've written is not remotely comparative to this case. Not to mention horse racing is shadier than cycling and has a bunch of 'old boys' running it that are rank amateurs/very subjective in how they apply the rules far too often.
Oh and disability sport, many athletes need to take TUEs to compete on a level pegging, should we tell them they can't compete, if not why not, how is it any different to other competitive environments?