# Who knew Froome had asthma??????



## jmorgan

This is what Froome's wife had to say about it. 


Michelle Cound
‏@michellecound
@velocast @TourDeJose no TUE required, he has asthma, hence the coughing after exertion #duh #trolls


----------



## bruin11

Half the peloton has asthma. LOL


----------



## Marc

He and Contador must have eaten at the same burger joint before that climb.


----------



## den bakker

smoking gun..


----------



## jlandry

That's one of those new E-Bongs.


----------



## tlg

jlandry said:


> That's one of those new E-Bongs.


Did you mean EPO-Bong?


----------



## Marc

tlg said:


> Did you mean EPO-Bong?


Well actually, bong not needed.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...f-no-pain-no-gain/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0



NYTimes said:


> In recent experiments at his lab, cyclists who were given mild opiates that block the flow of nerve messages from the muscles to the brain and vice versa could ride faster than they ever had before, with a sense of unfettered physical ease — until, without warning, their leg muscles buckled and, limp and nearly paralyzed, they had to be helped from their bikes.


----------



## 9W9W

I was prescribed this very same medication/inhaler after suffering through last season with what I thought was fat [BLEEP] syndrome. Let me tell you! This little blue guy... [email protected]@k. I remember the first time I went out for a cold weather ride (30's) with a buddy who used to spank me and is 60lbs lighter. I literally had holiday pound cake crumbs still on my jersey and I would dance on the pedals right past him while shooting "what you gunna do chump?" icy glares. These little things work... two puffs 5 minutes before exercise, maintenance puffs every 3-4 hours. In layman's terms it's like scaffolding for your lung piping, keeps everything nice and open and freely flowing. 

If I ride without it, especially on hot/humid days, I'm couching up phlegm, wheezing and hosting a pounding headache 10 miles into it. My heart rate shoots up, my ears pop and I can't hear myself talk (high pressure due to impaired lungs and healthy heart working overtime to feed air). So in a sense, it really gets me back to baseline. I could see how this is required and approved, but at the same time... why isn't everyone huffing these? I have to believe every rider already did trainer testing with and without Ventolin and knows if a bump exists. My test for EIS was very subjective... I blew some digital candles out, doc said it "sounds like it" (from my description), it looks like it, it could be it, well just go with this and see if it works. 

She did also mention that if I was a serious athlete she would have prescribed pills to have meds circling in my bloodstream at all times as opposed to being introduced with inhaler.

Apparently there is no benefit to those who do not suffer with EIS:

""The effect of salbutamol (S) on cycling performance was examined in 15 highly trained non-asthmatic male cyclists. A double-blind, randomized cross-over design was used with S or placebo (P) administered using a metered-dose inhaler and a spacer device 20 min before each testing session. The S dose was 400 micrograms (four puffs), which is twice the normal therapeutic level. Subjects were habituated to all the laboratory procedures in the week prior to actual data collection. The subjects performed four tests under S and P conditions on separate days over 2 weeks. These included measurement of maximal O2 uptake (VO2max) (cycle ergometry) with assessment of pulmonary function before and after, a submaximal (90% of ventilatory threshold) square-wave work transition from a base of unloaded cycling, a 60-s modified Wingate test, and a simulated 20 km time trial. No significant differences were observed in any of the dependent variables related to aerobic endurance or cycling performance between the S and P conditions. These results support other findings that an acute dose (400 micrograms) of S has no performance-enhancing properties.""

The effect of salbutamol on performance - PubMed Mobile


----------



## PaxRomana

bruin11 said:


> Half the peloton has asthma. LOL


Yep, that's why we see so many riders using their inhalers during the race.


----------



## tednugent

9W9W said:


> I was prescribed this very same medication/inhaler after suffering through last season with what I thought was fat [BLEEP] syndrome. Let me tell you! This little blue guy... [email protected]@k. I remember the first time I went out for a cold weather ride (30's) with a buddy who used to spank me and is 60lbs lighter. I literally had holiday pound cake crumbs still on my jersey and I would dance on the pedals right past him while shooting "what you gunna do chump?" icy glares. These little things work... two puffs 5 minutes before exercise, maintenance puffs every 3-4 hours. In layman's terms it's like scaffolding for your lung piping, keeps everything nice and open and freely flowing.
> 
> If I ride without it, especially on hot/humid days, I'm couching up phlegm, wheezing and hosting a pounding headache 10 miles into it. My heart rate shoots up, my ears pop and I can't hear myself talk (high pressure due to impaired lungs and healthy heart working overtime to feed air). So in a sense, it really gets me back to baseline. I could see how this is required and approved, but at the same time... why isn't everyone huffing these? I have to believe every rider already did trainer testing with and without Ventolin and knows if a bump exists. My test for EIS was very subjective... I blew some digital candles out, doc said it "sounds like it" (from my description), it looks like it, it could be it, well just go with this and see if it works.
> 
> She did also mention that if I was a serious athlete she would have prescribed pills to have meds circling in my bloodstream at all times as opposed to being introduced with inhaler.
> 
> Apparently there is no benefit to those who do not suffer with EIS:
> 
> ""The effect of salbutamol (S) on cycling performance was examined in 15 highly trained non-asthmatic male cyclists. A double-blind, randomized cross-over design was used with S or placebo (P) administered using a metered-dose inhaler and a spacer device 20 min before each testing session. The S dose was 400 micrograms (four puffs), which is twice the normal therapeutic level. Subjects were habituated to all the laboratory procedures in the week prior to actual data collection. The subjects performed four tests under S and P conditions on separate days over 2 weeks. These included measurement of maximal O2 uptake (VO2max) (cycle ergometry) with assessment of pulmonary function before and after, a submaximal (90% of ventilatory threshold) square-wave work transition from a base of unloaded cycling, a 60-s modified Wingate test, and a simulated 20 km time trial. No significant differences were observed in any of the dependent variables related to aerobic endurance or cycling performance between the S and P conditions. These results support other findings that an acute dose (400 micrograms) of S has no performance-enhancing properties.""
> 
> The effect of salbutamol on performance - PubMed Mobile


When I was growing up, my doctor was on the no-inhaler camp.

Taking Slo-bid (theophylline) and Alupent Syrup sucked. I much prefer inhalers.

the gif looks like he's using Ventolin HFA, which is Albuterol Sulfate.

...with my EIB, that is why I'm a slow rider... especially climbing hills, as I am forced use my 34-32 combo to slowly climb up the hills


----------



## spdntrxi

I gotta try this... I've been coughing like hell after hard rides lately..


----------



## spade2you

tednugent said:


> When I was growing up, my doctor was on the no-inhaler camp.
> 
> Taking Slo-bid (theophylline) and Alupent Syrup sucked. I much prefer inhalers.
> 
> the gif looks like he's using Ventolin HFA, which is Albuterol Sulfate.
> 
> ...with my EIB, that is why I'm a slow rider... especially climbing hills, as I am forced use my 34-32 combo to slowly climb up the hills


I remember Slo-bid and Alupent. Yuck. They didn't work for crap, either. 

I rarely need to hit my inhaler these days unless I've got bronchitis going on, which is rare. Used to have bad EIB, so I'm very happy to drill it up hills and not need my inhaler.


----------



## 9W9W

spade2you said:


> I remember Slo-bid and Alupent. Yuck. They didn't work for crap, either.
> 
> I rarely need to hit my inhaler these days unless I've got bronchitis going on, which is rare. Used to have bad EIB, so I'm very happy to drill it up hills and not need my inhaler.


Curious, does EI Asthma come and go (since you noted you longer need your inhaler)? I'm also an avid snowboarder and even on a good day where I put in 50K vertical feet I don't feel the EI Asthma at all.. only on the bike do I almost stroke out as my heart pumps at 185bpm and I choke on my own phlegm. 

I have the blue Ventolin pump which I lovingly dubbed "Lance the Inhaler". This endorsement may require a name change.


----------



## jmorgan

I cough after the end of a hard ride do I have asthma? 


Just weird that since apparently every pro rider has asthma no one has ever been caught at the front of the peloton taking a hit on an inhaler 19km from the finish of a hard climb and then proceeds to throw normal racing tactics out the window and just power through to the finish.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

Racers are competing and training for several hours a day for maybe 200+ days a year. 
Outdoors, in all kinds of weather.
Would this aggravate pre-existing asthma, or cause it?
I'm 57, never had hay fever in my life, last year I got it really bad, hence my concern.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

jmorgan said:


> no TUE required, he has asthma


Isn't that the exact situation where he WOULD need a TUE? As in a doctor's letter saying yes he does have asthma and approval from the UC for hs inhaler?

His wife is such a pot-stirrer.


----------



## jmorgan

If Froome had an asthma attack and ended up losing a minute or heck a few seconds by the end, people might not question the inhaler so much. Its the fact he drug everyone up the last 5km of that mountain and attacked and attacked and attacked. He never looked like he was suffering and Contador couldn't/didn't even attack which is rare. Froome looked super strong. Its funny if this has been an issue he has dealt with since he was a kid, he never mentioned it in his book that was just released.

I should probably get this cough checked out next time I'm at the doctor.


----------



## Cableguy

jmorgan said:


> If Froome had an asthma attack and ended up losing a minute or heck a few seconds by the end, people might not question the inhaler so much. Its the fact he drug everyone up the last 5km of that mountain and attacked and attacked and attacked. He never looked like he was suffering and Contador couldn't/didn't even attack which is rare. Froome looked super strong. Its funny if this has been an issue he has dealt with since he was a kid, he never mentioned it in his book that was just released.
> 
> I should probably get this cough checked out next time I'm at the doctor.


My thoughts exactly, the justification of the inhaler doesn't add up. If his asthma was in any way an actual handicap, then how could he win the TdF... he's competing against the best of the best of the best, there's no room for disadvantages.


----------



## 9W9W

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Isn't that the exact situation where he WOULD need a TUE? As in a doctor's letter saying yes he does have asthma and approval from the UC for hs inhaler?
> 
> His wife is such a pot-stirrer.


Homegirl IS a pot stirrer, for sure!


----------



## spdntrxi

she's like a clinger-on or something.. when she tweeted his leg picture or whatever she did...I thought that was really LAME. Would have dumped her social media arse on the spot.


----------



## jmorgan

Just looking real quickly I found a journal that looked at the effects of salbutamol on supramaximal efforts (possibly what Froome took but then again we have no idea what he took). I saw one looking at endurance effect and it said it does not help with endurance but Froome was not riding Z1 the last 5km.

Effects of acute salbutamol intake during supramaximal exercise in women -- Le Panse et al. 41 (7): 430 -- British Journal of Sports Medicine


They used salbutamol pills (4mg) in the study. According to Wiki salbutamol inhaler, "the maximal effect of salbutamol can take place within five to 20 minutes of dosing, though some relief is immediately seen". So that might be the reason he did it with 19km to go. 

The study used a 30s wingate test
Performance: Placebo - Salbutamol
Peak power(w): 733 - 779 +46w
Mean power(w): 396 - 414 +18w
Time to peak power was also less

Maybe this is Skys marginal gains? Sure it's legal but so are finish bottles and Froome is anti finish bottles at least thats what has said (he uses espresso and honey, so he says).


----------



## omg

*omg*

Taking albuterol orally is illegal and considered doping, which is what is done in the study you cited. Do you know how many mg of albuterol are in one puff of an inhaler? Time to do a little math and stop comparing apples to oranges. Using an inhaler administers a very tiny amount localy to the muscles / esophagus involved in breating. It doesnt go into the rest of your body like taking a dose 4400% larger orally does. Note: that figure assumes that all 90 mcg makes it into your body, and none of it is exhaled out (never close to being the case). If any albuterol reaches the muscles, its microscopic. With some inhalers, it would take TONS of puffs to put you above the legal limit, which makes it sorta questionable whether they took it orally if someone is above the limit. Studies have confirmed that there is no benefit to albuterol inhalers to both elite athletes and average joes in non asthmatics. None. So, if you are getting a benefit, you probably do have asthma, and if left untreated, you are doing long term permanent damage to your airway. That coughing is caused by the severe inflammation in your airway from the air being so restricted, which leads to mucus build up in the short term and permanent damage in the long term. 

Its amazing what being able to get oxygen into your lungs like a normal person can do for performance, eh mate? Especially after you have effectively been training at altitude whenever you dont treat your condition. If it didnt do permanent damage to your airway, it might be a nice training tool (untreated).

Also, those inhalers are designed to be used preventatively. Once it starts effecting you, damage is being done. It makes perfect sense that he would get another quick dose before a hard effort, especially considering the length of time he has been out on the road and how the dose done before the start of the stage would probably be wearing off. 



jmorgan said:


> Just looking real quickly I found a journal that looked at the effects of salbutamol on supramaximal efforts (possibly what Froome took but then again we have no idea what he took). I saw one looking at endurance effect and it said it does not help with endurance but Froome was not riding Z1 the last 5km.
> 
> Effects of acute salbutamol intake during supramaximal exercise in women -- Le Panse et al. 41 (7): 430 -- British Journal of Sports Medicine
> 
> 
> They used salbutamol pills (4mg) in the study. According to Wiki salbutamol inhaler, "the maximal effect of salbutamol can take place within five to 20 minutes of dosing, though some relief is immediately seen". So that might be the reason he did it with 19km to go.
> 
> The study used a 30s wingate test
> Performance: Placebo - Salbutamol
> Peak power(w): 733 - 779 +46w
> Mean power(w): 396 - 414 +18w
> Time to peak power was also less
> 
> Maybe this is Skys marginal gains? Sure it's legal but so are finish bottles and Froome is anti finish bottles at least thats what has said (he uses espresso and honey, so he says).


----------



## jmorgan

omg said:


> Taking albuterol orally is illegal and considered doping, which is what is done in the study you cited. Do you know how many mg of albuterol are in one puff of an inhaler? Time to do a little math and stop comparing apples to oranges. Using an inhaler administers a very tiny amount localy to the muscles / esophagus involved in breating. It doesnt go into the rest of your body like taking a dose 4400% larger orally does. Note: that figure assumes that all 90 mcg makes it into your body, and none of it is exhaled out (never close to being the case). If any albuterol reaches the muscles, its microscopic. With some inhalers, it would take TONS of puffs to put you above the legal limit, which makes it sorta questionable whether they took it orally if someone is above the limit. Studies have confirmed that there is no benefit to albuterol inhalers to both elite athletes and average joes in non asthmatics. None. So, if you are getting a benefit, you probably do have asthma, and if left untreated, you are doing long term permanent damage to your airway. That coughing is caused by the severe inflammation in your airway from the air being so restricted, which leads to mucus build up in the short term and permanent damage in the long term.
> 
> Its amazing what being able to get oxygen into your lungs like a normal person can do for performance, eh mate? Especially after you have effectively been training at altitude whenever you dont treat your condition. If it didnt do permanent damage to your airway, it might be a nice training tool (untreated).
> 
> Also, those inhalers are designed to be used preventatively. Once it starts effecting you, damage is being done. It makes perfect sense that he would get another quick dose before a hard effort, especially considering the length of time he has been out on the road and how the dose done before the start of the stage would probably be wearing off.


Is an inhaler not absorbed more quickly and efficiently into the bloodstream then a pill? I know the pill does not equal a couple of puffs but what does for an acute advantage to occur? I know inhaling alcohol will get you drunk very quick and has more of an effect as it gets into the blood much quicker. Is it the albuterol that increases performance or is it the better utilization of oxygen? I have no idea just did a quick search at thats what I found and thought it was interesting. He could of had anything in his inhaler and no one would know. 

I am not going to give one of the most dominant riders a pass at the beginning of the "clean era". He hasn't talked about it before and he should be held accountable and explain since he is so squeaky clean, he shouldn't have any issues. Why doesn't he publish his power data or bio passport also, if his power to weight is just better than everyone else it doesn't matter if they know his numbers if they can't reach them. This sport while I believe is cleaner still isn't completely clean. Remember not long ago there were only a couple of doppers, turned out nearly the entire peloton doped at one time or another.


----------



## omg

[ cQUOTE=jmorgan;4641987]Is an inhaler not absorbed more quickly and efficiently into the bloodstream then a pill? I know the pill does not equal a couple of puffs but what does for an acute advantage to occur? I know inhaling alcohol will get you drunk very quick and has more of an effect as it gets into the blood much quicker. Is it the albuterol that increases performance or is it the better utilization of oxygen? I have no idea just did a quick search at thats what I found and thought it was interesting. He could of had anything in his inhaler and no one would know.[/QUOTE]

Using an inhaler works for asthmatics by opening restricted airways allowing normal amounts of air to enter/exit the lung. Very little of the drug makes it into the muscles of the body. 

Inhalers take roughly 10 minutes to take full effect. In your comparison to inhaled alcohol, the doses are relatively equal, vs 4400% different as in the situation being discussed. Also, alcohol is handled differently than albuterol by the body. I'm not an expert on this aspect, but I believe that when a large dose is taken orally, large amounts of the drug reach the muscles being worked and it acts, somehow, in a matter similar to a steroid. You would need roughly 45 puffs to equal one oral administration. Again, numerous studies have shown zero performance enhancement to non asthmatics when an albuterol inhaler was used. There are numerous such studies. Some of them focused on elite athletes and others on average people, they all came to the same conclusion that inhalers don't enhance performance outside of alleviating asthma symptoms. The findings of these studies are probably one reason you don't even need a TUE for an inhaler anymore. 

That being said, if someone is taking 40+ hits on an inhaler, that's a different story. Even still, the number of puffs can be a red herring. If my symptoms have been mild lately, I can take a full breath in with a puff and hold it to get the full dose. If my symptoms have been bad lately I cough before I even get my lungs half filled. In those cases I'll do 6 or more, and it still seems to be a lower dosage than one good puff. I


----------



## 9W9W

Jmorgan, do you not see my post above where I cited a double blind crossed study which used pumps and showed no perceptible difference? The protocol looks similar to yours, but subjects were given inhalers.


----------



## omg

Also, who here is surprised that the pro pedleton has a large % of asthmatics??? The pro pedleton as in that group of people who spend 5+ hours per day breathing in unfiltered exhaust fumes under physical strain year around... common sense mates...


----------



## jmorgan

9W9W said:


> Jmorgan, do you not see my post above where I cited a double blind crossed study which used pumps and showed no perceptible difference? The protocol looks similar to yours, but subjects were given inhalers.


I looked at it quickly but thought it was old (1996) and more studies would of been done before WADA would of taken it off the banned last in 2009. Again that study is on endurance, not supramaximal efforts which is more analogous to Froome.


----------



## omg

Good thing there have been close to a dozen+ different studies don't on the subject, not just one.


----------



## spade2you

omg said:


> Good thing there have been close to a dozen+ different studies don't on the subject, not just one.


Not really. It leads to more middle aged men arguing biostats. I took a few semesters of biostats and research design. Hated them. Never thought a cycling forum would be dominated by doping, biostats, and political bickering.


----------



## tednugent

jmorgan said:


> Is an inhaler not absorbed more quickly and efficiently into the bloodstream then a pill? I know the pill does not equal a couple of puffs but what does for an acute advantage to occur? I know inhaling alcohol will get you drunk very quick and has more of an effect as it gets into the blood much quicker. Is it the albuterol that increases performance or is it the better utilization of oxygen? I have no idea just did a quick search at thats what I found and thought it was interesting. He could of had anything in his inhaler and no one would know.
> 
> I am not going to give one of the most dominant riders a pass at the beginning of the "clean era". He hasn't talked about it before and he should be held accountable and explain since he is so squeaky clean, he shouldn't have any issues. Why doesn't he publish his power data or bio passport also, if his power to weight is just better than everyone else it doesn't matter if they know his numbers if they can't reach them. This sport while I believe is cleaner still isn't completely clean. Remember not long ago there were only a couple of doppers, turned out nearly the entire peloton doped at one time or another.


the mode for inhalers is not blood stream. it goes to the lungs (to put it shortly) directly, withe some waste.

Ventolin with each puff, sprays 90 micrograms of Albuterol/Salbuterol (usual recommendation is 2 puffs). Some of it gets wasted on the throat and esophogas.... if you mis-time your breathing, then it becomes useless.

I personally think the HFA is less effective than the old-stuff with the ozone-depleting propellant, due to different spray patterns. The best way to use the inhaler is with a spacer (holding chamber), though it is not that practical while on the bike.


----------



## spade2you

9W9W said:


> Curious, does EI Asthma come and go (since you noted you longer need your inhaler)? I'm also an avid snowboarder and even on a good day where I put in 50K vertical feet I don't feel the EI Asthma at all.. only on the bike do I almost stroke out as my heart pumps at 185bpm and I choke on my own phlegm.
> 
> I have the blue Ventolin pump which I lovingly dubbed "Lance the Inhaler". This endorsement may require a name change.


I haven't really done research on asthma since my mostly went away. I rarely have asthma issues on the bike. I've had bronchitis a few times in the last 10 years and have only needed to use my inhaler due to EI asthma a handful of times. I generally couldn't do hardly any exertion as a kid and generally had a bad case of bronchitis twice a year.

I'm actually getting over bronchitis at the moment and probably used my inhaler 3 times in the last couple of weeks, which was the most I can recall in recent history. I managed to do a time trial this weekend. Almost got dead last and my lungs weren't happy. I didn't feel like I was in danger of an asthma attack and didn't need my inhaler before or after the race. Racing probably delayed my recovery from bronchitis and effort probably wasn't worth the piss poor result. Taking this week off to hopefully recover completely.


----------



## nbaffaro

On a personal note. Im not going anywhere without my inhaler. The warm weather helps me but anything under about 85° I need it before I workout. Its a pain ive tried to go without but that isn't happening.


----------



## spade2you

nbaffaro said:


> On a personal note. Im not going anywhere without my inhaler. The warm weather helps me but anything under about 85° I need it before I workout. Its a pain ive tried to go without but that isn't happening.


Knocking on wood, haven't had an attack in years. Even then, it was fairly minor compared to when I was younger. I still carry an inhaler everywhere. It can still strike and more than a few people have gotten in trouble because they underestimated how it can strike at any time.


----------



## tednugent

EIA/B tends not to bother me when snowboarding....

but after the one last Nor'easter that hit over the winter, Hunter mountain was full of moguls.... that was a workout, especially on the black diamond trails... which was did trigger a EIB episode 3/4 down the trail.


----------



## spade2you

Regarding the oral vs. inhaled, inhaled is much quicker and requires less drug. It's much more potent this route. Much shorter duration. Salmeterol was developed to have a longer duration. The oral extended release albuterol tabs seemed to work alright as baseline control.


----------



## azpeterb

I'm shocked that some may view Froome's use of an inhaler as possible cheating. Shocked I say!


----------



## spade2you

azpeterb said:


> I'm shocked that some may view Froome's use of an inhaler as possible cheating. Shocked I say!


He has the reputation of clean cycling on his shoulders. Sky is the most transparent team of all time.


----------



## The Tedinator

He's had it since childhood? But no mention of it ever, not even in Walsh's recent work of fiction, errrrrrrr, autobiography of Froome? I guess now that the Badzilla has been shown to be BS, it is on to the next excuse. Or is a bronchial inhaler another "marginal gain"?


----------



## Marc

spade2you said:


> He has the reputation of clean cycling on his shoulders. Sky is the most transparent team of all time.


Well, at least they're enough of a bunch of cynics to say basically all the same things Lance ____strong said. It isn't like completely spanking the wind out of a convicted doper like 'Ol Steak Face and dropping everyone else on a mountain is any kind of a red flag.


----------



## spade2you

The Tedinator said:


> He's had it since childhood? But no mention of it ever, not even in Walsh's recent work of fiction, errrrrrrr, autobiography of Froome? I guess now that the Badzilla has been shown to be BS, it is on to the next excuse. Or is a bronchial inhaler another "marginal gain"?


About anyone who had some form of asthma hated it before the good meds came to market. IF he had asthma, it would have probably been unbearable for at least the first 10 years of his life.


----------



## foto

spade2you said:


> About anyone who had some form of asthma hated it before the good meds came to market. IF he had asthma, it would have probably been unbearable for at least the first 10 years of his life.


REALLY??? I had know idea, the common belief is people with asthma love their asthma.


----------



## tednugent

spade2you said:


> About anyone who had some form of asthma hated it before the good meds came to market. IF he had asthma, it would have probably been unbearable for at least the first 10 years of his life.


Even with good meds, I still hate my asthma.

How is being asthmatic with "good drugs" beneficial to my life?


----------



## spade2you

tednugent said:


> Even with good meds, I still hate my asthma.
> 
> How is being asthmatic with "good drugs" beneficial to my life?


Most of my friends who had asthma got under extremely good control once the inhaled steroids and long acting bronchodialators hit the market as well as the non-sedating antihistimanes. The results and improvements seemed almost instant.


----------



## den bakker

The Tedinator said:


> He's had it since childhood? But no mention of it ever, not even in Walsh's recent work of fiction, errrrrrrr, autobiography of Froome? I guess now that the Badzilla has been shown to be BS, it is on to the next excuse. Or is a bronchial inhaler another "marginal gain"?


so blatantly take some mysterious drug through an inhaler. 60 minutes before pissing in a cup. lie about having asthma his whole career (there should be a whole series of TUEs, even from different countries). Make sure it's in front of a camera. 
seems legit.


----------



## ericm979

omg said:


> Also, who here is surprised that the pro pedleton has a large % of asthmatics??? The pro pedleton as in that group of people who spend 5+ hours per day breathing in unfiltered exhaust fumes under physical strain year around... common sense mates...


I think a lot of people have EIA. But very few of them ever execise hard enough to trigger it. In my case I had very mild symptoms most of my life (i.e. when running track in school) but it got worse when I hit my mid 40s. 

Even now if I was not a bike racer I'd never know. It's only a problem when I am going hard. I did a full workup in a lab to get the diagnosis. I used a bike instead of a treadmill since I can't run anymore.

Most of the common prescription asthma drugs do not require a TUE as long as the dosage is below certain limits. Those limits are quite high. You would not reach them without exceeding the normal dosage my many times.

When my asthma meds are not working it's like I am breathing through a straw. When it comes on I make this horrible wheezing noise. I've had people rush over to help me at the finish of races.

I think it looked bad for Froome to take a hit off his inhaler during the race. But I bet he's not the first pro to do that. The others have been better about minding where the cameras are. I've personally seen racers using their inhaler on the start line. There are many EIA sufferers who have it worse than me and ride with an inhaler in their jersey pocket. For me it goes away if I slow down so I do not need a rescue inhaler to stay alive. I just do worse in races.

However if I was a pro with income on the line and a host of people depending on me to do well, instead of being a mediocre masters racer, I'd make sure I had whatever I needed that was legal.


----------



## aclinjury

9W9W said:


> Homegirl IS a pot stirrer, for sure!


I've saying. This girl is a manipulator. She's also said some anti-Wiggin shiat too, and I have no doubt that she influenced Froome regarding his relationship with Wiggins. That woman is a manipulator. Of course I get labelled as misogynistic bigot. Sorry but I don't trust wives/gf of athletes.


----------



## RIL49

So Froome is now and forever suspect, like all the other top cyclists. What else is new? Next subject.


----------



## spdntrxi

you can only get those old school inhaler types with a prescription ? Really was feeling short of breathe today and could feel my throat tightening. I might need to go see the doc.


----------



## Local Hero

Just the other day I got out of breath going hard up a climb.

Maybe I have asthma too!


----------



## ericm979

With me it got to the point that other racers were telling me I needed Albuterol. It's a good idea to get tested rather than just going to the doc and asking for a prescription.

If you don't have EIA then asthma drugs won't improve your performance.


----------



## 9W9W

As per the study I cited above, if you don't have EIA then this will be of no boost to you.

Funny thing about testing for this is that... unless you show up at your pulmenologists office right off the bike.. you're going to come in, have a conversation with her and then proceed to blow out of the digital candles on the spirometry thing... because you cycle and are in better shape than 78% of the people who huff into these things.

You can go ahead and do the test on the trainer, but not every office will be set up for that.


----------



## spdntrxi

ericm979 said:


> With me it got to the point that other racers were telling me I needed Albuterol. It's a good idea to get tested rather than just going to the doc and asking for a prescription.
> 
> If you don't have EIA then asthma drugs won't improve your performance.


I can feel my throat shrink.. literally. Then the coughing begins... Happens more then half the time after a hard ride. Hell it's happening right now and I didn't even ride.


----------



## Local Hero

spdntrxi said:


> I can feel my throat shrink.. literally. Then the coughing begins... Happens more then half the time after a hard ride. Hell it's happening right now and I didn't even ride.


I'm no doctor but that sounds to me a lot like anaphylaxis from an undiagnosed gluten allergy.


----------



## Local Hero

Local Hero said:


> I'm no doctor but that sounds to me a lot like anaphylaxis from an undiagnosed gluten allergy.


Just kidding. 

But seriously get to a doctor.


----------



## spdntrxi

Local Hero said:


> I'm no doctor but that sounds to me a lot like anaphylaxis from an undiagnosed gluten allergy.


I'm 90% gluten free anyways because my wife is celiac.. I just have bad allergies, but I know it's not gluten. But yes I need to see a doc.


----------



## cda 455

ericm979 said:


> With me it got to the point that other racers were telling me I needed Albuterol. It's a good idea to get tested rather than just going to the doc and asking for a prescription.
> 
> If you don't have EIA then asthma drugs won't improve your performance.


And the darn medicine is expensive as well.


I pre-empt my rides with two buffs AND carry the inhaler with me.

If anyone is in fact asthmatic, they would also be on a daily inhaler as well. It helps to prevent asthma attacks. My daily inhaler is Advair and my asthma med. for dealing with EIA is Proventil. For true asthma sufferers, Advair really helps. And pre-empt'ing with proventil is cheap insurance before I go on a ride.




BTW, as a side note:
I still haven't gotten over the skinny little basturd's major cheating antic from last years' TDF  .

Froome bonked big-time towards the end of a stage on a climb. He sent a domestique back to the team car for food. He was penalized but, IMHO, his penalty was barely a slap on the wrist in that with him cheating by eating so close to the end of the stage and while on a climb he benefited _*greatly*_ and it became an absolute _*huge*_ game-changer in the Tour.

Using history as a guide; I truly believe Froome's day of reckoning will come.


----------



## bradkay

Isn't the definition of "doping" the use of drugs to allow your body to perform beyond its capabilities and limitations? So how is an asthmatic using an inhaler any different than a small guy using steroids to improve his performance?


----------



## cda 455

bradkay said:


> Isn't the definition of "doping" the use of drugs to allow your body to perform beyond its capabilities and limitations? So how is an asthmatic using an inhaler any different than a small guy using steroids to improve his performance?


One is used for a serious medical condition while the other is used for non-medical reasons.


----------



## foto

cda 455 said:


> And the darn medicine is expensive as well.
> 
> 
> I pre-empt my rides with two buffs AND carry the inhaler with me.
> 
> If anyone is in fact asthmatic, they would also be on a daily inhaler as well. It helps to prevent asthma attacks. My daily inhaler is Advair and my asthma med. for dealing with EIA is Proventil. For true asthma sufferers, Advair really helps. And pre-empt'ing with proventil is cheap insurance before I go on a ride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, as a side note:
> I still haven't gotten over the skinny little basturd's major cheating antic from last years' TDF  .
> 
> Froome bonked big-time towards the end of a stage on a climb. He sent a domestique back to the team car for food. He was penalized but, IMHO, his penalty was barely a slap on the wrist in that with him cheating by eating so close to the end of the stage and while on a climb he benefited _*greatly*_ and it became an absolute _*huge*_ game-changer in the Tour.
> 
> Using history as a guide; I truly believe Froome's day of reckoning will come.


I'm no froome apologist but whatever absolute game changer he was already like 45 minutes ahead of quintana at that point. He understood the consequences and made the decision. That's called being smart, not cheating. I guess you think everyone who takes a sticky bottle or has "mechanicals" when they are off the back must be a doper too?


----------



## love4himies

foto said:


> I'm no froome apologist but whatever absolute game changer he was already like 45 minutes ahead of quintana at that point. He understood the consequences and made the decision. That's called being smart, not cheating. I guess you think everyone who takes a sticky bottle or has "mechanicals" when they are off the back must be a doper too?


Wasn't he more like 5 or 6 minutes ahead of Contador and Quintana on that stage? If Froome bonked, who knows how long he would have lost, in fact, he may not have been able to finish the stage if it became really bad. He didn't want to take that chance, so he chose to cheat. Better to cheat than to loose. That shows his character, IMHO. 


So now he pulls out a puffer to open his airways to bring in the oxygen. I don't believe that didn't give him an edge over the other riders who were breathing in the hot, humid (and probably smog and/or pollen filled). I don't know about others, but I certainly find it harder to breathe when it's hot & humid. A puffer may help me open up the airways.


----------



## Gnarly 928

Asthma inhalers: In the US they are almost ten times the cost of the rest of the world...in case you still think the US Health Care industry is cool. I travel to Mexico and get mine for $3 and in the US the Pharma charge the Insurance almost $40 each. 

Asthma is really not fun. Mine comes mainly in early winter when I have to carpenter in closed up dusty workplaces. There are days when the inhalers do not help much and riding hard is scary torture. 

When I am breathing normally no amount of Albuterol makes me a better climber..when I am asthmatic, the inhaler just allows me to be a poor climber again, not a gasping fish, coughing and wheezing by the roadside..


----------



## bradkay

cda 455 said:


> One is used for a serious medical condition while the other is used for non-medical reasons.


Okay... tendonitis is a serious medical condition for cyclists but taking cortisone injections for it is illegal in racing. Why is using an inhaler any different?


----------



## Neb

Asthma drugs don't do anything except prevent an asthma attack from happening or stopping one already in progress. It doesn't magically improve your performance if you use it when you don't need it. 

There's a significant difference between an asthma attack and finding it harder to breath when the air is hot and humid, but I guess people would need to experience it themselves to find that out. It's not fun.


----------



## love4himies

Neb said:


> Asthma drugs don't do anything except prevent an asthma attack from happening or stopping one already in progress. It doesn't magically improve your performance if you use it when you don't need it.
> 
> There's a significant difference between an asthma attack and finding it harder to breath when the air is hot and humid, but I guess people would need to experience it themselves to find that out. It's not fun.


I watched that stage. When Froome took out his inhaler, it did not appear that he was under any physical duress at all. If the inhaler only works during an attack, would we not notice some change in a rider's breathing for the rider to know to use the inhaler, or can it be felt before an observer would be able to see asthmatic attack symptoms?


----------



## tednugent

love4himies said:


> I watched that stage. When Froome took out his inhaler, it did not appear that he was under any physical duress at all. If the inhaler only works during an attack, would we not notice some change in a rider's breathing for the rider to know to use the inhaler, or can it be felt before an observer would be able to see asthmatic attack symptoms?


one of the treatment strategies for EIA/B is using the albuterol beforehand, to try to prevent the attack when you know the body is going to be "stressed"


----------



## Neb

love4himies said:


> I watched that stage. When Froome took out his inhaler, it did not appear that he was under any physical duress at all. If the inhaler only works during an attack, would we not notice some change in a rider's breathing for the rider to know to use the inhaler, or can it be felt before an observer would be able to see asthmatic attack symptoms?


Inhalers don't only work during an attack, they also work to prevent an asthma attack, which is why I also said they prevent one from happening. In a competition it'd make sense to use it before it happens; if you need to chase down another rider and you experience an asthma attack, you're done.


----------



## Local Hero

Did anyone see the recent OricaGreenEgde backstage pass where the rider dropped his inhaler? 

Michael White was driving up to other DS and support vehicles, yelling out the window, "Do you have any ventolin?"

I remember it caught my attention. These things are really commonplace. 

I'm looking for the video now. It's in here: https://www.youtube.com/user/GreenEdgeCycling/videos


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> Did anyone see the recent OricaGreenEgde backstage pass where the rider dropped his inhaler?
> 
> Michael White was driving up to other DS and support vehicles, yelling out the window, "Do you have any ventolin?"
> 
> I remember it caught my attention. These things are really commonplace.
> 
> I'm looking for the video now. It's in here: https://www.youtube.com/user/GreenEdgeCycling/videos


I love those videos.


----------



## Local Hero

love4himies said:


> I love those videos.


Good find. And wow, my memory failed. I thought it was White. It was another DS. 

At 4:50 of that video the rider is calling for venotlin.


----------



## ericm979

love4himies said:


> I If the inhaler only works during an attack, would we not notice some change in a rider's breathing for the rider to know to use the inhaler, or can it be felt before an observer would be able to see asthmatic attack symptoms?


At least for me I can feel it well before anyone else would notice. 

If you wait until you feel it coming on it's too late. "rescue" drugs don't work as well as the ones you take daily.


----------



## 9W9W

one puffer... no backups? come on guys, I'd be pissed too.

posting it again...

"""The effect of salbutamol (S) on cycling performance was examined in 15 highly trained non-asthmatic male cyclists. A double-blind, randomized cross-over design was used with S or placebo (P) administered using a metered-dose inhaler and a spacer device 20 min before each testing session. The S dose was 400 micrograms (four puffs), which is twice the normal therapeutic level. Subjects were habituated to all the laboratory procedures in the week prior to actual data collection. The subjects performed four tests under S and P conditions on separate days over 2 weeks. These included measurement of maximal O2 uptake (VO2max) (cycle ergometry) with assessment of pulmonary function before and after, a submaximal (90% of ventilatory threshold) square-wave work transition from a base of unloaded cycling, a 60-s modified Wingate test, and a simulated 20 km time trial. *No significant differences were observed in any of the dependent variables related to aerobic endurance or cycling performance between the S and P conditions. These results support other findings that an acute dose (400 micrograms) of S has no performance-enhancing properties.*""

If you have it, it gets you back to being the shitty cyclist you were before your airways flipped you the bird. If you don't have it - and counter to what most thing - it does nothing.


----------



## foto

love4himies said:


> Wasn't he more like 5 or 6 minutes ahead of Contador and Quintana on that stage? If Froome bonked, who knows how long he would have lost, in fact, he may not have been able to finish the stage if it became really bad. He didn't want to take that chance, so he chose to cheat. Better to cheat than to loose. That shows his character, IMHO...


Cheating? Or cashing in some seconds for some food? The rules for this particular infraction are well documented, and he didn't complain when he was docked the time. It was calculated and says nothing about his character, in my opinion.

There are obviously levels of seriousness of infraction in this sport, and the rules are bent all the time. Taking food within 5km is not considered a huge offense, same as motopacing up from a mechanical or a sticky bottle.

Which begs the question I asked earlier, is taking a sticky bottle evidence of a drug cheat? I think this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## Neb

9W9W said:


> If you have it, it gets you back to being the shitty cyclist you were before your airways flipped you the bird. If you don't have it - and counter to what most thing - it does nothing.


There's also the fact that aside from doing nothing to improve your performance it comes with side effects too. Elevated heart rate being one of them if I remember correctly...


----------



## love4himies

foto said:


> Cheating? Or cashing in some seconds for some food? The rules for this particular infraction are well documented, and he didn't complain when he was docked the time. It was calculated and says nothing about his character, in my opinion.
> 
> There are obviously levels of seriousness of infraction in this sport, and the rules are bent all the time. Taking food within 5km is not considered a huge offense, same as motopacing up from a mechanical or a sticky bottle.
> 
> Which begs the question I asked earlier, is taking a sticky bottle evidence of a drug cheat? I think this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.


You are right, it's not technically cheating, just breaking the rules. Nor is it evidence of doping. Just because you rob a bank, doesn't mean you would murder somebody. It does imply that he doesn't have high morals by willing to break rules to hold onto his lead. And it does gives thought on just how far he is willing to go to keep winning.


----------



## Cableguy

foto said:


> He understood the consequences and made the decision. That's called being smart, not cheating.


... so, if you understand the consequences of doping and do it anyways because you know you can probably get away with it you're just smart. Not cheating or anything. Is that right?


----------



## Cableguy

Has Froome been seen using the inhaler before? I'm guessing not, in which case... wtf? If he can decimate everyone in time trials and climbs without the inhaler, it would seem his asthma is not inhibiting him. So it would seem he didn't need it, but was maybe trying it as an experiment? Using an inhaler without asthma just in case it could possibly help you is pretty lame IMO. What other unnecessary action would he take for an advantage?


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> You are right, it's not technically cheating, just breaking the rules. Nor is it evidence of doping. Just because you rob a bank, doesn't mean you would murder somebody. It does imply that he doesn't have high morals by willing to break rules to hold onto his lead. And it does gives thought on just how far he is willing to go to keep winning.


don't worry. 
by current evidence there's a long way down to Ryder.


----------



## cda 455

love4himies said:


> Wasn't he more like 5 or 6 minutes ahead of Contador and Quintana on that stage? If Froome bonked, who knows how long he would have lost, in fact, he may not have been able to finish the stage if it became really bad. He didn't want to take that chance, so he chose to cheat. Better to cheat than to loose. That shows his character, IMHO.
> 
> 
> So now he pulls out a puffer to open his airways to bring in the oxygen. I don't believe that didn't give him an edge over the other riders who were breathing in the hot, humid (and probably smog and/or pollen filled). I don't know about others, but I certainly find it harder to breathe when it's hot & humid. A puffer may help me open up the airways.


Thank you; I'm glad someone has a better/more accurate memory of that stage.

You are correct, and that's why I called it a game-changer.

I also agree with your assessment of him as well.


Speaking as one who has asthma; The inhaler med. is a steroid or something that acts like a steroid. One gets the *buzz/energy* and rapid HR of taking said med.

As such; I'm of the opinion that froome (And other racers) is after the steroid affect of the med. rather than the opening of the bronchial tubes.


Asthma is like a headache in that it's very difficult to disprove. 

With that in mind; I can easily see how some racers would take advantage of claiming to have asthma. And, unlike most other aliments that racers suffer from, it would be extremely dangerous and even deadly to deny asthma meds to asthmatics. 

Having worked in an E.R.; Here are two options when dealing with a patient who's had an allergic reaction or an asthma attack:
1) Open up the bronchial tubes ASAP via I.V. meds while at the same time giving 100% oxygen @15+LPM via a mask. 

If that fails:

2) Intubate patient.

In my 10 years working in an E.R.; My guess is that 65% are successful with Option #1 while 35% had to go to option #2.

And option #1 is treated like a code: Multiple nurses in the room, said nurses start 2 I.V. lines, doctor present in patient room barking orders and until said patient is stabilized, R.T. is called via stat and stays until patient is stabilized or will stay with patient if said patient is intubated.

If option #2 is activated; Everything with option #1 applies plus: A crash cart is brought in while doctor prepares and then performs intubation on patient.


----------



## cda 455

love4himies said:


> You are right, it's not technically cheating, just breaking the rules. Nor is it evidence of doping. Just because you rob a bank, doesn't mean you would murder somebody. It does imply that he doesn't have high morals by willing to break rules to hold onto his lead. And it does gives thought on just how far he is willing to go to keep winning.


Breaking the rules, especially with malice of forethought, is definitely cheating. Period.

It's already well established where Froome's moral compass is pointed.



_*Character*_ is doing the right thing when no one is looking.


----------



## omg

love4himies said:


> So now he pulls out a puffer to open his airways to bring in the oxygen. I don't believe that didn't give him an edge over the other riders who were breathing in the hot, humid (and probably smog and/or pollen filled). I don't know about others, but I certainly find it harder to breathe when it's hot & humid. A puffer may help me open up the airways.


If the other two had asthma and didnt treat it, then yes. Otherwise no. You kinda sound like an anti-vaxxer... In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, you trudge on in ignorance. Jenny McCarthy would be proud.


----------



## omg

cda 455 said:


> Thank you; I'm glad someone has a better/more accurate memory of that stage.
> 
> You are correct, and that's why I called it a game-changer.
> 
> I also agree with your assessment of him as well.
> 
> 
> Speaking as one who has asthma; The inhaler med. is a steroid or something that acts like a steroid. One gets the *buzz/energy* and rapid HR of taking said med.
> 
> As such; I'm of the opinion that froome (And other racers) is after the steroid affect of the med. rather than the opening of the bronchial tubes.
> 
> 
> Asthma is like a headache in that it's very difficult to disprove.
> 
> With that in mind; I can easily see how some racers would take advantage of claiming to have asthma. And, unlike most other aliments that racers suffer from, it would be extremely dangerous and even deadly to deny asthma meds to asthmatics.
> 
> Having worked in an E.R.; Here are two options when dealing with a patient who's had an allergic reaction or an asthma attack:
> 1) Open up the bronchial tubes ASAP via I.V. meds while at the same time giving 100% oxygen @15+LPM via a mask.
> 
> If that fails:
> 
> 2) Intubate patient.
> 
> In my 10 years working in an E.R.; My guess is that 65% are successful with Option #1 while 35% had to go to option #2.
> 
> And option #1 is treated like a code: Multiple nurses in the room, said nurses start 2 I.V. lines, doctor present in patient room barking orders and until said patient is stabilized, R.T. is called via stat and stays until patient is stabilized or will stay with patient if said patient is intubated.
> 
> If option #2 is activated; Everything with option #1 applies plus: A crash cart is brought in while doctor prepares and then performs intubation on patient.


try again...

""The effect of salbutamol (S) on cycling performance was examined in 15 highly trained non-asthmatic male cyclists. A double-blind, randomized cross-over design was used with S or placebo (P) administered using a metered-dose inhaler and a spacer device 20 min before each testing session. The S dose was 400 micrograms (four puffs), which is twice the normal therapeutic level. Subjects were habituated to all the laboratory procedures in the week prior to actual data collection. The subjects performed four tests under S and P conditions on separate days over 2 weeks. These included measurement of maximal O2 uptake (VO2max) (cycle ergometry) with assessment of pulmonary function before and after, a submaximal (90% of ventilatory threshold) square-wave work transition from a base of unloaded cycling, a 60-s modified Wingate test, and a simulated 20 km time trial. *No significant differences were observed in any of the dependent variables related to aerobic endurance or cycling performance between the S and P conditions. These results support other findings that an acute dose (400 micrograms) of S has no performance-enhancing properties.*"


----------



## love4himies

omg said:


> If the other two had asthma and didnt treat it, then yes. Otherwise no. You kinda sound like an anti-vaxxer... In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, you trudge on in ignorance. Jenny McCarthy would be proud.


WTF is an anti-vaxxer? Overwhelming evidence? Do you mean that huge study of 15 riders you posted about? What the hell does Jenny McCarthy have to do with this thread?


----------



## foto

love4himies said:


> You are right, it's not technically cheating, just breaking the rules. Nor is it evidence of doping. Just because you rob a bank, doesn't mean you would murder somebody. It does imply that he doesn't have high morals by willing to break rules to hold onto his lead. And it does gives thought on just how far he is willing to go to keep winning.


Still haven't answered my question.

Is taking a sticky bottle evidence of being a doper?


----------



## foto

Cableguy said:


> ... so, if you understand the consequences of doping and do it anyways because you know you can probably get away with it you're just smart. Not cheating or anything. Is that right?


Because a 20 second time penalty is exactly the same as 2 year ban and forfeiture of all results. Is that right?


----------



## love4himies

love4himies said:


> You are right, it's not technically cheating, just breaking the rules. Nor is it evidence of doping. Just because you rob a bank, doesn't mean you would murder somebody. It does imply that he doesn't have high morals by willing to break rules to hold onto his lead. And it does gives thought on just how far he is willing to go to keep winning.





foto said:


> Still haven't answered my question.
> 
> Is taking a sticky bottle evidence of being a doper?


Thought I did.


----------



## foto

love4himies said:


> WTF is an anti-vaxxer? Overwhelming evidence? Do you mean that huge study of 15 riders you posted about? What the hell does Jenny McCarthy have to do with this thread?


Jenny McCarthy is the most visible and recognizable spokesperson for the anti-vaccine movement and is considered partly responsible for the recent resurgence of measles in the US and UK.

ie: she has recently become a poster child for willful ignorance.


----------



## foto

love4himies said:


> Thought I did.


Yes, you're right you did, sorry.

From my perspective there seems to be some selective outrage over this inhaler thing that you don't often hear with all the other dozens of little infractions that go on in a bike race.


----------



## love4himies

love4himies said:


> You are right, it's not technically cheating, just breaking the rules. Nor is it evidence of doping. Just because you rob a bank, doesn't mean you would murder somebody. It does imply that he doesn't have high morals by willing to break rules to hold onto his lead. And it does gives thought on just how far he is willing to go to keep winning.





foto said:


> Jenny McCarthy is the most visible and recognizable spokesperson for the anti-vaccine movement and is considered partly responsible for the recent resurgence of measles in the US and UK.
> 
> ie: she has recently become a poster child for willful ignorance.


Well, then I guess I'm not an anti-vaxxer,then. Have no idea where in my posts _omg_ got the idea that I would be one  because he/she is way off base with his/her assumptions. HUGE difference between believing using an inhaler gives an advantage in a pro race and a celebrity preaching to mothers not to get their children vaccinated.


----------



## foto

love4himies said:


> Well, then I guess I'm not an anti-vaxxer,then. Have no idea where in my posts _omg_ got the idea that I would be one  because he/she is way off base with his/her assumptions. HUGE difference between believing using an inhaler gives an advantage in a pro race and a celebrity preaching to mothers not to get their children vaccinated.


I think it can safely be assumed that if it didn't give him and advantage, Froome wouldn't have puffed the inhaler.

Doesn't change the fact that it isn't against the rules and any of his rivals are entitled to do the same if they felt it would help.


----------



## love4himies

love4himies said:


> You are right, it's not technically cheating, just breaking the rules. Nor is it evidence of doping. Just because you rob a bank, doesn't mean you would murder somebody. It does imply that he doesn't have high morals by willing to break rules to hold onto his lead. And it does gives thought on just how far he is willing to go to keep winning.





foto said:


> I think it can safely be assumed that if it didn't give him and advantage, Froome wouldn't have puffed the inhaler.
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that it isn't against the rules and any of his rivals are entitled to do the same if they felt it would help.


Never said he broke the rules, or that everybody else couldn't do it too. All they need is an unethical doctor that will say the rider has asthma and voila, the rider can get a TUE.


----------



## foto

love4himies said:


> Never said he broke the rules, or that everybody else couldn't do it too. All they need is an unethical doctor that will say the rider has asthma and voila, the rider can get a TUE.


You don't need a TUE for the thing he was doing.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Never said he broke the rules, or that everybody else couldn't do it too. All they need is an unethical doctor that will say the rider has asthma and voila, the rider can get a TUE.


or even an ethical doctor.


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> or even an ethical doctor.


An ethical doctor would not say a rider has asthma when they don't.


----------



## Fireform

The outrage factory is working overtime.


----------



## love4himies

love4himies said:


> You are right, it's not technically cheating, just breaking the rules. Nor is it evidence of doping. Just because you rob a bank, doesn't mean you would murder somebody. It does imply that he doesn't have high morals by willing to break rules to hold onto his lead. And it does gives thought on just how far he is willing to go to keep winning.





foto said:


> You don't need a TUE for the thing he was doing.


Thought he did, my mistake.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> An ethical doctor would not say a rider has asthma when they don't.


and surely he does not.


----------



## The Tedinator

Very, very interesting response from Jonathan Vaughters over at the Clinic. It is a response to Froome's published time on the Madone:

_Originally Posted by JV1973 View Post
Ok, he was asking me how it was possible Froome rode at 6.9w/kg up Madone. 

There are three possibilities:

1. Motor on his bike. 

2. Serious o2 vector doping. 

3. 92vo2 max utilizing 92% of which at MSS, and an efficiency of around 85w/liter of o2. All of which, on their own, are plausible. Put together? I've never seen it in an athlete, however, I refuse to discount that it is possible. All the components are possible individually, so there's no absolute reason it's impossible. 


Which one is the right answer? I don't know. Chris Froome does. 



JV_


----------



## tednugent

cda 455 said:


> Thank you; I'm glad someone has a better/more accurate memory of that stage.
> 
> You are correct, and that's why I called it a game-changer.
> 
> I also agree with your assessment of him as well.
> 
> 
> Speaking as one who has asthma; The inhaler med. is a steroid or something that acts like a steroid. One gets the *buzz/energy* and rapid HR of taking said med.
> 
> As such; I'm of the opinion that froome (And other racers) is after the steroid affect of the med. rather than the opening of the bronchial tubes.
> 
> 
> Asthma is like a headache in that it's very difficult to disprove.
> 
> With that in mind; I can easily see how some racers would take advantage of claiming to have asthma. And, unlike most other aliments that racers suffer from, it would be extremely dangerous and even deadly to deny asthma meds to asthmatics.
> 
> Having worked in an E.R.; Here are two options when dealing with a patient who's had an allergic reaction or an asthma attack:
> 1) Open up the bronchial tubes ASAP via I.V. meds while at the same time giving 100% oxygen @15+LPM via a mask.
> 
> If that fails:
> 
> 2) Intubate patient.
> 
> In my 10 years working in an E.R.; My guess is that 65% are successful with Option #1 while 35% had to go to option #2.
> 
> And option #1 is treated like a code: Multiple nurses in the room, said nurses start 2 I.V. lines, doctor present in patient room barking orders and until said patient is stabilized, R.T. is called via stat and stays until patient is stabilized or will stay with patient if said patient is intubated.
> 
> If option #2 is activated; Everything with option #1 applies plus: A crash cart is brought in while doctor prepares and then performs intubation on patient.


Albuterol is not a steroid. But yes, albuterol can cause side effects such as rapid heart rate

There are corticosteroids used in asthma treatment. They are not used to treat an asthma attack.

The last time I was in the ER for a asthma attack (nearly 20 years ago), they just put me on the nebulizer with albuterol solution


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



omg said:


> If the other two had asthma and didnt treat it, then yes. Otherwise no. You kinda sound like an anti-vaxxer... In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, you trudge on in ignorance. Jenny McCarthy would be proud.


Knock off the insults and just make your point.


----------



## william reichert

If taking a puff of Albuterol ( which certainly does get into the blood stream and go to the heart and muscles and brain) does NOT improve the performance of a cyclist, then the drug should not be banned anymore than water, caffeine or glucose. Everyone should be on the same page. and play by the same rules. Since it IS banned the obvious
conclusion is that Froome IS getting an advantage when he uses it.


----------



## den bakker

william reichert said:


> If taking a puff of Albuterol ( which certainly does get into the blood stream and go to the heart and muscles and brain) does NOT improve the performance of a cyclist, then the drug should not be banned anymore than water, caffeine or glucose. Everyone should be on the same page. and play by the same rules. Since it IS banned the obvious
> conclusion is that Froome IS getting an advantage when he uses it.


an asthmatic is getting a benefit from asthma medicine. thanks for the insight. It will be a clear day tomorrow. Any hints on which color the sky will be?


----------



## 9W9W

i can't wait until this cast reassembles in twenty days or so for the TDF. going to be as good as it is each year!! I hope Froome rips a crank off on one of these hills, this place would erupt.


----------



## Cableguy

foto said:


> Because a 20 second time penalty is exactly the same as 2 year ban and forfeiture of all results. Is that right?


If he understood the consequences does it matter? Apparently not, as you wrote,



foto said:


> He understood the consequences and made the decision. That's called being smart, not cheating.


----------



## william reichert

He is getting an assist with his asthma AND an ergogenic boost to his heart and muscles and brain.Asthma usually is an episodic condition. On days when he has no asthma he can still use the inhaler for the ergogenic boost.
This is called doping.


----------



## 9W9W

look I'm really not a Frommy fanatic, but if you scroll up, you'll see the results of a study - far removed from professional cycling or its wallets - which shows no improvement in cyclists without this condition. Someone is going to pipe in and say well it was just fifteen riders. True, it was. But, certainly the study is strong enough to counter your far reaching claim of doping. The pump at these dosages does nothing, I'll even give you little to nothing.


----------



## william reichert

Many studies have been done. Some studies show an ergogenic effect.I am not aware of a study done under Tour de France type conditions .But if no
effect exists , then why call it a banned substance? I am not claiming doping; he is following the rules. I am saying the rules should allow everyone access to the same
substances. If there is no ergogenic effect in non asthmatics , then there should be no reason to ban the drug for the rest of the riders.


----------



## 9W9W

my EIA doesn't kick in until well into my ride. It would be interesting to do a long-ish climb and have my Garmin monitor my HR, and then do it with Ventolin fresh legged on another day and compare. I wonder if the increase in HR, which is reported as a side effect, is perceptible and measurable.


----------



## Cableguy

9W9W said:


> look I'm really not a Frommy fanatic, but if you scroll up, you'll see the results of a study - far removed from professional cycling or its wallets - which shows no improvement in cyclists without this condition. Someone is going to pipe in and say well it was just fifteen riders. True, it was. But, certainly the study is strong enough to counter your far reaching claim of doping. The pump at these dosages does nothing, I'll even give you little to nothing.


Well for the sake of argument for a moment let's suppose there is no additional benefit beyond helping with Asthma. He hasn't been seen using the inhaler any other time, right? Why is that? Are we to believe he usually has an inhaler on him, but never uses it... except this one time, while riding at an easy pace before a climb? Doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## 9W9W

I agree with you completely! Only to go on and trash around on that bike like a vintage eggbeater afterwards.

That's why I said, I can't wait for everyone here to reassemble on the doping board when froome OD's and rips off a crank arm. Oh! Maybe we should host a live Q&A with Cound!


----------



## den bakker

Cableguy said:


> Well for the sake of argument for a moment let's suppose there is no additional benefit beyond helping with Asthma. He hasn't been seen using the inhaler any other time, right? Why is that? Are we to believe he usually has an inhaler on him, but never uses it... except this one time, while riding at an easy pace before a climb? Doesn't make sense to me.


how do you know he has not used it before during a race? nature breaks are not covered either unless by accident. does not mean riders don't piss.


----------



## Cableguy

den bakker said:


> how do you know he has not used it before during a race? nature breaks are not covered either unless by accident. does not mean riders don't piss.


I don't, and also curious. But nature breaks are assumed and common knowledge, I don't think the same can be said about inhalers. Before this thread I did not think any pro cyclist needed an inhaler.


----------



## Fireform

If it's not prohibited and it doesn't give a performance advantage who the hell cares?


----------



## Local Hero

william reichert said:


> If taking a puff of Albuterol ( which certainly does get into the blood stream and go to the heart and muscles and brain) does NOT improve the performance of a cyclist, then the drug should not be banned anymore than water, caffeine or glucose. Everyone should be on the same page. and play by the same rules. Since it IS banned the obvious
> conclusion is that Froome IS getting an advantage when he uses it.


Sorry. 

Can we clarify this? 

From my understanding the puffers are not banned but oral/pills of the same substance are banned.


----------



## Local Hero

love4himies said:


> You are right, it's not technically cheating, just breaking the rules. Nor is it evidence of doping. Just because you rob a bank, doesn't mean you would murder somebody. It does imply that he doesn't have high morals by willing to break rules to hold onto his lead. And it does gives thought on just how far he is willing to go to keep winning.


But there are many shades of grey here. 

Your analogy has robbing and bank and murder. I would argue that speeding on the way to work is not an indication that the employee would steal from work.


Cableguy said:


> ... so, if you understand the consequences of doping and do it anyways because you know you can probably get away with it you're just smart. Not cheating or anything. Is that right?


Just this morning I was in the metered parking. I was working and what I was doing took much longer than expected. It was not possible for me to leave and feed the meter; I let it expire. Since I was making about seven times the cost of a parking ticket I accepted the risk. 

That doesn't mean I cheat on my taxes.


----------



## omg

Local Hero said:


> Sorry.
> 
> Can we clarify this?
> 
> From my understanding the puffers are not banned but oral/pills of the same substance are banned.


Glad someone is catching on. That other dude has been corrected several times. Apparently I'm not allowed to say it's willful ignorance... but... 

Some people seem to think that taking the drug orally in a dose 4400% higher than a dose from an inhaler is the same as an inhaler dosage. There are TONS of legitimate studies that passed the rigor of peer review that show inhalers don't give you an edge, only treat asthma. Apparently some people on this thread know more than the collective scientific community. Apparently everything we know is up for grabs if the peer review board overlooked the number of people in that one study...

Comparing an oral dose 4400% higher to a puff on an inhaler is like saying froome must be doping since he uses xenon and carbon monoxide from the general air he breathes. It's beyond absurd, especially in light of the fact that there are study showing no benefit to the actual method in question, taking a puff off of an inhaler.


----------



## omg

Glad someone is catching on. That other dude has been corrected several times. Apparently I'm not allowed to say it's willful ignorance... but...*

Some people seem to think that taking the drug orally in a dose 4400% higher than a dose from an inhaler is the same as an inhaler dosage. There are TONS of legitimate studies that passed the rigor of peer review that show inhalers don't give you an edge, only treat asthma. Apparently some people on this thread know more than the collective scientific community. Apparently everything we know is up for grabs if the peer review board overlooked the number of people in that one study...

Comparing an oral dose 4400% higher to a puff on an inhaler is like saying froome must be doping since he uses xenon and carbon monoxide from the general air he breathes. It's beyond absurd, especially in light of the fact that there are study showing no benefit to the actual method in question, taking a puff off of an inhaler.


----------



## Local Hero

OK, I found it on USADA: 

*S3. Beta-2 Agonists*
All oral (taken by mouth and swallowed) beta-2 agonists are prohibited.
Inhaled beta-2 agonists are prohibited and require a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE), except for albuterol (dosages under 1600 micrograms/24 hours)...
Prohibited List - Athlete Guide | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)


Similar language from WADA:

*S3. BETA-2 AGONISTS*
All beta-2 agonists, including all optical isomers (e.g. d- and l-) where relevant, are prohibited except inhaled salbutamol (maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours)...
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2014/WADA-prohibited-list-2014-EN.pdf


Puff away you crazy dopers.


----------



## Local Hero

9W9W said:


> look I'm really not a Frommy fanatic, but if you scroll up, you'll see the results of a study - far removed from professional cycling or its wallets - which shows no improvement in cyclists without this condition. Someone is going to pipe in and say well it was just fifteen riders. True, it was. But, certainly the study is strong enough to counter your far reaching claim of doping. The pump at these dosages does nothing, I'll even give you little to nothing.


I agree that this asthma medication appears to have zero PED effects on non-asthmatics. That said, I think the study is moot. Performance enhancing benefits are not the determining factor here. (After all, caffeine is known to enhance performance and is legal.) 

Even if there are performance enhancing benefits on inhaled albuterol/ventolin/salbuterol, inhaled use is legal so long as it is not excessive.


----------



## Local Hero

Cableguy said:


> I don't, and also curious. But nature breaks are assumed and common knowledge, I don't think the same can be said about inhalers. Before this thread I did not think any pro cyclist needed an inhaler.


Go to 4:46 of this video:


----------



## SNS1938

omg said:


> ... It's beyond absurd, especially in light of the fact that there are study showing no benefit to the actual method in question, taking a puff off of an inhaler.


I agree, it's been shown to not benefit people who don't need it (I haven't read the studies, just seen various snippets here and there). But, I did see a statistic a couple of years ago, that something like 50% of the 'pro peleton' had prescriptions for asthma inhalers. Not saying it benefits an elite cyclist who doesn't have asthma, but I didnt think the actual rate of asthma in pro cyclists would be 50%. Clearly the team doctors think it can't hurt.


----------



## foto

Cableguy said:


> If he understood the consequences does it matter? Apparently not, as you wrote,


Does jaywalking make you a murderer? Does littering make you a rapist? Does swearing on the Sabbath mean you worship Satan? etc etc you get the idea.


----------



## den bakker

Cableguy said:


> Before this thread I did not think any pro cyclist needed an inhaler.


When did Petacchi get cured of his asthma?


----------



## Local Hero

In summary, these inhalers have not shown to enhance performance of non-asthmatics, they are not illegal to use, and they are commonly used by pro cyclists.

OK, are we ready to move on?


----------



## tednugent

den bakker said:


> When did Petacchi get cured of his asthma?


A misconception is getting cured of asthma.

It is more "very well controlled"


----------



## den bakker

tednugent said:


> A misconception is getting cured of asthma.
> 
> It is more "very well controlled"


that swoosh you heard might be the irony/sarcasm going over your head.


----------



## MMsRepBike

den bakker said:


> that swoosh you heard might be the irony/sarcasm going over your head.


I guess you're not very well versed in the internet.

On the internet, when typing in sarcasm, you use red text.

So from now on unless your text is red you don't have the right to call people out on missing your secretive sarcasm. Now you know the rules.


----------



## OldChipper

First, anyone who thinks racing with asthma is fun should try it before being allowed to offer an opinion here. A plastic bag with a few small holes over your head is an acceptable substitute.

Second, I have EIA and allergic asthma. Therefore, my asthma can be triggered by riding though a big pollen cloud or even by another rider wearing too much cologne or smelly anti-perspirant or sunscreen. Some days, I don't need my inhaler at all. Some days, I get behind Mr. Stinky and even my inhaler doesn't help much and I spend the rest of the ride coughing my head off and choking on mucus. 

Bottom line, if Froome has asthma (and I assume and believe he does), it's not surprising that he doesn't use an inhaler in every race. Also, though my asthma is problematic during maximal efforts, it does usually bother me much and I probably wouldn't mention it in an autobiography either. 

You have to understand that people with chronic illness like asthma often don't really see it as being remarkable or different since they've had it their whole lives. This is one reason why skilled health care providers, when taking a history, will ask multiple times and in different ways what meds someone takes. Many people don't instinctively think of things like albuterol or other daily meds *as* "meds" or "drugs." It's just something they do/use every day like brushing their teeth, drinking coffee etc.


----------



## omg

SNS1938 said:


> I agree, it's been shown to not benefit people who don't need it (I haven't read the studies, just seen various snippets here and there). But, I did see a statistic a couple of years ago, that something like 50% of the 'pro peleton' had prescriptions for asthma inhalers. Not saying it benefits an elite cyclist who doesn't have asthma, but I didnt think the actual rate of asthma in pro cyclists would be 50%. Clearly the team doctors think it can't hurt.


OR... Air pollution is the leading cause of asthma. Pro cyclists spend 5+ hours per day breathing in unfiltered car exhaust. Put those two facts together and you should be able to come up with a more logical less conspiracy tinged conclusion.


----------



## love4himies

I thought he didn't need a TUE??? I thought he had asthma his whole life. If so why was this just issued Apr 2014?

Union Cycliste Internationale



> Christopher Froome’s TUE for oral use of glucocorticosteroids was granted on April 29, 2014 based on duly documented medical history and in compliance with the applicable UCI Regulations and the relevant WADA guidelines. The TUE was granted for a limited period, following the usual procedure.
> 
> The process was fully transparent as it is UCI’s policy to systematically record all TUEs on ADAMS. WADA was therefore informed throughout the process.
> 
> The UCI wishes to emphasise that under the applicable rules – which are consistent with the WADA Code and the WADA TUE Standard and Guidelines – any rider with the same symptoms as Christopher Froome would have received a similar TUE.
Click to expand...


----------



## tednugent

love4himies said:


> I thought he didn't need a TUE??? I thought he had asthma his whole life. If so why was this just issued Apr 2014?
> 
> Union Cycliste Internationale


Different medicine


----------



## turbogrover

I believe the TUE was for a specific cortico that he wanted to use after the chest infection, to ride the Tour of Romandie. The inhaler he was using at Dauphine was a different med that didn't need a TUE.


----------



## omg

love4himies said:


> I thought he didn't need a TUE??? I thought he had asthma his whole life. If so why was this just issued Apr 2014?
> 
> Union Cycliste Internationale


How on earth did you confuse oral use of glucocorticosteroids*with inhaled albuterol?

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that "


----------



## tednugent

omg said:


> How on earth did you confuse oral use of glucocorticosteroids*with inhaled albuterol?
> 
> How on earth did you come to the conclusion that "



He played jump to conclusions


----------



## jmorgan

omg said:


> How on earth did you confuse oral use of glucocorticosteroids*with inhaled albuterol?
> 
> How on earth did you come to the conclusion that "


While they did say he used it for something else Glucocorticoids can be used for asthma according to wiki.

"GCs are part of the feedback mechanism in the immune system that turns immune activity (inflammation) down. They are therefore used in medicine to treat diseases caused by an overactive immune system, such as allergies,* asthma*, autoimmune diseases, and sepsis." 

So different drugs and different reasons but the use of Glucocorticoids while in a race doesn't seem justifiable and it sounds like the UCI is still colluding to cover things up. 



> The WADA code states that applications for a TUE must be reviewed by a committee that “should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine.” Furthermore, the code notes that “the majority of the members of any TUEC should be free of conflicts of interest or political responsibility in the Anti-Doping Organization.”
> 
> Froome had missed Liège-Bastogne-Liège due to a chest infection and initially consulted with his personal doctor in Monaco, Dr. Bermon, who did not prescribe any oral corticosteroids to treat the ailment.
> 
> Ahead of the Tour de Romandie, Le Journal du Dimanche reports, Sky team doctor Alan Farrell requested a TUE that would allow Froome to take 40mg per day of the oral corticosteroid prednisolone throughout the race. This request was reportedly granted and Froome proceeded to win the Tour de Romandie for the second successive year.
> 
> Corticosteroids taken orally or by intravenous or intramuscular injection are forbidden during competition without a TUE.


So sure he got a TUE but I bet they didn't follow WADA code in getting it.
*“should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine.” Furthermore, the code notes that “the majority of the members of any TUEC should be free of conflicts of interest or political responsibility in the Anti-Doping Organization.”*


Oh yea I forgot Froome is squeaky clean though and he doesn't know how he could be more clean. How about if something is wrong with you, you don't race. Get better and then come back when you don't need a TUE to race. If he and sky are so clean, they should be very transparent with everything when it comes to doping, just as every other team should be, if someone has a TUE anybody should be able to look it up and see the corresponding TUEC recommendation and reasoning. Froome's personal doctor wouldn't prescribe him meds so he just went to the team doctor to get some. There should probably be some checks an balances in place, oh wait there is supposed to be but no one actually follows them.


----------



## coldash

jmorgan said:


> While they did say he used it for something else Glucocorticoids can be used for asthma according to wiki.
> 
> "GCs are part of the feedback mechanism in the immune system that turns immune activity (inflammation) down. They are therefore used in medicine to treat diseases caused by an overactive immune system, such as allergies,* asthma*, autoimmune diseases, and sepsis."
> 
> So different drugs and different reasons but the use of Glucocorticoids while in a race doesn't seem justifiable and it sounds like the UCI is still colluding to cover things up.
> 
> 
> 
> So sure he got a TUE but I bet they didn't follow WADA code in getting it.
> *“should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine.” Furthermore, the code notes that “the majority of the members of any TUEC should be free of conflicts of interest or political responsibility in the Anti-Doping Organization.”*
> 
> 
> Oh yea I forgot Froome is squeaky clean though and he doesn't know how he could be more clean. How about if something is wrong with you, you don't race. Get better and then come back when you don't need a TUE to race. If he and sky are so clean, they should be very transparent with everything when it comes to doping, just as every other team should be, if someone has a TUE anybody should be able to look it up and see the corresponding TUEC recommendation and reasoning.



Union Cycliste Internationale




PRESS RELEASE: UCI response to media allegations concerning Christopher Froome’s recent TUE




15.06.2014


Christopher Froome’s TUE for oral use of glucocorticosteroids was granted on April 29, 2014 based on duly documented medical history and in compliance with the applicable UCI Regulations and the relevant WADA guidelines. The TUE was granted for a limited period, following the usual procedure. 

The process was fully transparent as it is UCI’s policy to systematically record all TUEs on ADAMS. WADA was therefore informed throughout the process. 

The UCI wishes to emphasise that under the applicable rules – which are consistent with the WADA Code and the WADA TUE Standard and Guidelines – any rider with the same symptoms as Christopher Froome would have received a similar TUE. 

The UCI would like to express its profound disappointment with the speculations that have been made suggesting its President could have any influence on the granting of TUEs. The UCI President and the UCI Administration have absolutely no involvement with decisions on TUEs. Insinuating that Brian Cookson’s son’s employment with Team Sky could have something to do with the decision to grant the TUE is an unfounded allegation which will be dealt with seriously.


----------



## jmorgan

coldash said:


> Union Cycliste Internationale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRESS RELEASE: UCI response to media allegations concerning Christopher Froome’s recent TUE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15.06.2014
> 
> 
> Christopher Froome’s TUE for oral use of glucocorticosteroids was granted on April 29, 2014 based on duly documented medical history and in compliance with the applicable UCI Regulations and the relevant WADA guidelines. The TUE was granted for a limited period, following the usual procedure.
> 
> The process was fully transparent as it is UCI’s policy to systematically record all TUEs on ADAMS. WADA was therefore informed throughout the process.
> 
> The UCI wishes to emphasise that under the applicable rules – which are consistent with the WADA Code and the WADA TUE Standard and Guidelines – any rider with the same symptoms as Christopher Froome would have received a similar TUE.
> 
> The UCI would like to express its profound disappointment with the speculations that have been made suggesting its President could have any influence on the granting of TUEs. The UCI President and the UCI Administration have absolutely no involvement with decisions on TUEs. Insinuating that Brian Cookson’s son’s employment with Team Sky could have something to do with the decision to grant the TUE is an unfounded allegation which will be dealt with seriously.


LOL 

When your personal doctor won't give you the drugs and you need to go to the team doctor to get them, something tells me you probably don't *really* need the drugs. I would like to see the 3 physicians that signed off on Froome's TUE.


----------



## asgelle

jmorgan said:


> *“should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine.” *


Read. Learn (maybe). inrng : journal du dimanche accuses uci and froome


----------



## jmorgan

asgelle said:


> Read. Learn (maybe). inrng : journal du dimanche accuses uci and froome


I read, apparently you didn't. You need 3 physicians according to WADA code. They only got one the chief medical doctor of the UCI. Lets talk about Mario Zorzoli the chief medical doctor.




> MA: Saugy’s quote is substantiated by the UCI’s *Mario Zorzoli*. In August 2005 Zorzoli gave a sworn statement to the Hamilton hearing that it was the UCI’s policy to discuss abnormal results with the riders. According to Zorzoli, the UCI had had approximately ten of those meetings over the years.
> 
> Think about that for a second. As of 2005, according to Zorzoli, the UCI had only ever seen ten abnormal results during a period when they themselves acknowledge that blood doping was rampant in the peloton. I have to wonder if they were even looking. According to Hamilton, most of the USPS squad had haematocrits pushing 50 at one stage. It seems that should have soaked up half a dozen of the ten meetings right there.
> 
> How can the UCI reconcile rampant doping with just ten meetings? One explanation, which is the one put forward by Saugy and Hamilton, is that only the most important riders were offered an opportunity to explain their results, and the expendables were just busted.


Michael Ashenden on the Armstrong Triangle | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events




> Zorzoli the guy Ferrari accused of making high Hgb results go away



How is this guy still the chief medical doctor when he was around when doping was rampant?


----------



## asgelle

jmorgan said:


> I read, apparently you didn't. You need 3 physicians according to WADA code. They only got one the chief medical doctor of the UCI.


From inrng : journal du dimanche accuses uci and froome
"The JDD hasn’t quite got the UCI rules right. Rule 40 of Chapter 13 of the UCI rulebook says:

'The UCI shall appoint a committee of at least 3 (three) physicians to consider requests for TUE’s: the Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC).'

"But this rule relates to the appointment of the committee and not necessarily the execution of its duties. For that we have Rule 45:

'Upon the UCI’s receipt of a TUE application, the Chair of the TUEC shall appoint one or more members of the TUEC (which may include the Chair) to consider such application and render a decision promptly.'

"In this case if Sky sent in the TUE form the UCI’s committee doesn’t have to meet in full, it can appoint one individual to consider and decide the matter. It might be more sound to convene given Froome’s high profile status and the sensitivities but that’s a matter of judgement, availability and timing and not the rules."


----------



## jmorgan

asgelle said:


> From inrng : journal du dimanche accuses uci and froome
> "The JDD hasn’t quite got the UCI rules right. Rule 40 of Chapter 13 of the UCI rulebook says:
> 
> 'The UCI shall appoint a committee of at least 3 (three) physicians to consider requests for TUE’s: the Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC).'
> 
> "But this rule relates to the appointment of the committee and not necessarily the execution of its duties. For that we have Rule 45:
> 
> 'Upon the UCI’s receipt of a TUE application, the Chair of the TUEC shall appoint one or more members of the TUEC (which may include the Chair) to consider such application and render a decision promptly.'
> 
> "In this case if Sky sent in the TUE form the UCI’s committee doesn’t have to meet in full, it can appoint one individual to consider and decide the matter. It might be more sound to convene given Froome’s high profile status and the sensitivities but that’s a matter of judgement, availability and timing and not the rules."


Should the UCI be taking shortcuts in approving TUEs for the top riders in the sport?? If so whats the point in even having it. Arguably the UCI should not be taking shortcuts for the top riders, period. Besides the fact Zorzoli was around when doping was running rampant and at its worst and he alone is able to decide. Besides the whole conflict of interest of Cookson and son. The UCI isn't and has never been "transparent" even though they say they are, they are not. Yet like the Armstrong era we are just supposed to trust them, oh wait we know how that turned out.


----------



## Local Hero

Is this thread still about the inhaled albuterol (which does not require a TUE) or are we talking about a TUE that was granted for oral glucocorticosteroids? 

My understanding is that use of the glucocorticosteroid was for a temporary condition. Is there reason to believe that Froome is currently using the oral glucocorticosteroids ?


----------



## tednugent

Glucocorticoid/corticosteroids are commonly used in asthma treatment. Inhaled versions, ie Flovent, iirc does not require a TUE. However, oral does

They are not used for acute asthma attacks. They are used to prevent


----------



## Local Hero

tednugent said:


> Glucocorticoid/corticosteroids are commonly used in asthma treatment. Inhaled versions, ie Flovent, iirc does not require a TUE. However, oral does
> 
> They are not used for acute asthma attacks. They are used to prevent


After some research into the prednisone TUE, it looks like Sky/Froome took the right steps but a Doc at UCI fast-tracked the process. Maybe there should have been three docs. Maybe one can sign off now and two others later? Maybe under asthma situations things can (should?) be fast-tracked?


----------



## love4himies

turbogrover said:


> I believe the TUE was for a specific cortico that he wanted to use after the chest infection, to ride the Tour of Romandie. The inhaler he was using at Dauphine was a different med that didn't need a TUE.


OK, thanks.


----------



## terzo rene

An immunosuppressant to treat a chest infection? Who are these quacks? Oh, that's right, they're dope doctors. Never mind.


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> Is this thread still about the inhaled albuterol (which does not require a TUE) or are we talking about a TUE that was granted for oral glucocorticosteroids?
> 
> My understanding is that use of the glucocorticosteroid was for a temporary condition. Is there reason to believe that Froome is currently using the oral glucocorticosteroids ?


After his riding today, I'm thinking he used his glucocorticosteroid ventilator on stage 2, but after he was caught on camera doing it, he stopped. . 

J/K. Team Sky would never allow that.


----------



## DrSmile

Prednisone is a bronchodilator, just like all the other asthma medications talked about in this thread. It is indeed used for chest infections, usually in combination with antibiotics. My assessment is that Froome's explanation regarding prednisone is legit. I don't really see this as a doping issue for Froome, with the technical exception of the asthma inhalers used by almost all pro cyclists. Their use has been a long standing practice that's generally tolerated by the UCI. Of course these drugs achieve a performance benefit, and there are bona fide scientific papers to back that up. The studies that do not show a difference generally only looked at peak performance and not long term endurance, so that muddies the scientific viewpoint a bit.

Lastly of course one should consider that with an artificially raised RBC count, bronchial function becomes the limiting factor in CO2/O2 exchange. If you have an elevated RBC count, there is likely to be a significantly greater benefit to using salbuterol than if you have a normal RBC count. For the average (non-doping) cyclist performance may be more limited by the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood than by the efficiency of the alveoli. Therefore the average cyclist may see absolutely no benefit from this drug.


----------



## tednugent

DrSmile said:


> Prednisone is a bronchodilator, just like all the other asthma medications talked about in this thread. It is indeed used for chest infections, usually in combination with antibiotics. My assessment is that Froome's explanation regarding prednisone is legit. I don't really see this as a doping issue for Froome, with the technical exception of the asthma inhalers used by almost all pro cyclists. Their use has been a long standing practice that's generally tolerated by the UCI. Of course these drugs achieve a performance benefit, and there are bona fide scientific papers to back that up. The studies that do not show a difference generally only looked at peak performance and not long term endurance, so that muddies the scientific viewpoint a bit.


Prednisone is an anti-inflammatory, not a bronchodilator


----------



## DrSmile

tednugent said:


> Prednisone is an anti-inflammatory, not a bronchodilator


Not quite true. Prednisone enhances the bronchodilator function. It is very commonly prescribed for asthmatics, and there are many dual drug inhalers that combine the beta agonist with a steroid.

Interactions between corticosteroids and ? agonists -- Taylor and Hancox 55 (7): 595 -- Thorax


----------



## tednugent

DrSmile said:


> Not quite true. Prednisone enhances the bronchodilator function. It is very commonly prescribed for asthmatics, and there are many dual drug inhalers that combine the beta agonist with a steroid.




Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory (in the asthma context), they "enhance" bronchodilator function by preventing/reducing the inflammation of the airways. Inhaled corticosteroids are more commonly prescribed for asthma treatment.

beta-antagonists are bronchodilators, with drugs such as Albuterol classified as "short-acting" bronchodilators and drugs like Salmeterol and formoterol are classified as long-acting bronchodilators.

Yes, treatment usually includes combining both a steroid and a long-acting bronchodilator (beta-antagonist), whether in separate inhalers, or combined inhaler:
Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol = Advair (I participated in the GlaxoSmithKline study for it before it was officially introduced).
Budesonide + formoterol = Symbicort

the inhaled versions of the corticosteroids & long-acting bronchodilator are not used to treat asthma attacks. They are preventive medicines.

Prednisone works differently than the inhaled corticosteroid. It is still an anti-inflammatory AND it is also a immunosuppressant. Because it is absorbed by the entire body, it is usually used short term. Long term usage comes with the consequences of more serious side effects.


----------



## tednugent

den bakker said:


> that swoosh you heard might be the irony/sarcasm going over your head.


The swoosh sound I heard is the air going through your head.

Like I said... a very common misconception of asthma is that you get cured of it, or for some with childhood asthma, they "outgrow" it.

Petacchi, he got caught "doping" on the salbutamol, using more than what was allowed.


----------



## DrSmile

tednugent said:


> Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory (in the asthma context), they "enhance" bronchodilator function by preventing/reducing the inflammation of the airways. Inhaled corticosteroids are more commonly prescribed for asthma treatment.
> 
> beta-antagonists are bronchodilators, with drugs such as Albuterol classified as "short-acting" bronchodilators and drugs like Salmeterol and formoterol are classified as long-acting bronchodilators.
> 
> Yes, treatment usually includes combining both a steroid and a long-acting bronchodilator (beta-antagonist), whether in separate inhalers, or combined inhaler:
> Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol = Advair (I participated in the GlaxoSmithKline study for it before it was officially introduced).
> Budesonide + formoterol = Symbicort
> 
> the inhaled versions of the corticosteroids & long-acting bronchodilator are not used to treat asthma attacks. They are preventive medicines.
> 
> Prednisone works differently than the inhaled corticosteroid. It is still an anti-inflammatory AND it is also a immunosuppressant. Because it is absorbed by the entire body, it is usually used short term. Long term usage comes with the consequences of more serious side effects.


Not sure what your argument is. You made my point that it can be used as Froome claimed it was.

Not that I think he's clean. I'm 99.999 percent sure he isn't. I thought the same about Lance.


----------



## tednugent

DrSmile said:


> Not sure what your argument is. You made my point that it can be used as Froome claimed it was.



You're getting your drugs mixed up and presenting them as fact.


----------



## den bakker

tednugent said:


> The swoosh sound I heard is the air going through your head.
> 
> Like I said... a very common misconception of asthma is that you get cured of it, or for some with childhood asthma, they "outgrow" it.
> 
> Petacchi, he got caught "doping" on the salbutamol, using more than what was allowed.


thanks for repeating what I know. 
Let me repeat what my sarcastic replay was a reply to: 
" Before this thread I did not think any pro cyclist needed an inhaler." Now, given that petacchi was busted for claimed over use of an inhaler. Would it be beyond the capabilities for you to perhaps for a second consider the fact that I stated what I did to show that there indeed are professional cyclists using inhalers? I know I might be hoping for to much here.


----------



## DrSmile

tednugent said:


> You're getting your drugs mixed up and presenting them as fact.


No, you are not remembering your physiology. Steroids reduce inflammation. Asthma is fundamentally a disease of inflammation, not bronchospasm. Bronchospasm is a result of the inflammatory reaction, typically associated with eosinophils. Corticosteroids promote apoptosis of eosinophils. Long term therefore prednisone is unquestionably a bronchodilator in asthmatic patients. The reason asthma is treated SHORT TERM with beta (2) agonists is that the prednisone takes time to have this effect. Beta 2 agonists are specifically designed only as rescue drugs, whereas the steroid has the better long term effect. Beta 2 agonists are just selective adrenaline analogs. Just like adrenaline their effect is transient.


----------



## Local Hero

DrSmile said:


> No, you are not remembering your physiology. Steroids reduce inflammation. Asthma is fundamentally a disease of inflammation, not bronchospasm. Bronchospasm is a result of the inflammatory reaction, typically associated with eosinophils. Corticosteroids promote apoptosis of eosinophils. Long term therefore prednisone is unquestionably a bronchodilator in asthmatic patients. The reason asthma is treated SHORT TERM with beta (2) agonists is that the prednisone takes time to have this effect. Beta 2 agonists are specifically designed only as rescue drugs, whereas the steroid has the better long term effect. Beta 2 agonists are just selective adrenaline analogs. Just like adrenaline their effect is transient.


Thanks for your contributions here. It looks like the TUE for prednisone was granted to treat an acute medical condition...do you think the use is ongoing?


----------



## DrSmile

Local Hero said:


> Thanks for your contributions here. It looks like the TUE for prednisone was granted to treat an acute medical condition...do you think the use is ongoing?


For the medical condition? No.


----------



## spade2you

Prednisone isn't much of an immune suppressant. It helps reduce some inflammation. It can also help reduce mucus secretions in something like bronchitis.


----------



## love4himies

spade2you said:


> Prednisone isn't much of an immune suppressant. It helps reduce some inflammation. It can also help reduce mucus secretions in something like bronchitis.


But doesn't it reduce inflammation by suppressing the immune system?


----------



## SNS1938

omg said:


> OR... Air pollution is the leading cause of asthma. Pro cyclists spend 5+ hours per day breathing in unfiltered car exhaust. Put those two facts together and you should be able to come up with a more logical less conspiracy tinged conclusion.


I think the history of drugs in cycling makes my conspiracy tinged conclusion pretty logical. Based on the history, I don't default to trusting the riders or doctors.


----------



## spade2you

love4himies said:


> But doesn't it reduce inflammation by suppressing the immune system?


Parts of them. The immune system is a complex thing. It's used as an adjunct anti-rejection med. It can help reduce some inflammation caused by certain immune responses. It doesn't kill the immune system like other stuff can or all COPD, bronchitis, and pneumonia patients would die.


----------



## love4himies

spade2you said:


> Parts of them. The immune system is a complex thing. It's used as an adjunct anti-rejection med. It can help reduce some inflammation caused by certain immune responses. It doesn't kill the immune system like other stuff can or all COPD, bronchitis, and pneumonia patients would die.


OK, I just know it from doctors prescribing it for Colitis.


----------



## jspharmd

Wow! Amazing the lack of correct information, misinformation, and speculation on this thread. 

Corticosteroids (including prednisone) have numerous mechanisms of action. One happens to be anti-inflammatory (most helpful in the immune-mediated inflammation). The immunosuppressive effects of steroids are dependent on the dose and duration of therapy. They are not bronchodilators directly - meaning they cannot stimulate beta 2 receptors and cause direct bronchodilation. However, as seen in the data presented by Dr. Smile, they can facilitated bronchodilation via upregulation of beta 2 receptors (making the bronchial smooth muscle more responsive to endogenous and exogenous beta 2 agonists, and by making those beta 2 receptors more responsive to stimulation by agonists). 

The dose of inhalers are smaller because they are intended to act topically (think of a cream that is spread on the skin and not meant to enter into the blood in significant quantities). That is the beauty of inhalers! They act locally for bronchodilation (beta agonists) or as antiinflammatories (steroids like - fluticosone, mometasone, beclomethasone, etc.), but do not reach significant concentrations in the blood. This maximizes the clinically desired effect while reducing the unwanted systemic adverse effects (tachycardia for the bronchodilators, immune suppression, adrenal suppression, etc. for the steroids). In order to achieve an appreciable concentration of beta 2 agonist in the blood, you would have to inhale a significantly larger dose (10-20 puffs or more). 

You shouldn't really see a cyclist taking an inhaler on the road, BECAUSE if you have EIA or Asthma, you should ALWAYS pretreat (take your 2 puffs BEFORE the ride)!!!!!!! If you are riding longer than 4 hours, you may need a second inhalation**** This could very well have been the case with Froome (I don't know the specifics). 

As an asthmatic since I was two, I will tell everyone that Asthma is a combination of inflammation and airway hyperreactivity (or bronchial hyperresponsiveness). This means that bronchial smooth muscle constricts more often and more severely than in normal individuals. Regarding the idiotic statement that Froome did not look to be in distress, you have no clue. I can easily hide my discomfort from an asthma attack (bronchial constriction and wheezing - mostly because I've lived with it for years and an Asthmatic's brain becomes less responsive to the stimulus of wheezing - Pubmed that for supporting data). PLUS - anyone that races or watches races would surely admit that you don't want your competitors to know when you are under stress, or even worse, in distress! 

If you really want to argue this topic, do some real research on the topic, then enter the fray with some ammunition other than some random rationalizing.


----------



## love4himies

jspharmd said:


> Regarding the idiotic statement that Froome did not look to be in distress, you have no clue.


Now why would that be an idiotic statement? Do you think everybody knows everything? Do you know everything that everybody else knows? Or do you expect when you ask a question or make a statement that may be wrong that you expect to be told that was an idiotic statement?


----------



## spade2you

jspharmd said:


> Wow! Amazing the lack of correct information, misinformation, and speculation on this thread.
> 
> Corticosteroids (including prednisone) have numerous mechanisms of action. One happens to be anti-inflammatory (most helpful in the immune-mediated inflammation). The immunosuppressive effects of steroids are dependent on the dose and duration of therapy. They are not bronchodilators directly - meaning they cannot stimulate beta 2 receptors and cause direct bronchodilation. However, as seen in the data presented by Dr. Smile, they can facilitated bronchodilation via upregulation of beta 2 receptors (making the bronchial smooth muscle more responsive to endogenous and exogenous beta 2 agonists, and by making those beta 2 receptors more responsive to stimulation by agonists).
> 
> The dose of inhalers are smaller because they are intended to act topically (think of a cream that is spread on the skin and not meant to enter into the blood in significant quantities). That is the beauty of inhalers! They act locally for bronchodilation (beta agonists) or as antiinflammatories (steroids like - fluticosone, mometasone, beclomethasone, etc.), but do not reach significant concentrations in the blood. This maximizes the clinically desired effect while reducing the unwanted systemic adverse effects (tachycardia for the bronchodilators, immune suppression, adrenal suppression, etc. for the steroids). In order to achieve an appreciable concentration of beta 2 agonist in the blood, you would have to inhale a significantly larger dose (10-20 puffs or more).
> 
> You shouldn't really see a cyclist taking an inhaler on the road, BECAUSE if you have EIA or Asthma, you should ALWAYS pretreat (take your 2 puffs BEFORE the ride)!!!!!!! If you are riding longer than 4 hours, you may need a second inhalation**** This could very well have been the case with Froome (I don't know the specifics).
> 
> As an asthmatic since I was two, I will tell everyone that Asthma is a combination of inflammation and airway hyperreactivity (or bronchial hyperresponsiveness). This means that bronchial smooth muscle constricts more often and more severely than in normal individuals. Regarding the idiotic statement that Froome did not look to be in distress, you have no clue. I can easily hide my discomfort from an asthma attack (bronchial constriction and wheezing - mostly because I've lived with it for years and an Asthmatic's brain becomes less responsive to the stimulus of wheezing - Pubmed that for supporting data). PLUS - anyone that races or watches races would surely admit that you don't want your competitors to know when you are under stress, or even worse, in distress!
> 
> If you really want to argue this topic, do some real research on the topic, then enter the fray with some ammunition other than some random rationalizing.


LOL, post your license?


----------



## jspharmd

Ha! Interestingly, I probably knew more about Asthma before I finished school and post-graduate training.


----------



## 9W9W

Pop coooorn! Get your pop coooorn!!!


----------



## spade2you

jspharmd said:


> Ha! Interestingly, I probably knew more about Asthma before I finished school and post-graduate training.


Same here. I take it that if you wrote an autobiography, it _might_ be mentioned that you had asthma? 

Even Bobke thought it was a little fishy.


----------



## jspharmd

spade2you said:


> Same here. I take it that if you wrote an autobiography, it _might_ be mentioned that you had asthma?
> 
> Even Bobke thought it was a little fishy.


Absolutely! I wouldn't want someone to misunderstand my use of an inhaler. Despite that, I can honestly say that I've received looks when using my inhaler before a race. It was so uncomfortable, that I now do it right next to my truck, so as not to draw attention to my use. I get this feeling like people (not knowing the actual rules) think of me as a cheater. As others have already mentioned, it only makes my lungs work similar to others, but I feel like I'm viewed as a cheater when using it. 

With all of that said, I can see where the microscope of the media could make it hundreds of times worse for professional cyclists. Maybe he was trying not to draw attention to his use of these medications. Imagine if everyone knew and then began to scrutinize his every use of an inhaler.


----------



## foto

love4himies said:


> Now why would that be an idiotic statement? Do you think everybody knows everything? Do you know everything that everybody else knows? Or do you expect when you ask a question or make a statement that may be wrong that you expect to be told that was an idiotic statement?


Well, in general, if one does not know much about a subject, it is best to refrain from making statements about that subject. You know, to avoid looking like a doofus. As Abraham Lincoln said, "it is best to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".


----------



## omg

foto said:


> Well, in general, if one does not know much about a subject, it is best to refrain from making statements about that subject. You know, to avoid looking like a doofus. As Abraham Lincoln said, "it is best to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".


Not joking anymore... Jenny Mccarthy would be proud of this thread.


----------



## spade2you

foto said:


> Well, in general, if one does not know much about a subject, it is best to refrain from making statements about that subject. You know, to avoid looking like a doofus. As Abraham Lincoln said, "it is best to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".


"Don't trust everything you read on the internet."
-Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## spade2you

jspharmd said:


> Absolutely! I wouldn't want someone to misunderstand my use of an inhaler. Despite that, I can honestly say that I've received looks when using my inhaler before a race. It was so uncomfortable, that I now do it right next to my truck, so as not to draw attention to my use. I get this feeling like people (not knowing the actual rules) think of me as a cheater. As others have already mentioned, it only makes my lungs work similar to others, but I feel like I'm viewed as a cheater when using it.
> 
> With all of that said, I can see where the microscope of the media could make it hundreds of times worse for professional cyclists. Maybe he was trying not to draw attention to his use of these medications. Imagine if everyone knew and then began to scrutinize his every use of an inhaler.


My first guess is that the inhaler is the least of Froome's worries. 

I generally don't use my inhaler while racing. I decided to not start a race that felt like I'd need it, which was fine because I would have been pulled from the final crit after a lap or two. I probably should have used the inhaler before my last race or simply not started. I had bronchitis and finished 14th out of 15, probably adding another 3-4 days to recovering from it. I generally don't have problems for the most part and not needing to take a puff before or during a race is a huge victory for me.


----------



## love4himies

foto said:


> Well, in general, if one does not know much about a subject, it is best to refrain from making statements about that subject. You know, to avoid looking like a doofus. As Abraham Lincoln said, "it is best to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".


But if you made a comment based on what you saw, then you may respond in something that may be inaccurate (how people knew if Froome was in distress or not is beyond me unless they spoke to him afterwards). Plus it's not being inaccurate that is the issue, _*but how people respond to somebody's statement*_. You can correct somebody _with tact_, as a couple of posters did, or you can just be arrogant and insulting. You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. 

When my husband uses his inhaler, I can tell from his breathing, he's starting to have a hard time, from that I would conclude that somebody riding up a mountain should show some signs of needing an inhaler. That is MY experience and why I concluded as I did.


----------



## omg

SNS1938 said:


> I think the history of drugs in cycling makes my conspiracy tinged conclusion pretty logical. Based on the history, I don't default to trusting the riders or doctors.


Nobody is saying cycling is clean. You are obviously barking up the wrong tree though.


----------



## coldash

Regarding the Le Journal du Dimanche assertions...



> However, a Wada statement said it was "satisfied that the UCI's decision to grant a Therapeutic Use Exemption to Chris Froome was conducted according to the rules of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, and therefore will not be reviewing this case any further


BBC Sport - Chris Froome: Wada satisfied steroids request followed rules


----------



## Cableguy

Local Hero said:


> Just this morning I was in the metered parking. I was working and what I was doing took much longer than expected. It was not possible for me to leave and feed the meter; I let it expire. Since I was making about seven times the cost of a parking ticket I accepted the risk.
> 
> That doesn't mean I cheat on my taxes.


I think you missed the point I was making. I was not trying to say Froome is doping. I was responding to a blanket statement used to justify Froome breaking the rules and taking on food. The blanket statement was that it's OK, and in fact "smart," that he took on food because he understood the consequences and made a calculated decision.

So then... if Froome is caught for doping in the future and afterwards says, "I'm glad I doped, it allowed me to win races I would have otherwise lost. Overall it was worth it" ... would we say it was OK because he made a calculated decision and was racing "smart"? I sure hope not.


----------



## Cableguy

den bakker said:


> When did Petacchi get cured of his asthma?


Afraid you're asking the wrong person. But I still think a professional cyclist using an inhaler on the bike is a strange sight that the production would be inclined to highlight.


----------



## den bakker

Cableguy said:


> Afraid you're asking the wrong person. But I still think a professional cyclist using an inhaler on the bike is a strange sight that the production would be inclined to highlight.


no I'm not asking the wrong person. 60-80 (pro-tour) riders were estimated to have asthma back when Petachi was in the spotlight. so what happened?


----------



## foto

Cableguy said:


> I think you missed the point I was making. I was not trying to say Froome is doping. I was responding to a blanket statement used to justify Froome breaking the rules and taking on food. The blanket statement was that it's OK, and in fact "smart," that he took on food because he understood the consequences and made a calculated decision.
> 
> So then... if Froome is caught for doping in the future and afterwards says, "I'm glad I doped, it allowed me to win races I would have otherwise lost. Overall it was worth it" ... would we say it was OK because he made a calculated decision and was racing "smart"? I sure hope not.


The approach you are taking is called the Slippery Slope fallacy (look it up).

Putting aside your limited ability to rationalize this, do you think it would have been better for Froome to say, "well I bonked hard and lost the race. Even though I could have taken some calories and preserved my lead in the _freaking Tour_ I want to be a good sportsman because Lord Knows my rivals appreciate it and I don't want anyone to think less of me"? All for a stupid feed?

Again, how come there isn't any outrage at all the "motopacedoping" and "fakemechanicaldoping" and all the other doping that goes on in the peloton? Getting towed up by a car to the group after peeing or flatting or cracking etc happens *all the time* in this sport. Care to share your opinion on those infractions?


----------



## den bakker

foto said:


> The approach you are taking is called the Slippery Slope fallacy (look it up).
> 
> Putting aside your limited ability to rationalize this, do you think it would have been better for Froome to say, "well I bonked hard and lost the race. Even though I could have taken some calories and preserved my lead in the _freaking Tour_ I want to be a good sportsman because Lord Knows my rivals appreciate it and I don't want anyone to think less of me"? All for a stupid feed?
> 
> Again, how come there isn't any outrage at all the "motopacedoping" and "fakemechanicaldoping" and all the other doping that goes on in the peloton? Getting towed up by a car to the group after peeing or flatting or cracking etc happens *all the time* in this sport. Care to share your opinion on those infractions?


CalGiant trio including Andrew Talansky paced back after mechanical
Frustration for CalGiant at Joe Martin | podiuminsight.com

"The team went from defending Andrew Talansky‘s lead to having him in 40th place after being penalized one minute for “prolonged drafting off of a vehicle” – per rule 4H13d. The rule states that prolonged drafting off of a vehicle will result for a $35 fine and 20 second penalty for a rider and . disqualification in extreme cases.
"

"“We were expecting a fine, we were told by the moto official yesterday that we would have a fine and I said ‘fine, I have the race leader here and he’s going to get back into the race.’ It’s a legitimate fine but it’s a legitimate action to get the race leader back into the race.” said Gallino who found out about the penalty by reading the communique sent out at 1:30am."


I'm patiently waiting for the outrage and him showing character.


----------



## Local Hero

In a related story, I once spent three hours in a break at a stage race, only to be caught and dropped on the final climb. My day was over. Midway up the climb I saw a big cardboard sign for "Illegal Feed Zone -- Free Coke & Water"

I thought the "Illegal Feed Zone" was a joke and took a coke. 

A motoref saw me -- in fact, I saw him watching me and took the coke anyway. I drank the coke and finished 2+ minutes behind the field. I was penalized 20 seconds and fined $50...that was as a Cat 2 amateur. 

How stupid is that?

And I guess that means I'm a doper, right?


----------



## Cableguy

den bakker said:


> no I'm not asking the wrong person.


I'm not really a fan of Petacchi. Didn't even know he had asthma. So I can't really help you out with his current asthma situation. All I can suggest is try googling it.

 



> 60-80 (pro-tour) riders were estimated to have asthma back when Petachi was in the spotlight. so what happened?


Interesting estimate for sure. I did a google search and it seems <10% of people have asthma, so I would suspect that number to be a lot lower for elite level athletes. But back to the point, you think a famous GC contendor taking a hit from his inhaler during a race is not more interesting than said cyclist taking a piss off to the side of the road?


----------



## Cableguy

Local Hero said:


> And I guess that means I'm a doper, right?


No it just means you broke the rules, but if you have something else to confess I want you to know I'm here for you.



foto said:


> The approach you are taking is called the Slippery Slope fallacy (look it up).


It's called proof by counter example. I am applying your same logic to a different variation of the problem and deriving an outcome that is obviously wrong, in to show you that your logic is wrong.

In the "lesser" example of Froome obtaining food against the rules, he is still cheating. Whether or not I care that he is cheating in this particular instance, is a different matter.



foto said:


> do you think it would have been better for Froome to say, "well I bonked hard and lost the race. Even though I could have taken some calories and preserved my lead


Yes. The way he took on the calories involved breaking the rules and getting an advantage over others. On the same token, what if Froome had said, "Well I couldn't keep up and lost the race. Even though I could have taken some blood transfusions and preserved my lead"? 



Local Hero said:


> Again, how come there isn't any outrage at all the "motopacedoping" and "fakemechanicaldoping" and all the other doping that goes on in the peloton?


There are different degrees of cheating. Most people are OK looking past the minor stuff, or the stuff considered to be self imposed justice. Not saying this is necessarily wrong either. My point was that your logic justifying Froome cheating is not sufficient, unless of course you believe everything it can be applied to (including doping) is OK as well. I'm guessing you don't.


----------



## den bakker

Cableguy said:


> I'm not really a fan of Petacchi. Didn't even know he had asthma. So I can't really help you out with his current asthma situation. All I can suggest is try googling it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting estimate for sure. I did a google search and it seems <10% of people have asthma, so I would suspect that number to be a lot lower for elite level athletes. But back to the point, you think a famous GC contendor taking a hit from his inhaler during a race is not more interesting than said cyclist taking a piss off to the side of the road?


ok you got nothing but BS. 
moving on.


----------



## jmorgan

My issue with Froome is he takes some pills *while *racing, supposedly "recovering" from being sick and wins a 5 day stage race. He takes a hit from his inhaler and destroys the peloton and even AC is unable to attack after sitting on. 

Normal people don't put in dominating performances when they are "recovering" from any illness. If he struggled while taking meds, it would at least look like he needed them. Instead he takes meds and dominates the best riders in the world, some of which are in peak form while he is "recovering", and some doctors would prescribe rest and time off the bike for his "condition". It just seems like something is a bit off and not normal.

He beat the World TT champion to win the Tour of Romandie while "recovering" (taking meds that needed a TUE) on an 18.5km TT.


----------



## foto

Cableguy said:


> There are different degrees of cheating. Most people are OK looking past the minor stuff, or the stuff considered to be self imposed justice. Not saying this is necessarily wrong either. My point was that your logic justifying Froome cheating is not sufficient, unless of course you believe everything it can be applied to (including doping) is OK as well. I'm guessing you don't.


Holy crap, exactly. There are different degrees of cheating and you and one other person are the only people who care that he took a feed, and got RELEGATED! It doesn't require justification, he took his punishment for the stupid infraction that only you seem to care about.

And you have proved nothing by counter example. Are you a politician?


----------



## spade2you

Cableguy said:


> No it just means you broke the rules, but if you have something else to confess I want you to know I'm here for you.


I love how implying other members are cheats/dopers has replaced neg repping.


----------



## Cableguy

foto said:


> Holy crap, exactly. There are different degrees of cheating and you and one other person are the only people who care that he took a feed, and got RELEGATED!


Your original justification was a bogus generalization IMO. This is slightly better but I feel like you're making the same mistake again. 

If he tested positive for doping and was sanctioned it would be OK because he would have been RELEGATED, is this right? 



spade2you said:


> I love how implying other members are cheats/dopers has replaced neg repping.


Not sure if trolling or... you're a doper



den bakker said:


> ok you got nothing but BS.
> moving on.


Time to hit the ol dusty trail


----------



## 9W9W

speaking of salbutamol in blood vs. lungs.... 

Diego Ulissi temporarily suspended over 'abnormal' amount of salbutamol in test | Sky Sports


----------



## DrSmile

9W9W said:


> speaking of salbutamol in blood vs. lungs....
> 
> Diego Ulissi temporarily suspended over 'abnormal' amount of salbutamol in test | Sky Sports


Thanks for this. Something is definitely going on. My guess is what I said previously, that the salbutamol increases performance in athletes who already have an elevated hematocrit because the air exchange in the lungs becomes the limiting factor. I bet we'll find out the specifics in oh... Eight years or so.


----------



## spade2you

Shoot. I thought cycling was clean this time.


----------



## den bakker

DrSmile said:


> Thanks for this. Something is definitely going on. My guess is what I said previously, that the salbutamol increases performance in athletes who already have an elevated hematocrit because the air exchange in the lungs becomes the limiting factor. I bet we'll find out the specifics in oh... Eight years or so.


what is Ulissi's hematocrit?


----------



## The Tedinator

C'mon Spade; doping stopped in 2006. Everyone says so.


----------



## spade2you

The Tedinator said:


> C'mon Spade; doping stopped in 2006. Everyone says so.


And most of them stopped right after Festina. 

Perfect.


----------



## omg

DrSmile said:


> Thanks for this. Something is definitely going on. My guess is what I said previously, that the salbutamol increases performance in athletes who already have an elevated hematocrit because the air exchange in the lungs becomes the limiting factor. I bet we'll find out the specifics in oh... Eight years or so.



Thats not how the drug works. The normal air passageway is more than wide enough to facilitate any amount of air volume your muscles can move. The problem comes when it contracts to a fraction of its former volume during an asthma attack. The inhaler prevents/treats that. Albuterol has no effect on how oxygen is absorbed into the lungs at all. Thats simply not how it works. 

Think of this scenario as a weakest link in the chain deal. The air passageway is one of the strongest links in the chain (except for asthma) and making it slightly bigger (if this is even possible) will have no effect on performance. This is why numerous studies have shown that it has no effect on athletic performance. 

nobody is staying these guys arent doping, but your barking up the wrong tree.

Also, that dude that got busted at the Giro would have to have sat there for 30 minutes sucking on an inhaler to get levels that high in his blood.

He OBVIOUSLY took it oraly, which has been shown to be performance enhancing (in dosages 4400% higher). Even in those caes, the performance enhancement has nothing to do with oxygen transfer into the blood stream.


----------



## DrSmile

omg said:


> Thats not how the drug works. The normal air passageway is more than wide enough to facilitate any amount of air volume your muscles can move. The problem comes when it contracts to a fraction of its former volume during an asthma attack. The inhaler prevents/treats that. Albuterol has no effect on how oxygen is absorbed into the lungs at all. Thats simply not how it works.


Sigh... Again, albuterol is essentially an epinephrine analog with selective effects. Clearly epinephrine increases lung capacity during a fight or flight response. Taking albuterol would be no different except the effects would last longer.

Taking the drug orally would still have effects mostly in the lungs since it is selective specifically for beta-2. It would of course also increase blood flow to muscles.


----------



## omg

Your just making stuff up with no scientific basis at all for your claims.


----------



## DrSmile

omg said:


> Your just making stuff up with no scientific basis at all for your claims.


I am not making anything up. This is Physiology 101. You can find it in any textbook.


----------



## omg

Cite your sources that back up what you said in that post.


----------



## sir duke

spade2you said:


> I love how implying other members are cheats/dopers has replaced neg repping.


:nonod:


----------



## Local Hero

DrSmile said:


> Taking the drug orally would still have effects mostly in the lungs since it is selective specifically for beta-2. It would of course also increase blood flow to muscles.


Are you sure? 

My understanding is that most drugs have more of a systemic effect when taken orally.


----------

