UKC

Surely not

Chris Froome: UCI 'right' to ask questions over failed test result
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42335916



More info

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/13/chris-froome-team-sky-reputat...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I use salbutamol for asthma, the idea that it's performance enhancing is interesting. I think of it as levelling the playing field. The alternative is to make everyone else compete with a ball of socks in their mouth.

I was also told by someone that to fail a drugs test, you'd have to take so much it wouldn't even be helping anymore.

So it's an odd choice, if you were going to try and cheat, knowing you'd be tested.

In reply to XXXX:

I don't think the rules say the intention has to be to cheat, as I understand it there is a hard limit and his sample exceeds that limit.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Its an interesting one. There is a hard limit but its not a banned substance. You don't even need a TUE !

In reply to XXXX:

Asthma is debilitating, so athletes are allowed to take them back up to normal. But fatigue is also debilitating, and yet you aren’t allowed to restock your red blood count.....

The problem here is that Froome claims he didn’t exceed his medication, but the chemicals were retained by his body so that he was double the allowed limit. Strict liability means he is liable and so must be stripped of the Vuelta and serve a ban. Question is whether it be will viewed as accidental or deliberate, and so whether it’s a token ban - one year - or the full 4 years.

Watched the Vuelta but of the top of my head I can’t remember who came second! Was it Nibbles ? Hardly the most deserving recipient on a free win, esp at the Vuelta

In reply to XXXX:


Yes, well - we've heard that phrase before!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

It's not really that simple is it. Asthma is a medical condition that can't be improved through training.

This is a good example of the grey area that is drugs in sport. The limit is on how much you take, not how much is retained. The blood sample is an indirect measurement of how much you took. The limit to need a TUE is 1600mg in a day, which is 16 'puffs' on an inhaler. I take 2 puffs and it last 3-5 hours.

If I took 8 puffs on my inhaler in 12 hours my head would be thumping and my heart racing. It doesn't need a TUE for a reason. For Chris Froome, knowing he was going to be tested, to take a pointless drug that is easily detectable, isn't credible. It's also not credible that he would take such an extreme dose knowingly.

I'm a very amateur athlete who will never be tested, but as an asthmatic, even I know the TUE limits on salbutamol.

In reply to Chris the Tall: I've Been a Bad, Bad Boy (7c+)

Nibali, yes, a life-long low-level doper, for sure. But, y'know, so what?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Right. Let's give Pharmstrong his titles back as well.

OP: Certain sections of the press and the great urine-throwing unwashed are going to have a field day. Next year may be interesting, in a bad way.

In reply to XXXX:
I find it a bit strange that so many of these supreme athletes are asthmatics.

In reply to XXXX:


the x-country skier Sundby 'notoriously took three doses totaling 15,000 micrograms over five hours before a competition'

https://sputniknews.com/sport/201609231045621069-norwegian-skiing-asthma-wa...

In reply to Kimono:


Think I saw somewhere that about 75% of the pro peleton are registered as asthmatics. The wheezing going up climbs must be deafening!

In reply to thermal_t:

It was amazing the amount of cyclists I raced with who were asthmatic, almost everyone at the start of the end of season hill climbs had an inhaler.

In reply to Kimono:

I'd say it's not that surprising. Exercise induced asthma is only really going to be present in parts of the population who exercise. Secondly, these athletes have access to doctors and medical teams who constantly assess performance. So they will pick it up quicker.

Exercise can help control asthma in everyday life so young people are more likely to be active if they're mildly asthmatic.

Exercise is more difficult so they are used to suffering more, in my case for years, before diagnosis. So they train harder without realising.

In reply to Mooncat:

If you're not asthmatic, they won't help a bit.

In reply to XXXX:

Probably not, the benefit if any was probably a placebo effect.

In reply to XXXX:

I'm not saying it's simple, far from it. The problem with all medication is that the the rigorous clinical trials for drugs analyze their effectiveness for a particular condition and any negative side-effects. If a drug has beneficial side effects then it might get noticed, but not subjected to the same scrutiny.

So there is a question mark over whether asthma drugs have any PE benefit above a certain threshold, or to non asthmatic. However lack of proof that something works isn't going to stop people trying it if they can, and the rules are there to protect them for taking risks with their own health.

The problem is that a 3 week grand tour is by it's very nature going to be bad for your health - it's a test of who can take it, can refuel, not get sick, not get injured, not get a stomach bug, not have to take a dump at the crucial moment !

Again we have to remember that the drug rules are their to safeguard athlete's health, not to provide fairness or good competition. Would you go to work if you were told that you weren't allowed to take medication that you needed ?

But nonetheless you have to do the tests, they have to be objective, and if a rider has exceeded the limits then they have to forfeit their results.

In reply to XXXX:


then why non-asthmatic norwegian skiers used it?

In reply to XXXX:

I also suffer from EIA, looking back probably had it all my life but only had it diagnosed in the last few years after I started doing more running and cycling, with an emphasis on steep climbs. When you see Froome interviewed after a stage he usually has that oh-so-familiar cough.

I quite agree that a fair high proportion of the population would discover they also suffered if they embarked on a rigorous round of hill climbs. But you could also argue that EIA is just the same as overuse injuries such as tendinitis - you ignore the warning signs that you are pushing yourself too far and end up with a problem. Use of cortisone injections to overcome tendinitis and get riders back on their bikes used to be standard practice.

In reply to XXXX:

Why does it do that if just meant to relax muscles in the airways to make it easier to breath?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I've had it since I was small, it didn't come on from overuse of my lungs. I've never heard of this before! I also have a tendinopathy but that's another long story.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

No idea. Not a doctor. Probably something about an overload of oxygen. I take 4 puffs when I have a checkup and it always happens.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

He's already been whining its terrible for the sport, and him, erm yeah OK.

In reply to XXXX:

It's something I read last year, it may just be a theory and it certainly won't apply in all cases. But asthma isn't a simple problem, and just as the causes are going to vary, so is the treatment and so is the effect medication has on the sufferer.

At least, that would be logical way of looking at it, but Nibbles takes a different view

"On those days in Spain it rained. It was really hard to believe he had asthma. I have the same problems but when it rains pollens don't bother me. I don't even need ventolin. Who will give me the emotions of Madrid podium now?"

Don't know about you, but I don't like increasing my dosage in preparation for something which might trigger an attack, it just feels wrong. And I did get some stick from my mates for my improvement when I started using an inhaler, until I got them to do a peak flow test to show just how low I score even on medication.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I do anticipate it. If I'm racing, or running on a cold day I will take my inhaler about 15 mins before I start.

My peak flow is shocking.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I have a mild case of self diagnosed EIA but have never bothered to do anything about it. It used to get quite bad when I was swimming seriously but these days I mainly only get affected during/after a particularly hard run or on the rare occasion that I play in a football match. It is at its worst at this time of year when it is colder.

Looking back, a large proportion of competitive swimmers had it but being ill-informed teenagers, we thought it was normal. It seems that training to those extremes is strongly correlated with developing EIA.

In reply to Mooncat:

Now you mention it, I had asthma, and a ventolin inhaler, between the ages of about 15 and 22, which coincidentally is when I did a lot of road cycling. What luck eh!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

What are sky going to do though? If they stick with their zero tolerance policy surely they'll have to kick him out?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Wiggo will be happy - the pressure is off!

In reply to XXXX:


This is simply not true once you go above the threshold where it does more than relax the airway smooth musculature. Salbutamol, Clenbuterol, and related agents are therefore long established as doping agents in various sports (just think of Katrin Krabbe and lots of poor steak eating cyclists....).

Asthmatics get some benefit of the doubt to level the playing field, hence the permission to use normal doses of Salbutamol even without a TUE.

However, precisely because these drugs also have an effect in healthy athletes they either require a TUE under all circumstances, or in case of Salbutamol, above a certain threshold.

CB

In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:


I didn't take my asthma seriously until a persistent cough that developed after doing the Fred Whitton got so bad I had to go to A & E. Turns out my mother also has asthma (not excercise induced) and one bout was so bad that it may have triggered a mild heart attack.

Now I'm quite happy to accept that if Froome was suffering so badly that he needed to raise his salbutomol intake to such a high level that he should have stopped racing. But it's pretty ignorant to suggest that people are lucky to have a medical problem such as this.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Look up 'sarcasm' and 'wrong end of stick.'

FWIW I had asthma pretty bad at times and I passed out once (and anyone who knows me will say that this explains the brain damage), and a acquaintance's son died from an asthma attack so I'm under no illusions that asthma is anything other than a serious business.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

interesting how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Johnsrud_Sundby got busted for just 35% over limit when apparently using 15000 micrograms before competition..
team sky will have studied the Sundby case in detail (nice grey areas regarding labelled dose vs delivered dose, administration methods, dehydration etc)

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award__FINAL_.pdf

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


I see a long legal battle in which they try to prove he did nothing wrong. UCI haven't suspended him yet, and in the case of Petacchi it was 12 months before the start of his suspension. So Froome could still go for his Giro - Tour double and be stripped off all 3 GTs at once ! As it isn't a simple doping case - he could be deemed innocent but liable - then there is no reason why Sky should sack him.

But who will lead the team at the Giro and the Tour ? Maybe that's why Thomas has started talking about leaving (again) if Sky intend to put all their eggs in a rather dubious basket.

In reply to Kimono:

As a very much less than supreme athlete who only discovered they were asthmatic once they started taking athletics seriously, I don’t find it strange at all.

In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:

My apologies but it did look to me that your sarcasm was aimed at asthmatics rather than those who trivialise the condition

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Going to be interesting to see how the UCI play this, on one hand they can't be seen to give him an easy ride, or the Armstrong/UCI conspiracy comparisons will be made. On the other hand seeing another multi time Tour winner dragged through the mud won't help the sport either. Rock and a hard place.

In reply to thermal_t:

surely a short ban until TDF 2018? rules are rules..

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Good analysis, as ever

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I suppose he'll push for a PK test if he's innocent. If he knows he's guilty then a legal battle seems more likely to get him off/reduced ban. Either way Sky will find a way to keep him I suspect.

All that's just speculation but one thing is certain; if the UCI are involved it'll be long, painful and everyone will be unhappy at the end of it.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

No worries.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Some of the comments on that article are even more interesting!

CB

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Theory - double the 'allowed' dose detected because he took a blood bag, which had been extracted previously and contained a dose of Salbutamol in. Hence double the amount found.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



So 32 riders took a legal dose of Salbutamol. They then exercised until they had lost weight. 20 of the 32 now had levels in their urine high enough to have "failed" the test

It might be quite hard to get your body back into a state where you trying to win a grand tour

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

How disappointing. Was really beginning to warm to him. I wonder if they'll be questioning him about it on Sports Personality on Sunday night? That's the knighthood on hold I reckon.

In reply to malk:

Because it helps you breathe more efficiently. So you get more oxygen.
Salbutamol aids performance in asthmatics and non-asthmatics.

In reply to XXXX:


Further to our previous discussion, this link (posted on another forum) may be of interest

https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/IOC/Who-We...

From what I can gather, it does seem that they accept there is a higher than usual level of EIA in athletes, particularly endurance athletes and those who may encounter dry/cold air.

It also seems to state that good training routines can reduce the risk/need for medication, and that medication loses it effectiveness if over-used

(I have to admit that I find the language used a bit confusing, possibly due to a lack of scientific knowledge)

My point being that it's wrong to assume that athletes are using asthma as an excuse to take drugs, but at the same time they shouldn't be given carte blanche to use such drugs, as it may be bad for their long term health and their condition may be down to poor training. If CF should have been told to rest, rather than up his medication, it is right that an example be made.

In reply to Andy Say:


It reduces the build up of mucus that restricts airflow, so it means that you can breathe with less effort.


Unproven, since it doesn't make the airways bigger, just less congested. No congestion, no benefit

Or at least that's the prevailing view at the moment

"If you wanted a positive test that guaranteed escalating, under-researched, and unproductive discussion, salbutamol would be it. The rules are byzantine and change frequently, the research is all over the place, and regardless of what the outcome is, people will get to feel angry and wronged forever." Cosmo Catalano

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/

Those who really know about cyclings (no longer) dirty secret are convinced that Froome has been doping since his performance at the Vuelta in 2011 (I think). There's so much smoke around him it's ridiculous.

From the article

Not entirely unrelated, an alternate theory to the “grassy knoll” from someone who certainly speaks from authority born of experience:


Joerg Jaksche
@jaksche
#neverforgetinyourcalculationthebloodbagleftovers

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I read that most studies conclude that inhaling it is not PE, ingesting it may be and that it can be use different as a masking agent.

The studies weren’t done on people using it long term though, and there is some thought that it could cumulatively have PE effects.

It’s a funny one this. One would imagine Sky have a lot of data on the dose response relationship for the drug with Froome in extreme competition, making it harder to understand how they could get it so wrong, yet it’s hard at this stage to see the big advantage in abusing it, especially given that they knew he’d be tested.

Inner Ring has an excellent piece on it.

In reply to Andy Say:

I don’t think the amount of oxygen inhaled is the limiting factor in the performance of well-trained athletes.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Anybody really think this was real? youtube.com/watch?v=52xv2Hg2fkI&

Data leaked later showing no increase in heart rate further up the Ventoux despite acceleration. I was there that day and just left utterly perplexed.

In reply to cb294:

I like to think about Katrin frequently...

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Not exactly, Salbutamol relaxes bronchial smooth muscle and decreases airway resistance by lowering intracellular ionic calcium concentrations. Salbutamol relaxes the smooth muscles of airways, from trachea to terminal bronchioles. There would be a benefit for those exercising hard who don't have asthma.

The real problem is the definition of asthma which is notoriously difficult and its why there are so many children overdiagnosed with the condition. Anyone exercising to the level of a tour cyclist will experience exercise induced bronchospasm, no surprise then that Wiggins and Frome have "asthma".

Don't forget salbutamol can be ingested or given intravenously too. Its a messy business and the arguments will go round in circles for some time to come.

My feeling for what its worth would be to ban salbutamol or any drug that relaxes smooth muscle within the lungs and could therefore aid performance.

In reply to sheavi07: low heartrate with high power and salbutamol
youtube.com/watch?v=HdLFdRGWhh0&
what does that say?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Behave...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Froome being caught with this test shouldn't be seen in isolation. Look at the big picture surrounding his rise from, being an average pro cyclist who was about to be dropped by Sky to producing performances that make him one of the greatest cyclists ever. Do you really believe it's all down to Bilharzia? Just one strange anomaly. Plus Bilharzia and asthma don't usually co-exist.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/05/12932.aspx

In reply to sheavi07:

I always though Bill Harzia was his soigneur.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Thanks Chris- an interesting read. So, not inconceivable that the high level could have arisen without foul play; but will be hard to establish that to a degree of certainty that will prevent him being stripped of the vuelta title

I still hope he is cleared; but I wouldn’t bet on that outcome

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Not read whole thread BUT am I the ONLY person thinking ..

"WOW another elite athlete with asthma??"

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

One assumes that Sky must have their defence already prepared given the test results were known to them 2 or 3 months ago.

In reply to Padraig:

You should read the whole thread.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Is that all he's been pinged for?

The anti doping people couldn't find a rug in a rug shop.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

We've had Vlad the Impaler now we have Froome the Inhaler

Useful read in the does it or does it not debate

https://www.docdroid.net/tDg9zwe/51full.pdf

In reply to sheavi07:


There seems to be a misunderstanding in that article. It assume that we know if cyclists have exceeded the threshold for Salbuatamol. Apparently this is not the case. We only know if they exceeded the Threshold and failed to explain it and a case was then brought

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

"Note that these are the “known known” cases that went public because of hearings, appeals and bans. We don’t know the “unknown known” of how many test results see enquiries made and then met with satisfactory explanations."

That is of course why we didn't hear about it in September.

In reply to Andy Say:

Breathing is the least aspect for the use of Salbutamol as a PED.

In acute use, the general stimulant effect is probably more important, and when used over a longer time, the changes in metabolism, especially in the way the body uses lipids. Look at all the top GC cyclists, they almost look as if they had end stage AIDS or cancer induced wasting. No way you can drop body weight like that by dieting without also affecting muscle mass. On the other and, play around with metabolic balance and it becomes easy.

CB

In reply to Chris the Tall:

As above, the breathing issue is a red herring. Salbutamol and related agents are presumably used for other effects, especially metabolic shift to drop body weight without affecting muscle mass too badly, and as general stimulants (hence the brief puff before a climb in the rain!).
CB

In reply to sheavi07:

Excellent link, thanks!

Of course, all the Sky fanboys will dismiss it as fake news....

CB

In reply to cb294:

Absolutely, I remember years ago staying in a guesthouse in Phnom Penh that had quite a few western heroin addicts living there. All of them had the same body characteristics as these top cyclists. Totally emaciated

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Its quite possible that he over-used salbutamol so as to avoid having to get a TUE that would permit him to take dexamethasone or other glucocorticoid (either by inhalation or tablet) Certainly if he had been a "normal" patient with uncontrolled asthma (whether exercise induced or not) then this would have been a next step. it is worth bearing in mind that asthma is not trivial or uncommon. it has a point prevalence in the ( UK ) adult population of 8.5% and an annual mortality of approx 1300 adults per annum -that's 3 adults a day dying from it. Exercise induced asthma is not a new or novel condition and is well known to be provoked by all kinds of environmental conditions. Personally I think he should be viewed as a role model and inspiration to all asthmatics for the way in which he has fought agin it.

In reply to cb294:

Do asthmatics have a divine right to be able to compete at the pinnacle of endurance sport if they need drugs to perform? Why not ban the lot (any drugs with a whiff of PE) and let the healthiest specimen rise to the top?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

That is a tricky question. Shooting off the hip, I would suggest that the marginal gains squad has abused the system in place to help actual patients to the point where banning all potential PED is the only viable solution. Bad luck for the true asthma sufferers, but a more level playing field for everyone else.

In a way, exercise induced asthma is just another condition that prevents top athletic performances. What about someone being to small, as in the case of Messi? If allowing growth hormones in his case, why should we not use the same growth hormones or myostatin knock down to engineer the next olympic rower? In a way, the boundaries are arbitrary.

In reply to drpetermorgan:

His actual super power lies in his uncanny ability to time his asthma bouts to when he profits from the treatment, regardless of external conditions. Pollen induced allergic asthma on a damp and foggy day following rain, but not when training in a similar area in full sun when everything flowers?

Pull the other one.

Contrary to what you suggest, I feel that hiding behind a potentially faked asthma diagnosis to exploit marginal gains from using the corresponding drugs trivialises a severe health problem!

The case for athletes as role models inspiring kids to what they can achieve is maybe better exemplified by the many Olympic athletes with type I diabetes.

CB

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:



It would be interesting to see a study that is more relevant to an extreme endurance event given the apparent significance of dehydration. I expect no such study will have ever been carried out.

With professional cycling being all about marginal gains, would we expect many of the techniques they rely on to show up as statistically significant among a small sample size of far less trained people in a much shorter event?

Which does nothing to give the layman anything useful to go by as to whether cyclists can or can't gain anything from salbutamol. I suspect it will be one of those cases where the teams themselves know far more about the benefits and detection than the testers, regulators or academia.

Ultimately though, I have no sympathy for Sky whatever the outcome of this case is; they have always chosen to bend the rules, push the limits of the spirit of the rules and exploit the grey areas. If you do that, the onus has to be on you to make sure you stay within the letter of the law at all times. It seems they have failed to do this.

In reply to cb294:

I feel bound to acknowledge this.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Would he have been OK if he had a stronger bladder?
I wonder if holding on whilst bursting to drink another bottle of water to dilute the pee will be the next marginal gain.

In reply to elsewhere:

This is done...

At one time cycling was about peddling faster than the next guy. It's now about who is best at not getting caught taking drugs. Quite a shift. Sky seems to be losing.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


A very valid question, but lets not restrict it to asthmatics. Should any corrective medicine/procedure be allowed ? Should athletes with bad eyesight be allowed to get that fixed ? Suppose someone has a cold or a stomach bug during a race - sorry mate, you either take the medicine or stay in the race, but you can't do both.

A far better way to look at it is that theses are professionals, and how would you feel if you were told that a condition of your employment was that if you get sick you can't get treatment, even if it means the end of your career.

So look at the rules from the perspective that they are there not to provide entertainment or even fairness, but to ensure the health of the employees. Which means they must be protected from the temptations/pressures to take medicines that are dangerous. but also from the pressure not to use medicine they need for fear it will result in them having to withdraw from a race. It's a delicate balancing act, which is why it has to be up to the neutral authorities to lay down the rules, not up to the discretion of the teams to do the right thing.

It strikes me that this is another case where Sky have gone up to line of legality, with the genuine aim of not crossing it. The problem seems to be that whilst you can measure intake, that this might not directly relate to output, and they have eliminated the buffer zone.

In reply to cb294:




It may come as a surprise to you, but it possible to to hold non-polarised views on this subject, to be neither a fanboy nor a tin-foil hat wearer

But to read that article and take it as proof that you can't suffer from both asthma and bilharzia really is something !

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

What me may never know is what PED's he was masking by using Albuterol/Salunutamol.
Personally I'd let them use what they want and not have to lie to the paying pubic that they are "cheats". How many on here and other forums were supportive of Lance Armstrong when he denied any use? I find it astonishing that people still believe that elite athletes in any sport are "clean" when almost 100% of records set by PED users have been broken.

In reply to MG:


in 1904 the winner of the Tour de France was disqualified for taking a train....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Chris Froome yes if anyone comes across as a natural born cheater its him, yes I can really see that and especially his performance enhancing drug of choice..ffs. Seems to me as he is more than willing for all of this to be investigated thoroughly and no doubt if there is no further action to be taken, the Europeans will say otherwise, some spurious conspiracy theory conjured up.

In reply to kmhphoto:

How many on here and other forums were supportive of Lance Armstrong when he denied any use?

Not me for one.

In reply to MG:


An extreme dieting competition is another way it's frequently described. Between PED use and extreme body fat percentages there isn't much healthy about pro cycling.

In reply to Kimono:

it is actually quite common, top athletes shift more air and it affects the lungs, I got Asthma as a teenager and hard exercise can still make me wheezy. As far as I am aware Salbutamol has not been shown to have any performance enhancing effect on non asthmatics

In reply to SteveD:
I think that's true, and that more people than top athletes can experience the same. I've had Asthma type symptoms when cycling in cold weather a lot, and a more active brother has had similar. I breathed in steam from the kettle which seemed to help.

In reply to sheavi07:



Why not read the article you quoted?? Bilharzia and asthma don't usually co-exist IN CHILDREN! Froome is an adult......

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Wrong article, the Bilharzia one is indeed rubbish, and I stopped reading after a few lines. You obviously cannot extrapolate down to the individual even though at the population level overall improved hygiene and reduced parasite load indeed contributes to the increasing incidence of asthma in our Western societies.

I was talking about the sports scientist one linked by sheavi

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-resul...

which offers some excellent estimates and plausibility checks about what you have to do to go twice over the limit with a drug you know you will be tested for.

Also, the fanboy slur was not directed personally at you, but if you read comments out there, many jump to the defence of Sky without any more facts than I have, just because it simply cannot be true that team squeaky clean is cheating.

To me, the drip by drip revelations about the dodgy practises at Sky, including the current incident, feel like a vindication of my long held suspicion that their entire holier than thou image was nothing but marketing bullshit right from the start. I don't actually think the other big teams are any better, but the hypocrisy of Brailsford is staggering.

The biggest, steaming pile of bull was his claim that the body weight management of the Sky riders was achieved by a superior and scientifically designed diet, as if the other teams were stuck with three pork knuckles for breakfast. Almost funny, except the Sky fanboys lapped it up and spread it as the new gospel.

CB

In reply to cb294:

I've never met a Sky fan boy. Are there any contributing on this forum ? or is it really an irrelevant strawman ?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I kept thinking what you might have meant by this, but think I got it now.

No, I was not talking about converting from cycling to rowing, but tried to raise a more general point. Myostatin knockdown, like growth hormone treatment, is something you may want contemplate if you want to make a small or slightly built youth competitive in a sport that requires size and weight, for which I used rowing as an example. Could have been shot putting as well, but in most other sports where size is a huge advantage you have multiple weight classes.

In a way that is merely a logical extension of what happened to Lionel Messi, who was treated with growth hormone as a teenager. Was that really medically justified, or merely required for him to reach a size where he as competitive as a footballer? I recently had two excellent students who are small enough to be in the bottom percentiles, which is fine for a scientist but would prevent them from becoming professional athletes. An untreated Messi would probably resemble these guys.

So, if it was fine to give Messi growth hormones, how could you argue against treating someone of slight build with myostatin inhibiting drugs to allow him to bulk up sufficiently to become competitive in his sport of choice?

That I am very sceptical about anyone bulking up by 30 kg of muscle mass over a short time span is no secret. There was a separate thread about this, but I know how hard it is to even move from 85kg to 95kg by putting on functional muscle mass from personal experience.

CB

In reply to GrahamD:
Most of the UK cycling press to start with (or at least, until recently).

CB

or look at the comments in the Guardian web chat.

In reply to Tricky Dicky:

Do your own search regarding Bilharzia and asthma. In any event I doubt whether Froome had/has either. It's all bullshit. We've been conned in my opinion. Do you think Froome is genuine btw?

In reply to cb294:



Fair enough, that is indeed a good article, much of it was in the inner ring article but maybe this is where he got if from, since Ross Tucker is a pretty respected physiologist.

So here we are, the sky haters have got the result they wanted and the fan boys have got their plausible defence, and in the middle cycling fans will see the sport dragged through the mud for at least the next year, and what should have been a very interesting season is going to be overshadowed by this.

Sky will of course pull out all the stops to prove Froome's innocence - the law gives an opportunity for manoeuvre so of course they will use it. But I believe the onus is on them, not the UCI to come up with the evidence. I suppose you could say they managed it with Henao. And even if they can convince the UCI/CAS they will never win over the haters, nor a number of their rivals by the sound of it.

However I will take issue with the view that this proves that marginal gains was all bollocks, and it was merely down to drugs like every previous generation. Whether you regard their use of PEDs as legal but unethical, or simply totally illegal, there is no evidence (yet) of the sort of misuse we have seen in the past, and plenty of evidence of innovations in terms of tactics and methods.

In reply to sheavi07:


First article from a google search is still referring to children..........
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/sep/05/research.health

In reply to GrahamD:

Nothing worse than seeing some beer-swilling middle aged bloke in full sky kit

https://imagesvc.timeincuk.net/v3/keystone/image?url=http://keyassets.timei...

In reply to sheavi07:


A genuine cock-up seems likely. Actively trying to cheat with salbutamol would be, I gather from this thread and discussions elsewhere, an amateurish (and seemingly ineffective) effort unworthy of the most dastardly and evil team in the peloton

In reply to nufkin:

Only if you assume that the Salbutamol came from the inhaler. Who says that he did not use Salbutamol by ingestion or injection (where the PED effects are clear cut), and used a blank inhaler for a non existent asthma attack?

This is a sufficiently plausible scenario, especially as it is not obvious from the weather data why a supposedly pollen triggered asthma bout should strike at the precise moment when PED effects would come in most handy.

Importantly, as it stands there is no need to prove any such hypotheses, as Froome got caught above the threshold. There is no presumption of innocence, the default presumption must be one of cheating.

The onus to prove his innocence (and I would hope that this means actually PROVE, if the anti doping regulations are supposed to have any use at all) is on him.

Indeed, I suspect that Froome either already was or knows that he will be unable to do so, hence the secrecy (there already was sufficient time for a PK test, and one should think both team and rider would have liked to get this off their chest). Instead, I fear Sky and the UCI were negotiating for an Armstrong type settlement.

CB

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I don't know about that:
http://bit.ly/2zcG8CF

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Precisely, and I blame Sky and the regulatory bodies especially in the UK who let the get away with their crap for too long.


Of course the marginal gains stuff is not bollocks. However, this is what all teams are after, continuously.

I simply cannot buy that Sky suddenly stumbled across new training regimes, race tactics, or diets that were all missed by everyone else and that could have explained their dominance. Maybe even initially, but over a few years, with different team leaders and helpers? All this would have been copied quickly enough, and probably even was.

CB

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The big picture here is that Chris Froome was a relative nobody in the peloton until age 27 when he was about to be dropped by Team Sky. Then suddenly he's challenging for the Vuelta. In a sport where physiology is so important champions are spotted much sooner than age 27. He was not on the radar. Then from the end of 2011 he's suddenly beating the best who we know were also doping. How does that happen? What's the most obvious thing that could be happening?

In reply to nufkin:


I've only been following cycling for the last 2 or 3 years, but what I've seen and heard of Sky is that they analyse absolutely everything down to almost atomic level. They don't make cock ups, push boundaries to their limits, maybe.

In reply to cb294:

Agree that it's possible that he was using Salbutamol by means other than an inhaler, given the levels found in in his urine. But I don't believe he has faked his asthma - he definitely has the asthmatics cough IMHO.

And where does the "supposedly pollen triggered asthma" come from - asthma has many causes and is unpredictable. Nibali has said his own asthma was fine that day, and that his is triggered by pollen, but I've not seen Froome giving that as reason for upping his medication.

Nonetheless it does look like he upped his medication following a day when Nibbles took time out of him, and as a result took time back.

In reply to sheavi07:


He was struggling though his career with undiagnosed asthma holding him back. Once he had that inhaler there was no stopping him.

*Insert laughing face thingy*

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I was thinking that. My asthma was generally triggered by house dust, and it tended to be worse outside in very humid conditions. Pollen/hay fever was never really on my radar. Difficult to say if Nibbles is innocently ignorant of the variety of triggers for asthma or is stirring it.

In reply to cb294:

Did you follow the vuelta ? Did you notice the rotation of domestiques, so that some days a rider like Moscon would be helping Froome almost to the finish, and other days nowhere to be seen. It's quite an obvious tactic, but I've not seen it before. Even with the super strong teams of the past the domestiques would usually fall away in pretty much the same order each stage.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

He may have asthma, but the scheduling of the attacks seems just too convenient.

CB

In reply to cb294:

The "credulousness" of cycling supporters is unreal. How many more "it's different this times" ??

In reply to Chris the Tall:

IIRC Telekom in the Riis and Ulrich years sometimes also did something like that, maybe the Sky version is a bit more extreme. One obvious difference is that Telekom also carried Ludwig and later Zabel and someone to lead him out.

My point is that this heavy rotation is not new to last years Vuelta, and could have immediately been copied by other teams if they had concluded that this was what gave Sky its edge.

To say that tactical innovation underlies the success of Sky for longer than one grand tour is accusing the other teams of stupidity, but they did not get their licences for nothing.

CB

In reply to sheavi07:

Obviously you don't believe the Bilharzia story, but in the 6 years since it was first reported no-one has managed to disprove it, as far as I'm aware, though I suspect many have tried. In fact it's such a perfect explanation for his change in form that it will have inevitably been the cause of much skepticism and therefore scrutiny.

But do you also believe that the development path in Kenya was as good as France, Spain, Italy etc etc? Look at his first performance in the worlds - showing great tenacity just to get there, a lot of raw talent and strength, and pretty awful bike handling !

And at his breakthough race at the Vuelta, who beat him ? That legend of the sport Juan Jose Cobo !!!

So as with everything else, it is all very plausible. Doesn't mean it's true though

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Can't disprove it due to medical history confidentiality. Though the hunt continues. Froome could just get a copy for the doubters??

Cobo was an excellent climber, was doping, and the Vuelta suited him.

To be a multi grand tour winner takes more than what he demonstrated I'd say.

Much rests on the Bilharzia narrative.

I really think that those in pro cycling world know he's cheating, as many still are. His time is numbered. Do you think Wiggins was genuine?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Froome is clean

In reply to Lion Bakes:


And I'm 8'4''

In reply to Chris the Tall:

How much benefit does salbutamol use bring compared to other substances that are used to gain advantage, eg EPO? This article:

Chris Froome: Adverse finding a doomsday scenario for him and Team Sky
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42350159

suggests not a great deal.

Could he have been using oral salbutamol for a marginal anabolic gain, as suggested in the article? If he was, and taking inhaled salbutamol, would he not have been likely to have gone over the level previously? And if not, and if it brings no benefit above correcting the bronchoconstriction, would taking more have gained him any advantage?

He’s going to lose the vuelta title though, isn’t he? In which case, reminiscent of Alain baxter losing his Olympic medal for decongestant use.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Salbutomol is on the banned list under 'masking agents.'

In reply to bouldery bits:

Good job that is not the substance involved then !

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

2018, the year not to ride for Sky in the Tour unless you like the taste of urine - this and the Wiggins saga just adds fuel to the continental fire that has been burning for years.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

If results can be exaggerated during extreme dehydration and fatigue. Would not all other substances in said result not have increased in a similar ratio ? If Gollum has been tested throughout his career would he not have been dehydrated before ? He never had such a high result before. It walks like duck and it quacks like duck.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Errr.... Isn't it?

What is the substance involved then?

In reply to bouldery bits:

I think they’re referring to the spelling.

In reply to Pedro:

Remember he was tested on just about every other day of the Vuelta as well, and only this one anomaly. That doesn't really point to anything systematic going on. Its a really odd one.

In reply to GrahamD:

I think that one will find that not all samples are tested; very few, perhaps.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Surely they will have been tested now, though ?

In reply to GrahamD:

Not necessarily. CF will want to test to establish a pattern, perhaps, but the anti-drugs agency, perhaps not.

In reply to GrahamD:

It doesn't quite add up says an expert (from Sheffield)

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt...

Very hard to see how his previous tests will prove anything one way or another. If he could prove that the only way he took Salbutomol was through his inhaler than he'd probably be fine, but he can't. There are reasons why you would Sal in other ways, and those ways have PE benefits, which is why the threshold is there. So his only hope is to somehow replicate the event in a lab, taking the max amount of Sal, getting very dehydrated and seeing if he goes over the limit.

And the "I wouldn't be so stupid defence" doesn't work - only dopey dopers get caught !

You have to start from the stance of how would it look if someone was doping. So lets say Froome was using Sal via ingestion or injection, at a low enough level not to trigger an AAF. But then all of a sudden he really does need to inhale it and boom, he's at double the limit.

I think Sky's policy of "going up to the line" is now becoming clearer, and regardless of the ethics, the flaws in the strategy have been exposed.

I wonder if Trek still have room for Thomas ? If I was him, I'd use this an excuse to jump ship

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


I have considerably more sympathy with Baxter.

His problem was brought on by poor accommodation and poor support - didn't he send his Mum out to get the inhaler ?
And it was proven that there was no benefit from the illegal component, but rules are rules.

Froome on the other hand did benefit, so even if he can prove he followed the guidelines, he still has to lose the title.

I just think it's dubious that Nibali will gain, given that he still uses Pantani's doctor.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I wonder how many (if any) riders have had an Adverse Analytical Finding for Salbutomol, done the lab test and been shown to be innocent of any wrong doing??

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Here is an interesting comment about Sky and marginal gains from the same site that sheavi linked to above.

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/sports-science-marginal-gains-common-se...

Incidentally, it actually captures quite well why I dislike team Sky (apart from their sponsor, of course). As I said in my previous response, looking for marginal gains is not revolutionary at all, but bread and butter for any high level competitor in essentially any sport.

Funnily enough, football, as the sport where the most money is made professionally, is actually quite a bit behind the curve compared with all the state amateurs training for the Olympics!

What annoys me is that Sky appears to get away with providing a superficially plausible, legitimate explanation for their success, while in reality the performance gains come from exploiting a grey area (unjustified TUEs) or possibly outright undetected doping (as with everyone else).

I actually don't mind the doping as such, it is the same issue as with professional fouls in football: IMO there is no "ethics" in sports, the point is winning, the rules are arbitrary and essentially a price list, sometimes you have to break these rules to win, but be prepared to pay the price if you are caught breaking the rules. Of course, this should be taken cum grano salis, but still...

CB

edit: including the link helps.....

In reply to Chris the Tall:



I don't get the bit where the expert talks about Sal in tablet form being "potent" with a "larger effect" - as it's in the blood, however the puffer is just a muscle relaxant in the airways, with no performance enhancement. I thought the purpose of the lungs is to get stuff in (and out) of the blood steam quickly?

In reply to Tricky Dicky:

One I believe, whereas 3 have been given bans

"As for precedents, the UCI has a number of cases on which it can fall back with regards to salbutamol. In 2014, the Italian rider Diego Ulissi was handed a nine-month ban when he returned a reading of 1920ng/ml – or some 80ng/ml lower than Froome – at the 2014 Giro d'Italia. Ulissi struggled to explain such high levels, despite undergoing special tests in Switzerland in order to replicate the conditions. Alessandro Petacchi was hit with a year-long ban in 2007 when he spiked out at 1320ng/ml, but Leonardo Piepoli was cleared during the same year after returning similar readings."

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Because you get direct application to the affected muscles rather than via the bloodstream.

As an aside when I trained to a pretty high level for athletics with a group in SW London a quite high proportion of people developed exercise induced asthma - probably a combination of poor air quality and two plus hours of intervals a week. I myself developed something that when I slowed down or went downhill I would start choking, particularly in cold weather, and have the same effect still. So when people express surprise that so many pro cyclists have asthma compared to a normal population, I am not. That doesn't excuse failing a test though

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Makes sense to me - inhaler is topical, gets to the affected muscles quickly. Ingestion/injection will take longer and will have an effect of all muscles, not just those causing the immediate problem

In reply to cb294: It’s sad seeing the misconceptions that are out there about athletes & salbutamol use. My hope is that this doesn’t prevent asthmatic athletes from using their inhalers in emergency situations for fear of being judged. It is not something to be ashamed of

In reply to nufkin:

I had a beer with a mate of mine last night, who is an ex pro rider who rode here and overseas. His take is that it is likely to be a cock up, and that the performance benefit from Salbutamol is negligible, and the risk too high to abuse it.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
the latest turn in the story- a 'slithering reptile'.... deary me...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42363825

no love lost there...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: I'd assumed this to be a fake account but clearly not.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I totally agree, and this makes preventing both non-asthmatic and asthmatic athletes from abusing free asthma drugs drugs like Salbutamol or drugs requiring TUEs like triamcinolone even more essential.

Otherwise, all asthmatic athletes will be suspected of cheating, even though they are merely treating a true medical condition. Rather than being a role model, Wiggins and Froome did asthmatic athletes a great disservice!

In addition, as I mentioned above, drawing the border between medical need and PED use is tricky, and even less clear cut for other conditions. All the more reason to throw the book at Froome, and to demand a full experimental and paper trail proof before declaring the incident merely an innocent mistake.


CB

In reply to cb294: That was Chris Froome on Twitter, BTW!

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Ah, OK, makes sense! I do not normally use twitter, so did not spot that!

CB

In reply to cb294:


predominantly the reason team Sky win is because they have a plan A and stick to it. They don't get distracted by points competitions or stage wins and they hire the best riders to carry out that plan.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

There are a number of things that puzzle me about all of this:

1. Froome was in the red jersey from Stage 3 of the Vuelta onward (from memory) which means he would have been tested every day at doping control

2. If we believe what we've been told Froome uses Ventolin inhalers daily so he must have declared Salbutamol on his doping forms every day and up until Stage 18 he must have been under the 1000ng/L threshold.

3. Froome has stated he increased his Ventolin dose at some point during the Vuelta

4. His results from Stage 18 were double the 1000ng/L limit, we have no reports indicating if Froome's subsequent results from Stage 18 onward were also high

The Stage 18 result of ~2000ng/L would appear to be anomalous the reason is why! as far as I can figure there can only be the following reasons

1. Froome deliberately took more Ventolin, although why he would do this knowing what the limits are and that he would be going into doping control at the end of the day doesn't really make much sense

2. Froome accidentally took too much - I've used inhalers myself and sometimes I've not been convinced the dose has been delivered so I've pushed the plunger again - could Froome have done this?

3. The inhaler is a mechanical device I'd like to know how accurate repeat doses are and in particular the accuracy of the doses as the Salbutamol cylinder empties over time. A classic Ventolin inhaler holds the salbutamol in a pressurised cylinder, could the accuracy of a dose be affected by altitude due to air pressure changes or relative humidity?

These are the questions I'd like answering before the reputation and carreer of Froome are ripped apart along with the already tarnished image of a sport I love.

For what its worth the way the media has portrayed all of this just stinks.

Facts are what we need and lets hope we get them quickly!

Lee

In reply to xyz:
sky probably use the most effective methods of getting the dose into the body. lung deposition varies with inhalation method.
a late blast in the morning may have peaked his reading by the end of the stage (short 1/2 life so timing important)

In reply to xyz:


Sky haven't exactly been making friends in the media recently


And the bad news is we won't. Unless Froome admits he cheated.

Forget who this is and "he wouldn't be so stupid" and look at it objectively.
Salbutomol, taken as a pill or injected, could be of use to athlete.
The tests are not able to distinguish whether you take it via inhaler or not.
He had twice the legal limit.
Strict liability applies rather than reasonable doubt.

Sky have little choice but to fight this all the way, but everything is stacked against them

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
interesting snippet from an insider regarding asthma inhalers:

Q. What about asthma inhalers? So often we see top-level endurance athletes sucking on inhalers, a sight at odds with most people’s childhood memories of asthmatic classmates’ loathing of aerobic exercise. Could it be the humble asthma inhaler holds performance-enhancing qualities?

‘I call it the “transporter”,’ he says. ‘It opens and expands not only your lung capacity but also your pulmonary capability, so it has improved capacity to move the blood cells…

‘In other words, if you were using EPO, or if you were using another substance like EPO, it would help you to boost endurance even more. It is like multiplying the effects by between three and five times.’

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/angel-hernandez-i-no-longer-dope-athlet...

In reply to cb294:



Sorry, but it's a poor and rambling article IMHO. Syed is irrelvant. And the notion that there is no room for innovation is as ludicrous as saying there is no point in innovating because if you're successful you'll simply get copied.

Tactics/best practice in cycling have changed and it's no surprise that the team with the biggest budget has been the most innovative. I'm not saying that all those innovations have been ethical or good for the sport, but don't deny they exist.

In reply to malk:

Paywalled; and I’d take a lot more evidence to be persuaded that salbutamol is up to five times as potent a performance enhancer than erythropoietin.

But a bit of reading around has me less convinced by the argument that it has no beneficial effects for non asthmatics.

I’d still like to believe that this was inadvertent; but realistically it looks more like a strategy to exploit a ‘grey area’ which slipped up in its execution. Sadly.

In reply to xyz:


An interesting point, this one- certainly plausible that the dose delivered could vary depending on environment factors outside expected parameters- and testable.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Let's be pedantic about spelling and let the DRUGS CHEATS off then.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Thank you.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Ashma treatment that offers no performance enhancement is hardly drugs cheating as your Daily Mail type headline would imply.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What, do you think, is the probability that his test result for salbutamol would have been as high as it was on that one occasion or higher if he had strictly followed guidelines for use of inhalers?

Also, and more interestingly, what, do you think, is the probability that he didn't follow the guidelines, given the test result?

What if the odds that he didn't follow the guidelines are less than one, or if no-one has any idea what those odds are?

In reply to mbh:

And the simple answer is.....no one knows.

If Froome’s previous tests show a consistently high but legal level, what does that prove ? Probably better for him if his values can be shown to fluctuate wildly, but either way the results could come from illegal use of the drug.

We do know how many people have recieived bans for Salbutamol use, but we don’t how many have been reprieved and kept quiet about it - as is their right. We can assume that he hasn’t done the PK tests yet, but does that mean Sky have had 3 months to discover the techniques that could lead to a false positive- dehydration, swallowing etc - and will then be ensuring he can replicate them.

About the only thing we can be sure of is that those who think he is clean will still think he is clean and those who thought he was dirty will feel vindicated and remain convinced that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Neither view will be changed by the eventual verdict.

In reply to Lion Bakes:

Salbutamol via an inhaler is a performance enabler rather than a performance enhance.

Salbutamol via other means....well, that’s less clear cut.

In reply to Lion Bakes:

If you're Winning bin elite pro sport you're on the gas.

If you don't like it that's fine but it is the truth.

In reply to bouldery bits:



If your attitude is that winning is proof of cheating then you may as well stop watching sport.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Sort of,

I like the idea of seeing the best athletes doing the absolute maximum. If that involves chemical enhancement then fine.

I'm quite cynical, but that's ok with me. I understand that you don't take a magic pill and just become world class. It takes all the effort and talent aswell.

(Have a like from me. Your post is kind, considerate and we'll articulated)

In reply to GrahamD:

Believe what you want. In other news, Father Christmas may deliver presents in a few days....

CB

In reply to cb294:

I think you have a big bee in your bonnet about Sky. Time to let that one fly away.

In reply to Lion Bakes:




... would be permitted if administered by inhaler up to a certain dose, with a rather generous level permitted to enter the blood stream.

Keep in mind that drugs like Clenbuterol, which have related pharmacological effects, are on the list for a reason. Salbutamol should logically be banned as well, as it can definitely be used as a PED.

However, to enable asthma sufferers to participate in the first place, a compromise was found, whereby one drug drug was allowed if it is administered in a way that limits the performance enhancing effects. Abusing this drug as a PED is an almost obscene abuse of trust, and the fact that he had illegal levels of the drug in his system is not disputed.

So, unless he can prove that 1) he staid below the permitted threshold for inhaler use, and 2) that doing so can, in his case, suffice to generate the illegal levels, he is a drugs cheat.

CB

In reply to ClimberEd:

Not at all, as I have posted I do not believe the other teams are clean either. What pisses me off is the hypocrisy of the Sky team, and the naivety of the Sky fan boys, on this thread and elsewhere. Marginal gains, sure, no one else tried that before....

CB

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I disagree, IMO there is not much innovation at all that is specific to Sky. Look at how anorexic all the current grand tour GC riders look, compared, to, say, Indurain, Riis, Armstrong or Ulrich, despite retaining comparable time trial power.

A more plausible explanation for their success is that Sky were pushing the envelope more than other teams, because the UK regulatory bodies let them. The entire setup with blurred lines between teams and regulatory bodies almost guaranteed a conflict of interest. In addition, they were excellent at the marketing bullshit.

CB

In reply to cb294:



Why? Most companies, individuals and sports teams have a 'public image' and a private reality. Back in the 'old days' this was much easier to manage, which I would argue is a good thing (every felt exhausted after a long day of being nice).

I am sure Sky sail very close to the wind of what is allowed, (I have no firm view on whether they step over the line on purpose or not) but marginal gains is also true. If you read about how a lot of the teams used to train (and I mean only 10 years ago, not 30) if was astoundingly shit/ineffective/disorganised/amateur (delete as you see fit, it amounts to the same thing.)

In reply to cb294:


I'm willing to be open minded on this until I've seen the outcome of more research. But back to the cycling....

In reply to ClimberEd:

Did you by chance see the comment I linked to above?

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/sports-science-marginal-gains-common-se...

Marginal gains is the ONLY thing why teams in any professional sport would hire sports scientists as performance directors. Do you seriously believe that Sky stumbled upon a new, secret combination of training regimes, nutrition, and race tactics, that was missed by everyone else, and together explains their success?

Sure, from time to time there can be innovation in any of these fields, but that typically works for only so long until the competition catches up. Best example would be the invention of V style ski jumping.

Any team staying ahead of the game for so long, especially with different GC riders, is in itself suspicious.

CB

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I used to think the Sky Fanboy thing was a bit of a myth, but I encountered a gold plated one on Twitter last night. He was miffed that Froome hadn’t won SPOTY, I pointed out despite a spectacular year, after this week it was completely understandable that he didn’t win and that Farah was a deserving winner. He called me names then blocked me.

The thing is, I hope this issue does get resolved. I hope Froome operating within the rules and I hope that my view that Sky have generally been a force for good in cycling proves correct.

In reply to cb294:


So go ahead and explain the success of the British cycling team at the last 3 Olympics. That was one of the legacies left by Dave Brailsford before he went to Sky.
Or do you think the Olympic cyclists were all drugs cheats as well?

In reply to cb294:




I'm sure you will have seen the concept of "financial doping"? Team Sky's vast budget means that they can afford the very best people, equipment, training camps and whatever and have the spare cash to throw at other "marginal gains" stuff like wind tunnel testing, special pillows and whatever, so you would expect them to do consistently better than other teams on much more restricted budgets.

Naturally, you're not going to give away all your secrets for other teams to take advantage of, but you have to wonder how their riders produce some astounding efforts when apparently at deaths door - good article here:
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-the-grea...

In reply to Gone for good:

I do not know, even though statistically the majority of competitors will have been using PEDs at some point during the Olympic cycle (as evidenced by anonymized interviews at the last summer Olympics, where more than one third of responding athletes stated that they had broken PED rules at least once, and where for that issue in particular one can safely assume strong underreporting). However, I do not believe that the UK track cyclists were doping any more than their competitors from other countries, there is no evidence of a state organized doping program as with the Russian winter athletes in Sochi.

Instead, my off the cuff explanation would be that in the runup to the London Olympics the UK funding bodies identified those sports where investing a given amount of money would yield the most medals in return. The therefore pooled resources in these sports, which happened to include track cycling but not, say, handball (where players were instead picked from lower German leagues as long as they had UK citizenship).

Establishing a good infrastructure, and then funding a larger than usual group of athletes to train for longer periods and using better facilities will definitely pay off over more than one cycle.

However, the same argument does not really apply for the pro tour professional cycling teams, where the majority of the teams with GC ambitions will be able to work under comparable conditions, and riders switch between teams.

CB

In reply to LastBoyScout:

I don't think that the Sky budget is that much bigger in comparison to teams like Astana or Katjusha.

The Kimmage article is great!

CB

In reply to cb294:
Poor managers can't catch up with better management of what happens off the bike during a grand tour.

For example, in the vuelta contador had a stomach upset which might be a sign his team didn't manage his health and hygiene very well.

If sky consisterly manage food hygiene and teach hand washing better that is a consistent racing advantage they can retain even if there's no secret.

For many of the other marginal gains, look at the psychological advantage and placebo effect.

As long as sky can convince their riders and their competitors that sky has a successful reputation for marginal gains they have a persistent psychological advantage and placebo effect for every trivial and otherwise meaningless innovation.

>Any team staying ahead of the game for so long, especially with different GC riders, is in itself suspicious.

Given the history of cycling you have a point but would the same logic apply to another team sport such as football?
I suspect most countries have a few teams usually in the top 5 for decades. Is that suspicious?

Like tesm sky, it might have something to do with management, money, team culture plus a reputation giving a psychological advantage.

In reply to cb294:

Ross Tucker has an axe to grind with people who dope, cycling, Sky and Chris Froome.

So, despite his 'credentials' I no longer take everything he says seriously. He used to post more impartial analysis (about everything, not Chris Froome specifically) but has increasingly gone down the rode of guilty until proven innocent.

In reply to LastBoyScout:



Contains a major inaccuracy, or at least something at odds with the crucial scientific opinions being reported elsewhere

Froome says the inhaler merely restores him to normal, and that a normal person using an inhaler won't benefit

Kimmage says "But that depends, obviously, on how much is used."

Well no, it isn't obvious. In fact it appears that this statement is completely false WHEN USING AN INHALER. The informed opinion is that inhaler use only clears problems, but does not enhance lung function. And overdoing the inhaler could well cause other problems such as palpitations, nausea and headaches.

On the other hand Salbutomol via injection/ingestion might be performance enhancing, which is why there is as a threshold.

Which is not to say Froome is clean - he may well have been injecting it, and the onus is on him to prove otherwise -
but get the basic facts rights. Of course if those facts don't suit your story....

In reply to cb294:

Why are you "surprised" at Sky's success over the last few years ? I would argue that, outside the TdF they have been spectacularly unsuccessful given that they are the highest budget team out there. They've been pretty middling in the spring classics and the Giro, for instance.

To me, this just shows that Sky's objectives are far more tightly focused on the TdF GC compared with other teams and that would be a significant, not marginal, benefit in that race.

In reply to ClimberEd:


I am with him there, though. I also become more cynical with each passing year, and guilty until proven innocent is the only realistic approach.

I definitely believe that none of the grand tour GC competitors or even potential stage winners are clean. I know that many athletes claim that times have changed, but I have heard that tune too often. However, it is true that modern doping practises are an improvement on pre Festina scandal EPO doping, when athletes had to be helped from their training bikes and had to spend the night walking around for fear of stroke if they would lay down (the infamous shortened stage of the 1996 TdF).

If anything, this improved technical sophistication has allowed doping to become much more pervasive in many sports. Not surprising, as the anti doping agencies are mere fig leaves. Doping in football, anyone?

CB

In reply to Chris the Tall:
When going over the allowed daily dose Salbutamol, even if inhaled, can most likely act at least as a general stimulant. Otherwise, you could let athletes inhale as much as they want, not only a dose that should suffice to treat asthma symptoms and thus level the playing field.

This is also the reason why you have both a dose limit for inhalation, and a limit for the resulting blood concentration. This would be unnecessarily complicated if inhaled Salbutamol had no PED function at all, in which case you would simply have to prescribe the mode of administration.

CB
edited to make it clear that I start by talking about inhalation

In reply to GrahamD:

That is true to an extent, but the TdF is the key prize for all other teams as well. Hence, they will also use their tour riders sparingly in the events leading up to the tour, e.g. put in only half an effort at the Dauphine Libere or Tour du Romandie. They may even have different captains for the spring classics and grand tours.

CB

In reply to cb294:

and guilty until proven innocent is the only realistic approach.


Really? I'm not sure that is how rule of law in democratic countries works. And rule of law underpins society. So it's not really a feasible approach is it.

In reply to cb294:

That's not my understanding from what I've over the last few days - probably inner ring and Ross Tucker but I don't have time to check.

The drug does have different effects when inhaled to when it is injected, and reason why there is a limit at all is prevent misuse via the second method, which has no therapeutic benefit in breathing, but could assist in reducing muscle mass (as with Clenbutrol)

In reply to ClimberEd:

But we are not talking about law here, where I would totally agree.

The question is whether you are more likely to be correct in assuming that a TdF stage winner is clean or not. The only consequence is whether I as a cycling fan remain interested in the outcome of the races, and whether the team sponsors therefore can expect that their association with the sport helps to sell me their products.

Cycling in general has turned out to be PED infested since many years, none of the various initiatives to clean things up has been successful, which is probably most easily explained by assuming that these initiatives were only meant to distract from the actual problem. I would not trust UCI and WADA as far as I can vomit.

CB

In reply to cb294:
There is no evidence that Salbutamol is a PED it can level the playing field for an Astma sufferer but in fit people it has no effect. There is talk of it being used as a masking agent but again no evidence to say this is actually the case.
If you want links to the various experts and studies I'm afraid you will have to wade through the 30 plus pages on the Chris Froome thread on Bikeradar.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I have seen many people claim that this is the case, but it is IMO difficult to demonstrate or even envisage a mechanism. Obviously, if you can get Salbutamol to act directly on the airway smooth musculature the other effects, which depend on the blood concentration, will be reduced (not quite, as the delivery mode may cause differences in pharmakokinetics). The two thresholds are not merely a dosage manual. If you could get high blood concentrations by inhaling a tankfull you would get the same benefits as by injecting to the same level.

CB

In reply to webbo:

Please see my reply to Chris the Tall. This claim is religiously repeated everywhere, especially by people defending Froome, but there is no reason to assume it is true. The two separate thresholds (for amount inhaled and blood concentration) exist for a reason.
CB

In reply to cb294:

Dr Tom Bassingdale a forensic toxicologist at Sheffield Hallam University according to what I read on a link of Bikeradar disagrees.

In reply to cb294:


Except I'm not defending Froome, merely explaining the science and rules (which, as someone who suffers from EIA has been very enlightening). I haven't seen this "claim" disputed by anyone who has considered it

>The two separate thresholds (for amount inhaled and blood concentration) exist for a reason.

And that reason is that athletes need a guideline to work to (amount inhaled) and the testers need a quantifiable threshold to test for (urine concentration). The reason why Froome hasn't been suspended yet is that there is a poor correlation between the two

In reply to webbo:

Here's the link I posted on Friday

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt...

(As an aside, I'm very impressed with how often research from the Sheffield universities crops up in the news)

In reply to webbo:

I have read the interview, and am not convinced that one can draw that conclusion.Sports science is not my immediate field of expertise, but I am a molecular biologist / geneticist, and am by chance currently preparing a lecture on the history and physiology of doping (as I have to give a lecture on an nonspecialist subject later that year), so I am not a total non-expert either.

I can accept that inhaling normal doses will help if you suffer from asthma, and bring negligible effects if you are healthy (I am therefore in favour of allowing the inhalation of low doses). However, that is not the same as claiming that it would be impossible to achieve a performance enhancing stimulant effect lasting, say, half an hour if you take the entire dose allowed for a 12h window in a single bolus at the start of a hill climb. AFAIK such experiments have not been published, but I am sure they have been done. Doping is a proper science, and is done with the required experimental underpinning.

CB

In reply to Chris the Tall:



That is what I was getting at in my earlier post, for which thanks for your reply. If an athlete were to be suspended and perhaps disgraced on the basis of a positive test, one would hope that it would at least be more likely true than not that he/she had taken more of a drug than was allowed, given that they had tested positive. If no-one has any idea what those odds are a) why not and b) why the outcry on the basis of this one test?

if someone understands that the odds are greater than one, could they explain?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

You are right that things need to testable, but there is no need to provide a dosage guidance.

Anyway, from your link:

... There is no extra benefit for anyone who might not be asthmatic. If an asthmatic took a few extra puffs, they might feel some mild stimulation. Like a jolt of caffeine. Beyond that, there are not much additional benefits to performance....

Overall I get the expression that Dr. Bassingdale is referring normal, therapeutic doses, which indeed suffice to relax the airway musculature and not much more (as low absolute amounts will do the job). Interestingly sprays are not the ideal mode of delivery, full nebulizers work much better and you can overdose easily.

I also doubt that Froome used Salbutamol pills or injections on that day, even though it is a possibly way to get the high readings. I do not see the point ther, that would make much more sense in training rather than during the race, where a stimulant effect may be more interesting.

My suspicion that has come from the last days of discussing the topic is that they may have used the Salbutamol as a PED, possibly even staying inside the absolute limits, by not distributing that dose across multiple puffs but by concentrating it in time.

The idea would be to generate a short spike that exerts a stimulant effect, possibly stronger than the few puffs referred to above, and still would allow them to claim that they had stayed within the rules.

The adverse finding could then come from bad timing (e.g., the urine sample being collected a bit earlier than expected, from the first piss after the race rather than after a period of rehydration).

No pity, though, as such a strategy would still amount to subverting the spirit of the regulation, which was be to help people suffering from asthma, not to allow them to exploit the side effects of the drug.

CB

In reply to mbh:

The urine threshold has a huge safety margin. It is essentially impossible to exceed it if you are merely taking a few puffs for your asthma. If you exceed that level, it is therefore pretty safe to assume that you did something else.

However, because the the substance cannot be banned outright, you are offered the chance to demonstrate that for some reason, e.g. weird personal physiology, you got the adverse finding from the intended, legal use. For substances on the fully banned list it is easier, the threshold is set as low as the diagnostics remains reliable.

CB

In reply to cb294:

Thanks!

In reply to cb294:


There are very few teams that put in a team 100% dedicated to GC. Most will have people aiming at sprint stages or individual stages.

In reply to cb294:


The graph and explanation in the Inner Ring link above suggests otherwise? 9 puffs sent the recorded level way over the 1000 limit?

In reply to GrahamD:

Not to mention a huge budget to pay for domestiques like Kwiatkowski, Landa, Poels, Thomas, Moscon...

In reply to cb294:


Disagree entirely. You don't want to create a environment (either in the race or the real world) where people are inhibited from using their inhalers. The situation where you don't set dosage guidance is in drink driving, where the message is that it's better not to drink anything.

>Interestingly sprays are not the ideal mode of delivery, full nebulizers work much better

Bit harder to put in your back pocket though ! It is however the inefficiency of the inhaler in terms of getting the drug into the bloodstream that creates this potential uncertainty. And Froome might be able to argue that the difficulty of taking it whist riding up a hill means he needs to take an extra puff or two to have the required (legit) effect.

The thing is you need to depersonalise this, and not make assumptions because you have this gut feeling that he is a cheat.

So it is possible that CF could have "saved" all his "allowed" dosage for one big hit and still be within the rules - and it's irrelevant if his reasons are those I gave above or because he has discovered that he does get some additional benefit from doing so. (And it also irrelevant whether that would be worth the effort let alone the risk).

But it does mean that there is a good chance he can replicate the situation at the UCI lab (particularly after Sky have had several months to work on it), and thereby prove that the result is possible by staying within the guidelines.

In which case the case would be dropped and everyone would be happy........

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I was born in 1957.

I had severe Athsma as a child — in and out of hospital and lots of days off school.

My treatment in those early years consisted of thrice-weekly injections (of what, I've no idea) together with sleeping in the family bathroom on a campbed, because at that time other rooms in houses were carpeted and full of dust mites.

At the age of 12, or so, the family doctor gave me a miracle — the Salbutamol/Ventolin inhaler. It changed my life.

My Athsma gradually got better with age, but even in my late thirties I was still taking a couple of 'puffs' before a hard climb (that's climbing as in rock, not cycling) not because I felt ill, but purely for the stimulative effect I'd become accomstomed to.

If proffesional road cyclists are allowed to legally take up to 1600 mg of Salbutamol (16 puffs!) during the course of a day's racing, the rules need looking at...

In reply to webbo:



Any chance you could provide a link- would be interested to read them, as I couldn’t find anything relevant. Not familiar with Bikeradar, and I guess there is going to be more than one thread about this there...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It's the link that Chris the tall posted above.

In reply to webbo:
That link doesn’t support your contention re no performance enhancing effect- quite the opposite:

With injections or tablets, you start getting some additional effects. You might see anabolic effects, such muscle-growing or fat-burning, similar to what Clenbuterol might do. That wouldn’t result from a couple of puffs. That would be a longer-term abuse with a higher level of it to get that anabolic effect, over weeks or even months.
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt...

The issue is over whether the high level could have been due to legitimate inhaled use on top of illegitimate oral use to achieve the benefits in the link above

I hope not; it would seem a step beyond what I’d expect Sky to be doing, crossing the border from taking the rules to their limits but staying jus the right side of them (Wiggins’s steroid injections for hay fever), into unambiguous cheating.

I hope that they are able to recreate the result and show it was just an unusual but understandable result of legitimate use; but the odds appear stacked against him.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I agree with your view.....really hope its not true but the jury is out for me! Been a road cycling fan since about late 70's and believing it was cleaner than ever....

I also, anecdotally, struggle to see how large inhaled doses of Salbutamol can help in a PED way....I developed asthma whilst in the forces and it was one of the reasons I left. I've had high dose Salbutamol and whilst in may be seen as a stimulant it certainly wasn't performance enhancing......quite the opposite.

I also have some suspicion about the governance of the sport and 'leaks' etc.....I don't know of anything but the history of the sport is rife with dirty tricks....

In reply to cb294:

You have a chip and a rant on your shoulder. You could almost be Paul Kimmage.

I suggest you try and take a step back to look at everything, before simply hitting reply and attacking anyone who doesn't agree with the idea that cycling successfully = guilty of doping = yay we have busted them

In reply to ClimberEd:


The state cycling (also other sports, but especially cycling) is in I could almost take this as a compliment!


As above. I did take a look at everything, and came precisely to the conclusion you do not agree with (rare exceptions may apply....).

Still more likely to be correct than those who buy the Sky marketing bullshit that they finally found a formula that allows them to beat the doping competition cleanly.

CB

In reply to cb294:




And in between those two extremes are the rest of us.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

lots if salbutamol research here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=33768

remember Wiggo's jiffy bag when DB mentioned a nebuliser was used? likely froomie used same method. why wouldn't they?

In reply to GrahamD:

Sure, and I have no problem with that,

CB

In reply to malk:

Great link, thanks.

Most interesting for me are the links to reputable scientific studies predating the current issue that all demonstrate that highish levels of oral salbutamol (higher than what you would use to counteract an asthma attack, but roughly what could cause levels of a couple thousand ng/ml total urinary Salbutamol) can act as an acute PED that, within a short span, improves time to exhaustion under submaximal loads.
This is precisely what you would want to achieve with a short, sharp spike at the beginning of a Pyrenees or alpine climb.

CB

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

That is a red herring. The metabolic and anabolic effects are not what you are after with an acute dose of Salbutamol, regardless of mode of administration. See the link by malk for further links documenting more acutely useful PED effects.

Cb

In reply to cb294:

yes; the case it could be perfomance enhancing looks clear.

there is also a suggestion of wide variability in urine levels, whatever the mode of administration

but sky would have surely been aware of this if he had a metabolic tendency to produce high levels in test samples

the window for a plausible explanation appears to be pretty narrow...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Just read something that suggests they can tell from metabolites in the urine whether the salbutamol was inhaled or ingested.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

That would be surprising. Maybe there are other substances present in either the spray or the tablets, but not the other? Otherwise I could not see how modification, which presumably happens largely in the liver, should differ. Interesting to think about....

CB

In reply to cb294:

Saw a tweet from Daniel Friebe say that WADA are changing their rules in 2018

"WADA Technical Document (TD2018DL) dated Nov 15 which says that, from 2018, for the first time, testers should "correct" salbutamol levels in urine where specific urine gravity exceeds a certain threshold (i.e. athlete is dehydrated)."

However he goes on to say that his source has told him it is too late for it to apply to Froome, and that anyway his levels would still be too high. Pettachi on the other hand would have been cleared under these rules.

Still, I'm sure his lawyer will bring it up when it goes to CAS, as it surely will. The question is when.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes, I have seen that suggestion before. Some standardisation is certainly welcome, and urine gravity is probably the easiest parameter to correct for. However, IIRC, in a Swiss study on Salbutamol clearance quite a few athletes actually had to correct the other way round, as their urine was too dilute!

CB

In reply to Chris the Tall:
>"The question is when."

You'd have thought that it might have been more pragmatic for Froome to have taken a ban a.s.a.p., while in tandem doing the PR exercise of "explaining" the test result, and be free for the Tour, if not the Giro. The rules is the is rules, the stuff was in his system, it would seem a ban is inevitable anyway or be it a short ban if it is accepted it's accidental doping rather than systematic doping.

Personally, I'd guess it was accidental doping from systematic taking the p!ss with the spirit of the rules.

In reply to cb294:

i wonder if this has any bearing: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-doctor-palfreeman-says-functional-...

In reply to malk:

Don´ t think so. Weight management is of course the trendy thing, look how anorexic many GC riders look, and may be the true reason for salbutamol doping over longer periods.
To get the level to twice the allowed dosage you would have to drop your body weight to half (in first approximation, as of course also the kidney function is affected), so the expected effect of functional dehydration on urinary concentrations would be much smaller (note that it is an extremely narrow window in which weight loss offsets the power loss).
Also, this is nothing new, and another example of Sky marketing bullshit. Finding the ideal walking weight from which to cut to competition weight so that you have maximum power during competition has been bread and butter for all sports with weight classes since ages.

CB

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


sulfation? can be tested for but conveniently isn't. another grey area maintained by cookson et al?
terbutaline seems to be the beta-agonist drug of choice but needs a TUE (no oral/inhalation detection method tho)
http://theconversation.com/terbutaline-the-drug-at-the-heart-of-british-cyc...

In reply to abr1966:


it would have likely been ingested orally in higher doses to increase anaerobic peak power eg
http://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00319.2015
youtube.com/watch?v=MWhS8RhBl1A&

In reply to cb294:

what's the marketing from that? do you mean like round wheels or nebulisers- fake news that could exonerate them should the line be crossed?

In reply to malk:

I think it means a not altogether true explanation for dominance. Like Lance’s cadence etc.

In reply to cb294:

I think if I have any suspicions it’s over the weight loss. I wonder if there’s any merit in the UCI setting some lower limit for weight per unit of height, or body fat percentage based on health criteria?

In reply to malk:

Just another example of their continuous narrative that all their success at the grand tours comes because they have invented sports science.

CB

In reply to malk:




In this instance

a - that's not really very helpful in a GT stage unless you are sprinter.
b - oral ingestion would probably have lead to much higher urine concentrations than 2000 (like, multiples higher not 2100)

In reply to cb294:



Broadly with regard to cycling they did, at least refined it significantly.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Seriously, not really.

IMO you fell for precisely the marketing strategy I keep complaining about: Present lots of stuff as revolutionary insights, even though they are essentially all well known within sports physiology, with the aim of selling the cumulative effect of marginal gains as a plausible, innocuous explanation for dominance in a specific field (here, grand tour podiums).

Occam's razor suggests otherwise, especially when the claims of novelty do no really hold up to scrutiny.

I refer again to the comment I linked to in a previous reply, making precisely that point:

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/sports-science-marginal-gains-common-se...

CB

In reply to cb294:

i'm not persuaded either way by this. its clear from other areas of sport that changes in the 'management' of a team- be it coaching, tactics, etc, can have a huge difference. a case in point would be man utd pre Alex ferguson, with him, and post- him. the complete domination of the premier league for 20 years that he brought wasn't plausibly because his teams took better drugs than david moyes' did.

so i'm willing to buy that the 'marginal gains' philosophy + targeting certain events + specific tactical advances certainly *could* have brought about the advantages over competition sky have shown

or even that it is 'marketing', not to cover cheating, but to help project an impression of invulnerability as part of 'psychological warfare' on opponents, which can become a self-fulfilling prophecy- if both sky riders and opponents believe it, then thats going to impact performance- viz SAF's sides at old trafford, 'fergie time' et al.

of course, could doesnt mean is- it could all be a cover for doping. this particular situation is going to take a lot of explaining away

but: just because they are better, doesn't prove they are doping

In reply to cb294:

hahah it has zero to do with marketing, I don't really care what piffle is in the media or spouted by David Brailsford, I simply read about what sort of training cyclists used to get up to, and what they get up to now.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Topsy and Tim's Big Book of Sports Science, by any chance?

CB

In reply to cb294:


I thought that most people accepted that it was because they had a slightly better budget than most and prioritised the TdF GC much more than other teams - in combination of 'best in class' application of sports science.

In reply to GrahamD:

Yes, they targeted the GC trophy and filled their team with the best domestiques they could afford to achieve this and protect their no1 rider as much as possible.

In reply to GrahamD:

Not really, as it would not explain their long term dominance.

Sure, Sky focus more on the grand tours than e.g. the Belgian or Dutch teams for whom the spring classics rank highly, but do they really have that much more financial clout than, say, Astana?

The continuous exchange of riders would also have made keeping any sports science innovations secret impossible, especially over the long period of Sky GT dominance.

CB

In reply to the sheep:

Sure, and the other teams are blind as well as stupid.

In reply to cb294:

see above- Man U were dominant for two decades under ferguson- and their domination ended with his retirement

fergie's teams had an aura that mentally dominated opponents, and that the man u players believed themselves. that had a massive impact.

or take rugby- the all blacks domination for decades can't be explained just on the basis of superior coaches or methods, not when new zealanders have coached other national sides; and with 4 million kiwis, they dont have anything like the potential pool of players compared to france, england or australia. but they're the all blacks- they know that, and opponents know that.

or the domination of cricket in the 80s by the windies- their fast bowlers had batsmen beaten before they even came to the crease

sporting events are won in the head as much as by physical effort. if sky riders believe they are in the best team, and opponents also believe this, then that has a tendency to turn into reality

not saying they didnt cheat- i have no way of knowing- but as i said before, just because they've been dominant doesnt prove they did- almost all team sports have teams that are dominant for sustained periods.

In reply to cb294:
, but do they really have that much more financial clout than, say, Astana?

>Yeah

http://inrng.com/2017/09/the-finances-of-team-sky-2016/

You're going to give yourself a heart attack if you continue with this level of stress and vitriol over Sky. Whatever reason you don't like them, it is entirely unfounded other than at an emotive level.

In reply to cb294:

Astana aren't the most harmonious team recently so there are other factors at play here (but they are one of the other teams to win the TdF this decade).

Of course non of what Sky do (such as warm downs to quote an obvious example) are secret but you still have to apply it with the degree of rigour with the squad you have and to keep that squad motivated.

Plus you have to look at the squad qualities at a particular point in time and Sky simply have had the best in depth squad with a team leader who is (or maybe was) at least comparable to his competition over the past decade.

No different to Man Utds dominance of the premiership in the 90s or Liverpools in the 80s.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I probably risk starting a forum war with this, but how much of the dominance was because Man U and/or Ferguson personally had some key referees in their pocket?

Also, ManU clearly got lucky with the timing of their initial success around the start of the Premiership, and were subsequently able to outspend the competition. It is no coincidence Ferguson's aura diminished once the oil powered teams caught up with his spending ability (and Man U got a Glazer infestation). IMO he simply left ahead of the curve, letting Moyes suffer the consequences.

That Ferguson was a great motivator is just one factor amongst many.

CB

In reply to malk:

Very enlightening.....thanks for the link...
Very very sadly I'm leaning towards thinking that the line has been crossed here......
Utterly depressing....

In reply to cb294:



Your constant straw men really don't strengthen your argument.

In reply to cb294:


I don't know about a forum war, but you are earning your tinfoil hat.


A degree of truth to this, although it is far from the whole story.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Merely wishing that the dominance of team Sky is due to better finances, better training, nutrition, or tactics doesn't make it true, and is at the very least endearingly naive.

Sadly, the circumstantial evidence for quite some time instead points at the same old systematic doping and/or TUE abuse, with the UK cycling and doping control authorities either actively colluding or at the very least turning a blind eye. How could they justify tolerating the level of sloppy medical documentation and the blatant conflicts of interest (sharing of premises, drug delivery services, ...)?

I am absolutely sure that other teams also use the same or other illegal means trying to achieve success (for example, even though quite a fraction of all bikes at the tour and other races have suspiciously warm seat posts, motor doping at least is not a charge levelled at Sky), but at least the other teams do not constantly blather on about their cleaner than clean approach: Strictly no needles my arse.

I very much resent being taken for a fool in this way, and I was just as pissed off with Armstrong from his US Postal days onwards, when it also could have been obvious that his dominance was not natural.

The one issue associated with Sky where I indeed harbour a personal dislike is the team sponsor, but I can readily separate that from the team itself and especially the riders.

I guess with this I am out of this thread, unless some new information comes up. We have been going in circles for too long, and even though work is winding down for the holidays there is still stuff to do.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

CB

In reply to cb294:



don't want to derail this into a football thread- but need to correct this bit- his aura did not diminish- 5 titles in his last 7 years (with the 2 non-title years being runners up spots) shows that even when the spending power of russian oligarchs and middle eastern petro-dollars were in full flow, he kept utd ahead of the competition to the end.

moyes abject performance with the same team shows the magnitude of his effect

/football hijack

edit- oh, and merry xmas!

In reply to cb294: This guy a little about professional cycling and is v sympathetic with CF,

https://soundcloud.com/user-411867241

but ultimately, at around 28 mins, his guest (quack) calls bollocks on the CF defence.

In reply to cb294:

No, I was just making the point that part of their GC success comes from the fact that its their sole target and they stack their team to achieve it. How clean that team is however is a different matter. Personally I think this issue and the TUE stuff with Wiggins and smacks of pushing the limits of whats allowed as far as possible, sometimes stepping over them. We shall see.

In reply to cb294:


I seem to remember someone (probably inner ring) expressing serious doubts over the way Astana used it's budget. Bear in mind that the money comes from state controlled companies in Kazakhstan, an oil rich country with a very poor global image (not exactly helped by the film Borat, which came out a year the team started). When the UCI reviewed it licence a few years back I seem to remember a lot of it's budget went not on riders or coaches or equipment or R&D, but on "travel expenses" - something like 5 times as much as any other team (including Sky, well known for sending staff on little errands). Whilst it couldn't be proven, there was a suspicion that much of the budget was being siphoned off, possibly by the companies putting the money in (laundering, kickbacks etc etc)

Sky seem to be able to keep potentially great classics riders like Kwiatowski and Poels riding as super-doms, with only the odd glimpse of them as leaders. So that's down to either fantastic motivational speeches, being dazzled by Brailsford's shiny bonce or money.

In reply to ClimberEd:


uphill sprinter


it has a short 1/2 life (4hrs?) so taken night before should be ok? look at the Sundby case for high doses and measured urine concentrations less than froome