# So, Geraint Thomas is the best climber in the pro peloton.



## rufus

Discuss. 

Explain.


----------



## ngl

rufus said:


> Discuss.
> 
> Explain.


I'd say he has been the best GC climber so far in week two. The GC contenders say the Pyrenees climbs in week 3 have different profiles than the Alps.


----------



## penn_rider

I don't get it either...


----------



## rufus

ngl said:


> I'd say he has been the best GC climber so far in week two. The GC contenders say the Pyrenees climbs in week 3 have different profiles than the Alps.


And they'll still get dropped by Sky.


----------



## PBL450

He didn't ride the Giro.


----------



## rufus

PBL450 said:


> He didn't ride the Giro.


Neither did Quintana, Uran, Barguil, Nibali, Yates, Landa, Atapuma, Majka, Rolland, Zakarin, Martin, Kruiswijck, Roglic, Mollema or any of the other supposed climbers or GC men in the race. 


But Geraint Thomas is dropping them all in the mountains. Geraint Thomas. 

Explain.


----------



## PBL450

rufus said:


> Neither did Quintana, Uran, Barguil, Nibali, Yates, Landa, Atapuma, Majka, Rolland, Zakarin, Martin, Kruiswijck, Roglic, Mollema or any of the other supposed climbers or GC men in the race.
> 
> 
> But Geraint Thomas is dropping them all in the mountains. Geraint Thomas.
> 
> Explain.


I was just comparing him to the 2 guys inside 2 minutes. That could be making a difference atop the leader board. I’m not concerned with explaining anything. He’s a damn good GC rider. Easily top 10 or top 5 on his own. He’s shoulder to shoulder with world tour winners. He’s riding his first of the year, they aren’t. That is all.


----------



## coldash

PBL450 said:


> I was just comparing him to the 2 guys inside 2 minutes. That could be making a difference atop the leader board. I’m not concerned with explaining anything. He’s a damn good GC rider. Easily top 10 or top 5 on his own. He’s shoulder to shoulder with world tour winners. He’s riding his first of the year, they aren’t. That is all.


I agree but it is worth noting that Dumoulin, who did ride the Giro and relatively has come from nowhere in the last couple of years, is keeping pace with Thomas on the climbs so far.

Sagan finished 4th yesterday on a very difficult climb and dropped many highly regarded climbers. That seems to be attracting little attention


----------



## PBL450

coldash said:


> I agree but it is worth noting that Dumoulin, who did ride the Giro and relatively has come from nowhere in the last couple of years, is keeping pace with Thomas on the climbs so far.
> 
> Sagan finished 4th yesterday on a very difficult climb and dropped many highly regarded climbers. That seems to be attracting little attention


I hear you, I’m not on the doping train, I mean Sky has Thomas and Kwaito as domestiques and they have Bernal coming up, I mean geez. These are team leaders (and future leader) on like half the teams in the tour! Yeah, Tommy is climbing like a GC guy alright... I thought he was a good bit bigger than those guys but he’s not really, they go 154-157 the top 3... Sagan, I think he suffers more from the length of a climb than the grade, sort of, I mean he’s not overtaking GC Guys at 13% but he stayed pretty fresh, didn’t use up any unessary gas approaching the final steep climb and then he had a brief downhill run to make up time. I think his Spring results are relatively consistent with that kind of capacity. On Alp D’Huez he gets shelled off the back. 

Tommy D may be the best GC Guy there but having no support ensures he’s pulling a bowling ball up with him compared to a Sky leader...


----------



## BCSaltchucker

Thomas had better see to it he still has a minute and a half on Tom before the ITT.

Oh this race is still got some excitement left, a lot of uncertainty to be resolved. very nice entertainment for us. Just sad to be missing Nibali


----------



## upstateSC-rider

BCSaltchucker said:


> Thomas had better see to it he still has a minute and a half on Tom before the ITT.
> 
> Oh this race is still got some excitement left, a lot of uncertainty to be resolved. very nice entertainment for us. Just sad to be missing Nibali


Totally agree, and personally I can't wait for stage 17 this coming week and really hoping Sky is put to the test by at least a couple of teams. Maybe Roglic and Landa will team up. (One can only hope  )
Thomas is riding great, and ultimately I hope he finishes ahead of Froomey, but with Nibali gone I'm in for Dumoulin.
I really think Nibali was playing possum a little until he crashed, he really made up some serious time up to the leaders.


----------



## KoroninK

upstateSC-rider said:


> Totally agree, and personally I can't wait for stage 17 this coming week and really hoping Sky is put to the test by at least a couple of teams. Maybe Roglic and Landa will team up. (One can only hope  )
> Thomas is riding great, and ultimately I hope he finishes ahead of Froomey, but with Nibali gone I'm in for Dumoulin.
> I really think Nibali was playing possum a little until he crashed, he really made up some serious time up to the leaders.


Keep your figures crossed that Landa's back is drastically improved by then otherwise I find it hard to imagine he can do much. I HOPE Roglic can find a way to pull back time before the ITT as he's a good time trialist as well. I'm really hoping that Dumoulin keeps at least inside 30 seconds to Foome before the ITT as he can put that into Froome in an ITT.


----------



## PBL450

BCSaltchucker said:


> Thomas had better see to it he still has a minute and a half on Tom before the ITT.
> 
> Oh this race is still got some excitement left, a lot of uncertainty to be resolved. very nice entertainment for us. Just sad to be missing Nibali


It may be unpopular, but I’m a fan of Lo Squalo. I hate to say it, but he was done before we started. I think top 10 was realistic.


----------



## rufus

coldash said:


> I agree but it is worth noting that Dumoulin, who did ride the Giro and relatively has come from nowhere in the last couple of years, is keeping pace with Thomas on the climbs so far.
> 
> Sagan finished 4th yesterday on a very difficult climb and dropped many highly regarded climbers. That seems to be attracting little attention


Tom DuMoulin is the same height and weight as Chris Froome.


----------



## Coolhand

rufus said:


> Discuss.
> 
> Explain.


The ALPS. Same reason Tom D is doing well.


----------



## GlobalGuy

PBL450 said:


> I hear you, I’m not on the doping train...Sagan, I think he suffers more from the length of a climb than the grade, sort of, I mean he’s not overtaking GC Guys at 13% but he stayed pretty fresh, didn’t use up any unnecessary gas approaching the final steep climb and then he had a brief downhill run to make up time. I think his Spring results are relatively consistent with that kind of capacity. On Alp D’Huez he gets shelled off the back.
> 
> Tommy D may be the best GC Guy there but having no support ensures he’s pulling a bowling ball up with him compared to a Sky leader...


As you may know, I believe doping is widespread and common or standard in cycling and most other sports involving high physical performance. 

As for Sagan in stage 15, I watched the broadcast of the pre-race and race. Midway through the stage, the three commentators all agreed that Sagan would likely finish in the top four. They mention his all-around outstanding general strength, (the term "beast" was used) as opposed to being especially good at climbing, which he isn't. They also emphasized that no one goes down a hill faster than Sagan. (The 15th stage had a long descent and then flats as opposed to a summit finish.) Finally, he is an excellent sprinter, so...


----------



## eugenetsang

coldash said:


> I agree but it is worth noting that Dumoulin, who did ride the Giro and relatively has come from nowhere in the last couple of years, is keeping pace with Thomas on the climbs so far.
> 
> Sagan finished 4th yesterday on a very difficult climb and dropped many highly regarded climbers. That seems to be attracting little attention


IMO, Sagan is a pure sprinter. But when you said Sagan came in 4th... It's attracting attention... I beg to differ that he's doping. We all know his strength is not climbing. But if/when he has a chance to win a cllimbing stage, I feel he can climb with the best of them. Albeit he can't do it stage after stage like the skinnier riders... But if he feels that he has a solid chance in winning a climbing stage, he can come close to it... But also means using up all of his mental and physical strength and setting him back for future stages... Which it was proven that it has...

TdF is long but Sagan also wants to break the record of stage wins. Since the Tour is entering the last week and running low opportunity to win stages... He is attacking more climbing stages than he would prefer. I think that is what is fueling him on climbing stages. Breaking the record is his fueling his climbing stage wins. Not doping.


----------



## coldash

eugenetsang said:


> IMO, Sagan is a pure sprinter. *But when you said Sagan came in 4th... It's attracting attention... I beg to differ that he's doping. *We all know his strength is not climbing. But if/when he has a chance to win a cllimbing stage, I feel he can climb with the best of them. Albeit he can't do it stage after stage like the skinnier riders... But if he feels that he has a solid chance in winning a climbing stage, he can come close to it... But also means using up all of his mental and physical strength and setting him back for future stages... Which it was proven that it has...
> 
> TdF is long but Sagan also wants to break the record of stage wins. Since the Tour is entering the last week and running low opportunity to win stages... He is attacking more climbing stages than he would prefer. I think that is what is fueling him on climbing stages. Breaking the record is his fueling his climbing stage wins. Not doping.


I didn’t say that. I said that it is *attracting little attention* - the exact opposite !


----------



## PBL450

Coolhand said:


> The ALPS. Same reason Tom D is doing well.


Yeah! I mean this is THE week for G. Thomas right here. 1st week was an extended rest day for him. We know he can climb... Week 3 is it. That’s the only big question here, can he do it for this long? I’m betting he can and he will. He’s there, he didn’t do the Giro... Does Froomie Work for him? That’s a damn good question. Froomie is looking at history and GT is looking at the greatest professional accomplishment possible. He’s my got 2 1/2 stages and the ITT to go. He’s got this.


----------



## eugenetsang

coldash said:


> I didn’t say that. I said that it is *attracting little attention* - the exact opposite !


Oops! Sorry! But you're right in that aspect! Sagan never proved that he was a "climber", but man! Those couple stages, he proved us all wrong! I guess he's really motivated on winning some extra stages, even if they are not sprints!

I'm bummed that Gavaria dropped out of the TdF. Would been great to see him and Sagan battle it out on the sprints! 

But indirectly I'm glad that it worked out the way it did, otherwise Sagan probably wouldn't have 3 wins to his name this year!


----------



## mrcookie

eugenetsang said:


> Oops! Sorry! But you're right in that aspect! Sagan never proved that he was a "climber", but man! Those couple stages, he proved us all wrong! I guess he's really motivated on winning some extra stages, even if they are not sprints!
> 
> I'm bummed that Gavaria dropped out of the TdF. Would been great to see him and Sagan battle it out on the sprints!
> 
> But indirectly I'm glad that it worked out the way it did, otherwise Sagan probably wouldn't have 3 wins to his name this year!




Hmm he’s around 20 stages short after 7-8 tours. Not seeing him get anywhere close to the record.


----------



## aclinjury

coldash said:


> I didn’t say that. I said that it is *attracting little attention* - the exact opposite !


Well, I don't know about the others, but Sagan's climbing prowess has improved since he was that kid at Cannondale who pester Cancellara. The younger Sagan would used to get drilled by Cancellara on short intense climb, and Sagan has since improved a lot. Also, in one of the Amgen Tour in the past when Sagan competed in, he dropped a lot of the 2nd and 3rd tiers climbers like Lauaren Ten Dam on Mt Baldy (4 miles, avg 9%). Sagan can put in a 1-time climb about 3-4 miles long 10% with the best of them, but he can't do this multiple times and in consecutive days. And Sagan has shown improvement in his climbing ever since he was with Cannondale. I would not call Sagan an overnight sensation. He's the type of classic man who can climb. Now if it was Cav or Kittle climbing Sagan, then I'd question those more.

The other factor is age. Sagan started out young and improved continually, what you would expect. But when guys in their late 20s, who have shown no brilliance to have such capacity in their teens or early 20s, suddenly is showing brilliance in their late 20s and into early 30s, then they fall off the cliff after that, is definitely to be suspected. Physiological prodigy just doesn't work like that, nothing during early 20s then boom! genius in late 20s.


----------



## love4himies

aclinjury said:


> Well, I don't know about the others, but Sagan's climbing prowess has improved since he was that kid at Cannondale who pester Cancellara. The younger Sagan would used to get drilled by Cancellara on short intense climb, and Sagan has since improved a lot. Also, in one of the Amgen Tour in the past when Sagan competed in, he dropped a lot of the 2nd and 3rd tiers climbers like Lauaren Ten Dam on Mt Baldy (4 miles, avg 9%). Sagan can put in a 1-time climb about 3-4 miles long 10% with the best of them, but he can't do this multiple times and in consecutive days. And Sagan has shown improvement in his climbing ever since he was with Cannondale. I would not call Sagan an overnight sensation. He's the type of classic man who can climb. Now if it was Cav or Kittle climbing Sagan, then I'd question those more.
> 
> The other factor is age. Sagan started out young and improved continually, what you would expect. But when guys in their late 20s, who have shown no brilliance to have such capacity in their teens or early 20s, suddenly is showing brilliance in their late 20s and into early 30s, then they fall off the cliff after that, is definitely to be suspected. Physiological prodigy just doesn't work like that, nothing during early 20s then boom! genius in late 20s.


Agree completely.


----------



## Rashadabd

Interesting commentary today by Fuglsang and Landa. 

https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/to...urprise-to-see-thomas-leading-the-tour_473305


----------



## aclinjury

Rashadabd said:


> Interesting commentary today by Fuglsang and Landa.
> 
> https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/to...urprise-to-see-thomas-leading-the-tour_473305


I take that as Fulsang's subtle way of suggesting something is going inside Sky, given their history with Wiggo and missing data.

But let's just for a moment not focus on cycling. Let's take a look at other endurance sport such as swimming and running. Prodigal Olympic distance swimmers start to show flashes of brilliancy in their early-mid teen, and then ready to compete pro by late teen and dominate by early 20s. In running, same thing. Prodigies start to run close to 4-min mile in high school. By early 20s, they're top 10 among the pros. And once they've turned pros, they progress VERY SLOWLY from there, rate of improvement is no where like when they were teen, meaning they've almost peak; some will plateau and maybe even decline a bit.

But apparently in pro cycling, there are a lot of late bloomers, some with sever asthma to boot! Guys who have been competing for their entire career up to late 20s have shown no sign of brilliance will suddenly rise to the top over night. It's no coincidence that cycling is also the most doped up endurance sport.

Anyone the age of around 20-25 years old, and has trained consistently hard for 5-7 
years, will know that feeling of plateau, where you're fighting just to keep any minimal gains at all. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of coaches from other endurance sport disciplines who wonder how could you take an athlete who's pretty peak out and make him go faster in his late 20s. I would be wondering this if I were a coach.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Watching Team Sky, the way they ride and dominate the peloton ... is "Oddly" reminiscent of "Team USPS".

None of the pro riders want to come out and say it, but they are all thinking it.


----------



## GlobalGuy

Here's what we do know: He is currently the best all-around rider with strong climbing endurance and rides on the by far strongest team.


----------



## GlobalGuy

Wookiebiker said:


> Watching Team Sky, the way they ride and dominate the peloton ... is "Oddly" reminiscent of "Team USPS".
> 
> None of the pro riders want to come out and say it, but they are all thinking it.


Not IMO. Some pros and teams would publicly complain if they suspected what you infer. 

In 2005 Armstrong was dominant in a couple of the mountain stages even though he figuratively dropped his team, they couldn't keep up, and he was unsuccessfully attacked by other teams. 

Relatively effective PEDs are dominant IMO in cycling and in most if not all other sports requiring high levels of physical performance of speed, strength, and endurance. 

IMO It has probably been that way since the very late eighties and certainly early nineties.


----------



## love4himies

aclinjury said:


> I take that as Fulsang's subtle way of suggesting something is going inside Sky, given their history with Wiggo and missing data.
> 
> But let's just for a moment not focus on cycling. Let's take a look at other endurance sport such as swimming and running. Prodigal Olympic distance swimmers start to show flashes of brilliancy in their early-mid teen, and then ready to compete pro by late teen and dominate by early 20s. In running, same thing. Prodigies start to run close to 4-min mile in high school. By early 20s, they're top 10 among the pros. And once they've turned pros, they progress VERY SLOWLY from there, rate of improvement is no where like when they were teen, meaning they've almost peak; some will plateau and maybe even decline a bit.
> 
> But apparently in pro cycling, there are a lot of late bloomers, some with sever asthma to boot! Guys who have been competing for their entire career up to late 20s have shown no sign of brilliance will suddenly rise to the top over night. It's no coincidence that cycling is also the most doped up endurance sport.
> 
> Anyone the age of around 20-25 years old, and has trained consistently hard for 5-7
> years, will know that feeling of plateau, where you're fighting just to keep any minimal gains at all. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of coaches from other endurance sport disciplines who wonder how could you take an athlete who's pretty peak out and make him go faster in his late 20s. I would be wondering this if I were a coach.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to aclinjury again.

Another good post.


----------



## campyjoe

GlobalGuy said:


> Not IMO. Some pros and teams would publicly complain if they suspected what you infer.
> 
> In 2005 Armstrong was dominant in a couple of the mountain stages even though he figuratively dropped his team, they couldn't keep up, and he was unsuccessfully attacked by other teams.
> 
> Relatively effective PEDs are dominant IMO in cycling and in most if not all other sports requiring high levels of physical performance of speed, strength, and endurance.
> 
> IMO It has probably been that way since the very late eighties and certainly early nineties.


Pro riders may in fact not mention doping or the belief that it may be going on. According to Tyler Hamilton, there is a code among riders in the professional peloton to not publicize such things. This leads me to believe that doping was at least widespread during his career and many (including me) suspect it is still going on.

I also agree that there are certain similarities between Sky and US Postal. I certainly don't know that for sure, but after the things that have been uncovered, it is difficult to not be suspicious.


----------



## PBL450

aclinjury said:


> I take that as Fulsang's subtle way of suggesting something is going inside Sky, given their history with Wiggo and missing data.
> 
> But let's just for a moment not focus on cycling. Let's take a look at other endurance sport such as swimming and running. Prodigal Olympic distance swimmers start to show flashes of brilliancy in their early-mid teen, and then ready to compete pro by late teen and dominate by early 20s. In running, same thing. Prodigies start to run close to 4-min mile in high school. By early 20s, they're top 10 among the pros. And once they've turned pros, they progress VERY SLOWLY from there, rate of improvement is no where like when they were teen, meaning they've almost peak; some will plateau and maybe even decline a bit.
> 
> But apparently in pro cycling, there are a lot of late bloomers, some with sever asthma to boot! Guys who have been competing for their entire career up to late 20s have shown no sign of brilliance will suddenly rise to the top over night. It's no coincidence that cycling is also the most doped up endurance sport.
> 
> Anyone the age of around 20-25 years old, and has trained consistently hard for 5-7
> years, will know that feeling of plateau, where you're fighting just to keep any minimal gains at all. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of coaches from other endurance sport disciplines who wonder how could you take an athlete who's pretty peak out and make him go faster in his late 20s. I would be wondering this if I were a coach.


No disrespect meant, and I get your point, but you are all over the place. Running a 4 minute mile has what to do with riding a grand tour? One is 4 minutes. The other is like, thousands of kilometers and nearly a month. Look, improving from riding a 13mph pace to a 15mph pace is relatively easy. 15 to 17 is harder, much harder. But 17 to 19 is flat out hard. And 19 to 21? 21-23? At every step of improvement the level of difficulty increases exponentially instead of additively. Endurance athletes seem to peak later and last longer than other athletes. Training plateaus are very real and skilled coaches work to smash through them. Typically with the kind of interval training Jens Voigt said he would never, ever, never, in a million years, ever, do again after he retired. Still effective. At 43.


----------



## Wookiebiker

GlobalGuy said:


> Not IMO. Some pros and teams would publicly complain if they suspected what you infer.
> 
> In 2005 Armstrong was dominant in a couple of the mountain stages even though he figuratively dropped his team, they couldn't keep up, and he was unsuccessfully attacked by other teams.
> 
> Relatively effective PEDs are dominant IMO in cycling and in most if not all other sports requiring high levels of physical performance of speed, strength, and endurance.
> 
> IMO It has probably been that way since the very late eighties and certainly early nineties.


They wouldn't say anything even if they knew ... same story, different year. By saying something, they lose their shot at a potentially large contract down the line, hence the silence.

I think Fulsang is "Infering" there is something "Odd" about Team Sky's performance, but won't outright say anything. Same as any other sport out there, protect your interests, don't stir the pot and go about your business. 

I just take it for what it is ... entertainment ... though, I would like to see some others be able to mix it up from time to time.


----------



## jspharmd

PBL450 said:


> No disrespect meant, and I get your point, but you are all over the place. Running a 4 minute mile has what to do with riding a grand tour? One is 4 minutes. The other is like, thousands of kilometers and nearly a month. Look, improving from riding a 13mph pace to a 15mph pace is relatively easy. 15 to 17 is harder, much harder. But 17 to 19 is flat out hard. And 19 to 21? 21-23? At every step of improvement the level of difficulty increases exponentially instead of additively. Endurance athletes seem to peak later and last longer than other athletes. Training plateaus are very real and skilled coaches work to smash through them. Typically with the kind of interval training Jens Voigt said he would never, ever, never, in a million years, ever, do again after he retired. Still effective. At 43.


I think you might have missed the point. Simply put, most professional athletes (in most sports) are at the top of their game when they enter the pros. Therefore, major changes in performance are unlikely without another factor (suggesting PEDs). Nobody is questioning the hard work, PEDs are just that...enhancing. Doesn't mean you don't need the hard work too. Lance Armstrong was right, he was out their on his bike, busting his butt everyday. He wouldn't have been where he was without the combination of hard work AND PEDs. 

Your point that it becomes exponentially harder to improve as you get closer to the top of the sport, actually supports aclinjury's statement about how the dramatic improvement seen by G. Thomas seems out of place. 

In my mind, the most plausible explanation (aside from PEDs) for dramatic improvement identified by certain riders is a change in their role. If they are working hard throughout the race to assist the team leader, they sacrifice their placing. They don't save themselves early in the climb, they bust it to keep the pace high and pull off long before the finish. So, G. Thomas could have been this strong before, but used his strengths at different times in previous races in the support of Froome. This lead us to believe he wasn't as strong before.


----------



## DaveW88

jspharmd said:


> I think you might have missed the point. Simply put, most professional athletes (in most sports) are at the top of their game when they enter the pros...


That is simply not true for most sports and especially cycling. Why do you think they have a best young rider competition.


----------



## jspharmd

DaveW88 said:


> That is simply not true for most sports and especially cycling. Why do you think they have a best young rider competition.


Take a look at the history of the young rider winners. Your example supports my statement as much as it does yours. 

To focus on the major point at hand, seeing a dramatic change over a year or two is always suspicious. Kind of like how the starting tight end on my college football team weighed 240lbs and ran a 4.4 second forty yard dash when I joined the team as a freshman. Two years prior, he weighed 170lbs and ran a 4.5 second forty yard dash. He was originally recruited as a wide receiver. Dramatic changes often imply less than natural improvements.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

moving from the U23 or from US racing to Pro Conti or Protour also can have a dramatic effect on the speed of a rider. Talk to these pros and they speak of that extra speed gear they acquire just riding into form with much faster top riders over the chosen season. They can't get it prior to becoming pro, or just riding in the US. Have to go and put themselves through the gauntlet to see what their real potential is. Not to mention the much better coaching and resources made available to them at the higher levels.

doping could still be rampant in cycling. or it might not. We really cannot tell. Before real doping was introduced to the sport in the late 80s (because I don't really believe amphetamines make the kind of difference that hematocrit manipulation and steroids do for pro cyclists in the TDF) and , the sport still had their miracle makers, their amazing unbelievable stories. Many were yet more unbelievable, like Eddy, and Kelly and Coppi etc


----------



## BacDoc

PBL450 said:


> No disrespect meant, and I get your point, but you are all over the place. Running a 4 minute mile has what to do with riding a grand tour? One is 4 minutes. The other is like, thousands of kilometers and nearly a month. Look, improving from riding a 13mph pace to a 15mph pace is relatively easy. 15 to 17 is harder, much harder. But 17 to 19 is flat out hard. And 19 to 21? 21-23? At every step of improvement the level of difficulty increases exponentially instead of additively. Endurance athletes seem to peak later and last longer than other athletes. Training plateaus are very real and skilled coaches work to smash through them. Typically with the kind of interval training Jens Voigt said he would never, ever, never, in a million years, ever, do again after he retired. Still effective. At 43.


Yes, plus there is the guy who didn't even start cycling until 2012 (according to the NBCSN commentary) and today he is in 3rd with a chance of podium in Paris.


----------



## PBL450

BacDoc said:


> Yes, plus there is the guy who didn't even start cycling until 2012 (according to the NBCSN commentary) and today he is in 3rd with a chance of podium in Paris.


Hes been racing since 2012. He’s 28 now. He cross trained on the bike when he was a world junior champion in ski jumping. In ski jumping you train off the sport way more than on. Just like speed skating. Just like Eric Heiden.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Here's what I think:
1. Sky was lucky that Thomas won instead of Froome. Not as many people can muster the sort of hate they have for Thomas as they can for Froome and the big, ugly Sky machine. The team still got the win, with an actual Brit (instead of a Kenyan), which may solidify their position somewhat at home.
2. I really didn't see anything in Thomas' performance that was otherworldly. He just rode strongly in the one race he was targeting (in case Froome couldn't line up) and thanks to support and luck, managed to put in the performance of a lifetime. He wasn't the person of reference for the other GC riders in the Alps, as they kept looking to Froome to pull off another attack like he did in the Giro. By the time they figured out he was cooked, it was too late. 
3. I think Froome will likely return to the top dog spot at Sky, with Thomas either offered protected status or outright leadership at other GTs. Getting Froome #5 is important to the organization. Thomas may stick with Sky after his contract is up or cash in with some other team. His value is going to be through the roof.


----------



## Rashadabd

Alaska Mike said:


> Here's what I think:
> 1. Sky was lucky that Thomas won instead of Froome. Not as many people can muster the sort of hate they have for Thomas as they can for Froome and the big, ugly Sky machine. The team still got the win, with an actual Brit (instead of a Kenyan), which may solidify their position somewhat at home.
> 2. I really didn't see anything in Thomas' performance that was otherworldly. He just rode strongly in the one race he was targeting (in case Froome couldn't line up) and thanks to support and luck, managed to put in the performance of a lifetime. He wasn't the person of reference for the other GC riders in the Alps, as they kept looking to Froome to pull off another attack like he did in the Giro. By the time they figured out he was cooked, it was too late.
> 3. I think Froome will likely return to the top dog spot at Sky, with Thomas either offered protected status or outright leadership at other GTs. Getting Froome #5 is important to the organization. Thomas may stick with Sky after his contract is up or cash in with some other team. His value is going to be through the roof.


I can get behind pretty much all of that. The only thing I will add is that Thomas recently extended with Sky and will likely be there at least 2-3 more years. I feel like they intentionally cross the line with how they use TUEs and restricted medications and I just can’t support that, so Sky probably won’t ever be one of my favorite teams. That being said, Thomas, Kwiatkowski, and Bernal are all really likeable and fun to watch.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

Sky uses TUE's?? what evidence you have of this? I mean in the past half decade? Fancybear leaked it all and .. nothing at all since 2014, and that was just a little RXed Prednisone at TdRomandie for an injury

more random baseless hate for a team doing well in cycling. The merri-go-round of suspicion is getting silly being directed at only one team, which has generally been ostensibly (for all we can tell) clean since Wiggins left.

I really do not get why some folks dislike Froome other than he wins too much? He never says anything offensive, always polite and cheerful, while there are so many other euro snarks in the high ranks like Nibali, Quintana, even Landa and Dumoulin at times. Froome's a model champion based on everything we know


----------



## Rashadabd

BCSaltchucker said:


> Sky uses TUE's?? what evidence you have of this? I mean in the past half decade? Fancybear leaked it all and .. nothing at all since 2014, and that was just a little RXed Prednisone at TdRomandie for an injury
> 
> more random baseless hate for a team doing well in cycling. The merri-go-round of suspicion is getting silly being directed at only one team, which has generally been ostensibly (for all we can tell) clean since Wiggins left.
> 
> I really do not get why some folks dislike Froome other than he wins too much? He never says anything offensive, always polite and cheerful, while there are so many other euro snarks in the high ranks like Nibali, Quintana, even Landa and Dumoulin at times. Froome's a model champion based on everything we know


Baseless huh???? You clearly don’t know me very well. 

We used TUEs to get marginal gains, says former Team Sky and British Cycling coach Shane Sutton


----------



## PBL450

jspharmd said:


> I think you might have missed the point. Simply put, most professional athletes (in most sports) are at the top of their game when they enter the pros. Therefore, major changes in performance are unlikely without another factor (suggesting PEDs). Nobody is questioning the hard work, PEDs are just that...enhancing. Doesn't mean you don't need the hard work too. Lance Armstrong was right, he was out their on his bike, busting his butt everyday. He wouldn't have been where he was without the combination of hard work AND PEDs.
> 
> Your point that it becomes exponentially harder to improve as you get closer to the top of the sport, actually supports aclinjury's statement about how the dramatic improvement seen by G. Thomas seems out of place.
> 
> In my mind, the most plausible explanation (aside from PEDs) for dramatic improvement identified by certain riders is a change in their role. If they are working hard throughout the race to assist the team leader, they sacrifice their placing. They don't save themselves early in the climb, they bust it to keep the pace high and pull off long before the finish. So, G. Thomas could have been this strong before, but used his strengths at different times in previous races in the support of Froome. This lead us to believe he wasn't as strong before.


What? So Gaudu and Bernal are peaked... Think about that for a bit. Riders don’t improve? They arrive having maxed out their genetic destiny and they won’t grow in any way at all? At 21?


----------



## Rashadabd

Thomas definitely should have held off on signing that Sky extension. He’s probably worth double what he was yesterday.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Rashadabd said:


> The only thing I will add is that Thomas recently extended with Sky and will likely be there at least 2-3 more years.


Yeah, I used to follow that sort of thing closer than I do now, and it shows. So, unless he breaks his contract (which I doubt will happen), he'll finish out his career with them. He'll be the Option B until another rider emerges or is brought in, and he'll likely get top billing at the other two GTs.


Rashadabd said:


> I feel like they intentionally cross the line with how they use TUEs and restricted medications and I just can’t support that, so Sky probably won’t ever be one of my favorite teams. That being said, Thomas, Kwiatkowski, and Bernal are all really likeable and fun to watch.


I've always said I liked (most of) the individual riders but hated the team.


----------



## The Weasel

Not only is Thomas the best climber, but the Brits have had three of the best climbers 6 of the seven past years. And all on the same team that has followed through on their commitment to be transparent and not hire any medical staff with a shady past. Simply amazing.


----------



## DaveG

The Weasel said:


> Not only is Thomas the best climber, but the Brits have had three of the best climbers 6 of the seven past years. And all on the same team that has followed through on their commitment to be transparent and not hire any medical staff with a shady past. Simply amazing.


Now that the sport is drug free, its like a whole new era.


----------



## jspharmd

PBL450 said:


> What? So Gaudu and Bernal are peaked... Think about that for a bit. Riders don’t improve? They arrive having maxed out their genetic destiny and they won’t grow in any way at all? At 21?



If you would read my entire post, you would see my entire post, you would see my personal opinion and not my explanation of aclinjury's post. 

Obviously, there is room to improve. The question is how much improvement occurs relative to competitors. I think you might look at it a little differently. The improvements we often see, appear to be out of nowhere. Last year, a rider might not have had great results. Then, all of a sudden, they are winning races right and left. Thus my personal explanation of how support riders are likely stronger than their results show. 

If you think the use of PEDs isn't still widespread, you are kidding yourself. Too much money and prestige on the line for everyone to play by the rules. I know pharmacokinetics and Froome's urine sample could not have been obtained without albuterol doses WAY above the normal prescription dose. The incidence of "Asthma" in the pro ranks is disproportionate compared to the general population. Unlikely, they are using it for Asthma. Thus, being skeptical of results is appropriate. Seeing sudden improvements should warrant a question of PED use, but other factors could also be contributors. Like most things in life, multiple factors are involved.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Rashadabd said:


> Baseless huh???? You clearly don’t know me very well.
> 
> We used TUEs to get marginal gains, says former Team Sky and British Cycling coach Shane Sutton


One other interesting indicator that people are not mentioning ... and I have not bothered to look up ... is how well riders do after leaving Team Sky.

Most of the great up and coming riders on a team, that are showing dramatic improvement, then take deals with other teams ... many times, under perform when moving to the new team ... mostly due to loss of access to the "Prescriptions" they were receiving from their previous team.

Happened time and time again with US Postal ... seems to happen a bit with Team Sky as well.


----------



## Alaska Mike

“The problem in cycling isn’t doping anymore, it’s money”
I honestly think if cycling would adopt salary caps, you'd see more parity among the teams. Most of those marginal gains efforts Sky attributes their success to would amount to little, because they couldn't buy the same number of riders of the same caliber. One or two, sure, but not a whole train of them- and in multiple GTs a season. Their B Team is stronger than most of the A Teams out there.


----------



## taxidermy man

BCSaltchucker said:


> Sky uses TUE's?? what evidence you have of this? I mean in the past half decade? Fancybear leaked it all and .. nothing at all since 2014, and that was just a little RXed Prednisone at TdRomandie for an injury
> 
> more random baseless hate for a team doing well in cycling. The merri-go-round of suspicion is getting silly being directed at only one team, which has generally been ostensibly (for all we can tell) clean since Wiggins left.
> 
> I really do not get why some folks dislike Froome other than he wins too much? He never says anything offensive, always polite and cheerful, while there are so many other euro snarks in the high ranks like Nibali, Quintana, even Landa and Dumoulin at times. Froome's a model champion based on everything we know


You are right, Froome is a friendly polite interview...I think people don't like him simply because of the way he rides a bike LOL.


----------



## ngl

jspharmd said:


> I know pharmacokinetics and Froome's urine sample could not have been obtained without albuterol doses WAY above the normal prescription dose.


 You will have to quantify "WAY above" because even the Salbutamol Manufacturer va WADA states "The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above". In addition, the Manufacturer nor WADA never published any number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance. Can you enlighten us what that number is because I cannot find it?



jspharmd said:


> The incidence of "Asthma" in the pro ranks is disproportionate compared to the general population.


 Actually, many people (pro ranks and non pro ranks) suffer from exercise induced asma.


----------



## PBL450

jspharmd said:


> I think you might have missed the point. Simply put, most professional athletes (in most sports) are at the top of their game when they enter the pros. Therefore, major changes in performance are unlikely without another factor (suggesting PEDs). Nobody is questioning the hard work, PEDs are just that...enhancing. Doesn't mean you don't need the hard work too. Lance Armstrong was right, he was out their on his bike, busting his butt everyday. He wouldn't have been where he was without the combination of hard work AND PEDs.
> 
> Your point that it becomes exponentially harder to improve as you get closer to the top of the sport, actually supports aclinjury's statement about how the dramatic improvement seen by G. Thomas seems out of place.
> 
> In my mind, the most plausible explanation (aside from PEDs) for dramatic improvement identified by certain riders is a change in their role. If they are working hard throughout the race to assist the team leader, they sacrifice their placing. They don't save themselves early in the climb, they bust it to keep the pace high and pull off long before the finish. So, G. Thomas could have been this strong before, but used his strengths at different times in previous races in the support of Froome. This lead us to believe he wasn't as strong before.





jspharmd said:


> If you would read my entire post, you would see my entire post, you would see my personal opinion and not my explanation of aclinjury's post.
> 
> Obviously, there is room to improve. The question is how much improvement occurs relative to competitors. I think you might look at it a little differently. The improvements we often see, appear to be out of nowhere. Last year, a rider might not have had great results. Then, all of a sudden, they are winning races right and left. Thus my personal explanation of how support riders are likely stronger than their results show.
> 
> If you think the use of PEDs isn't still widespread, you are kidding yourself. Too much money and prestige on the line for everyone to play by the rules. I know pharmacokinetics and Froome's urine sample could not have been obtained without albuterol doses WAY above the normal prescription dose. The incidence of "Asthma" in the pro ranks is disproportionate compared to the general population. Unlikely, they are using it for Asthma. Thus, being skeptical of results is appropriate. Seeing sudden improvements should warrant a question of PED use, but other factors could also be contributors. Like most things in life, multiple factors are involved.


I both read (and saw) your entire post. I think you are missing the point. Your thesis is that elite riders only improve under one (and sometimes a second) condition. First, drugs. And sometimes, maybe, a change in their role. You are pretty clear on that, even as you walk it back and change the point to doping is widespread, so I’m kidding myself. So let’s do a little testing of your thesis. Marcel Kittle changed teams but is in an identical role. He can’t even see the finish line yet alone get a stage win, or four. By your logic, his performance would be equal. And it would further insinuate that his success at Quickstep was obviously attributed to their doping program. Again, since his role was the same, he is an elite athlete, and his success has varied dramatically. Dismissing the impact of great coaching is an insult to a world of people that do amazing work. Even though you are walking it back, Bernal is an open book full of genetic potential waiting to be supported. I think he’s going to be a top climber. It if he does become one, it will be because of PEDs or a change in his role. 

I’m no expert, but when I had the chance to talk to an elite cyclist he was clear as hell that you can’t possibly make yourself train as brutally hard and effectively as your coaches can, and that you can’t reach your full potential without that. Granted, that is anecdotal and an n=1 sample... 

And I struggle with this, if the dose of a drug varies widely in order to control the sympom(s) it treats, how do you set an acceptable level? But I digress, my point, so it isn’t missed, is that the two conditions you propose that can govern improvement are part of a deeply flawed logic.


----------



## jspharmd

ngl said:


> You will have to quantify "WAY above" because even the Salbutamol Manufacturer va WADA states "The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above". In addition, the Manufacturer nor WADA never published any number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance. Can you enlighten us what that number is because I cannot find it?
> 
> Actually, many people (pro ranks and non pro ranks) suffer from exercise induced asma.


Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21563035/

Urine concentrations of repetitive doses of inhaled salbutamol.
Clinical Trial
Elers J, et al. Int J Sports Med. 2011.
Show full citation
Abstract
We examined blood and urine concentrations of repetitive doses of inhaled salbutamol in relation to the existing cut-off value used in routine doping control. We compared the concentrations in asthmatics with regular use of beta2-agonists prior to study and healthy controls with no previous use of beta2-agonists. We enrolled 10 asthmatics and 10 controls in an open-label study in which subjects inhaled repetitive doses of 400 microgram salbutamol every second hour (total 1600 microgram), which is the permitted daily dose by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Blood samples were collected at baseline, 30 min, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 h after the first inhalations. Urine samples were collected at baseline, 0-4 h, 4-8 h, and 8-12 h after the first inhalations. Median urine concentrations peaked in the period 4-8 h after the first inhalations in the asthmatics and between 8-12 h in controls and the median ranged from 268 to 611 ng×mL (-1). No samples exceeded the WADA threshold value of 1000 ng×mL (-1) when corrected for the urine specific gravity. When not corrected one sample exceeded the cut-off value with urine concentration of 1082 ng×mL (-1). In conclusion we found no differences in blood and urine concentrations between asthmatic and healthy subjects. We found high variability in urine concentrations between subjects in both groups. The variability between subjects was still present after the samples were corrected for urine specific gravity.

PMID 21563035 [Indexed for MEDLINE]


You’ll note that Froome’s level corrected for specific gravity (a measure of how much water - read hydrated or dehydrated - is in the urine when the sample was taken) was 119% of the limit. You’ll note the study median values (think average for non-normally distributed samples), when corrected, where between 268 to 611. This means his sample was ~ 195% to ~ 450% above the normal. Which means his dose had to be MUCH larger than the normal dose. 

If you want to get into the discussion of pharmacodynamics (dose versus response) that is another story, but not what is tested. 

Finally, I can tell you as an asthmatic myself, going above the normal dosing does not improve bronchodilation.


----------



## jspharmd

PBL450 said:


> I both read (and saw) your entire post. I think you are missing the point. Your thesis is that elite riders only improve under one (and sometimes a second) condition. First, drugs. And sometimes, maybe, a change in their role. You are pretty clear on that, even as you walk it back and change the point to doping is widespread, so I’m kidding myself. So let’s do a little testing of your thesis. Marcel Kittle changed teams but is in an identical role. He can’t even see the finish line yet alone get a stage win, or four. By your logic, his performance would be equal. And it would further insinuate that his success at Quickstep was obviously attributed to their doping program. Again, since his role was the same, he is an elite athlete, and his success has varied dramatically. Dismissing the impact of great coaching is an insult to a world of people that do amazing work. Even though you are walking it back, Bernal is an open book full of genetic potential waiting to be supported. I think he’s going to be a top climber. It if he does become one, it will be because of PEDs or a change in his role.
> 
> I’m no expert, but when I had the chance to talk to an elite cyclist he was clear as hell that you can’t possibly make yourself train as brutally hard and effectively as your coaches can, and that you can’t reach your full potential without that. Granted, that is anecdotal and an n=1 sample...
> 
> And I struggle with this, if the dose of a drug varies widely in order to control the sympom(s) it treats, how do you set an acceptable level? But I digress, my point, so it isn’t missed, is that the two conditions you propose that can govern improvement are part of a deeply flawed logic.


Again, you missed it, or maybe you don’t want to see my point and thus boil it down to only two points of black and white with no gray.

Let me help you. 

1. I don’t have a thesis. 
2. I was trying to restate aclinjury’s point so that you might understand it. You were struggling with that. 
3. Drugs are certainly a part of cycling today and every professional sport. I know of pro football players that have had their urine drained drained and replaced with clean uring. 
4. My “thesis” was only a possible explanation for sudden (read dramatic, unexpected, unlikely) changes was that results don’t always demonstrate the talent. Froome didn’t win the Tour when he was helping Wiggins. If he had done his luitenent job and not left Wiggins on certain stages, we wouldn’t had realized how good he was. READ here that I’m actually trying to agee with you somewhat (maybe the talent isn’t appreciated by spectators due to serving a support role and not racing for oneself). 
5. Your example of Kittle is the opposite of what I’m saying. His results worsened, not improved in a season. Someone else here postulated that it could be access to PEDs, so maybe that explains his fall. 
6. See my other post about PK of drugs. There are clearly laid out methods to determine appropriate dose and dose range. There are also clear methods to lay out toxic doses. The concentrations (and dose) in between effect and toxicity is the therapeutic index. Froome’s levels were roughly 200% to 400% of normal. Unlikely this was a normal difference in physiology variability.


----------



## ngl

jspharmd said:


> Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21563035/
> 
> Urine concentrations of repetitive doses of inhaled salbutamol.
> Clinical Trial
> Elers J, et al. Int J Sports Med. 2011.
> Show full citation
> Abstract
> We examined blood and urine concentrations of repetitive doses of inhaled salbutamol in relation to the existing cut-off value used in routine doping control. We compared the concentrations in asthmatics with regular use of beta2-agonists prior to study and healthy controls with no previous use of beta2-agonists. We enrolled 10 asthmatics and 10 controls in an open-label study in which subjects inhaled repetitive doses of 400 microgram salbutamol every second hour (total 1600 microgram), which is the permitted daily dose by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Blood samples were collected at baseline, 30 min, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 h after the first inhalations. Urine samples were collected at baseline, 0-4 h, 4-8 h, and 8-12 h after the first inhalations. Median urine concentrations peaked in the period 4-8 h after the first inhalations in the asthmatics and between 8-12 h in controls and the median ranged from 268 to 611 ng×mL (-1). No samples exceeded the WADA threshold value of 1000 ng×mL (-1) when corrected for the urine specific gravity. When not corrected one sample exceeded the cut-off value with urine concentration of 1082 ng×mL (-1). In conclusion we found no differences in blood and urine concentrations between asthmatic and healthy subjects. We found high variability in urine concentrations between subjects in both groups. The variability between subjects was still present after the samples were corrected for urine specific gravity.
> 
> PMID 21563035 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> 
> You’ll note that Froome’s level corrected for specific gravity (a measure of how much water - read hydrated or dehydrated - is in the urine when the sample was taken) was 119% of the limit. You’ll note the study median values (think average for non-normally distributed samples), when corrected, where between 268 to 611. This means his sample was ~ 195% to ~ 450% above the normal. Which means his dose had to be MUCH larger than the normal dose.
> 
> If you want to get into the discussion of pharmacodynamics (dose versus response) that is another story, but not what is tested.
> 
> Finally, I can tell you as an asthmatic myself, going above the normal dosing does not improve bronchodilation.


Yes, but it does not indicate doping either! That's the argument. 

You typed a lot of meaningless words and you still did not answer my question "What is the number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance" Would it be 120%, 150%, 200%, 400%, 800%, or higher? 
Maybe it's because you (like WADA, UCI and ASO) don't know the answer. 
Maybe this is why Froome was cleared of an ADRV (and why he was never charged with doping in the first place).


----------



## mackgoo

After the ITT interview how can you not love the guy?


----------



## jspharmd

ngl said:


> Yes, but it does not indicate doping either! That's the argument.
> 
> You typed a lot of meaningless words and you still did not answer my question "What is the number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance" Would it be 120%, 150%, 200%, 400%, 800%, or higher?
> Maybe it's because you (like WADA, UCI and ASO) don't know the answer.
> Maybe this is why Froome was cleared of an ADRV (and why he was never charged with doping in the first place).


It is only meaningless if you don’t understand it. 

You tell me the metric of performance you want to measure and I’ll give you a dose, or I’ll conclude that the drug dose not enhance that metric of performance. 

The matter at hand isn’t to prove to you that his dose enhanced his performance. My argument is that he used WAY more than what is needed for asthma. Which means he thought he was cheating to obtain his definition of performance enhancement.


----------



## PBL450

jspharmd said:


> Again, you missed it, or maybe you don’t want to see my point and thus boil it down to only two points of black and white with no gray.
> 
> Let me help you.
> 
> 1. I don’t have a thesis.
> 2. I was trying to restate aclinjury’s point so that you might understand it. You were struggling with that.
> 3. Drugs are certainly a part of cycling today and every professional sport. I know of pro football players that have had their urine drained drained and replaced with clean uring.
> 4. My “thesis” was only a possible explanation for sudden (read dramatic, unexpected, unlikely) changes was that results don’t always demonstrate the talent. Froome didn’t win the Tour when he was helping Wiggins. If he had done his luitenent job and not left Wiggins on certain stages, we wouldn’t had realized how good he was. READ here that I’m actually trying to agee with you somewhat (maybe the talent isn’t appreciated by spectators due to serving a support role and not racing for oneself).
> 5. Your example of Kittle is the opposite of what I’m saying. His results worsened, not improved in a season. Someone else here postulated that it could be access to PEDs, so maybe that explains his fall.
> 6. See my other post about PK of drugs. There are clearly laid out methods to determine appropriate dose and dose range. There are also clear methods to lay out toxic doses. The concentrations (and dose) in between effect and toxicity is the therapeutic index. Froome’s levels were roughly 200% to 400% of normal. Unlikely this was a normal difference in physiology variability.


You keep telling me I am missing the point. I’m not. I just disagree. I think a myriad of things effect performance improvement. You seem to be slowly agreeing with that more and more. 


*Simply put, most professional athletes (in most sports) are at the top of their game when they enter the pros. Therefore, major changes in performance are unlikely without another factor (suggesting PEDs).*


----------



## ngl

jspharmd said:


> Which means he thought he was cheating to obtain his definition of performance enhancement.


You can't seriously believe what you are saying because you would ALSO have to be a psychologist to know and understand what Froome was thinking.

WADA (like you) does not know how much Salbutamol is required to be performance enhancing, therefore, WADA could not defend their adverse analytical finding.
Secondly, WADA has already concluded a urine sample is not a reliable indication of substance intake.


----------



## jspharmd

ngl said:


> You can't seriously believe what you are saying because you would ALSO have to be a psychologist to know and understand what Froome was thinking.
> 
> WADA (like you) does not know how much Salbutamol is required to be performance enhancing, therefore, WADA could not defend their adverse analytical finding.
> Secondly, WADA has already concluded a urine sample is not a reliable indication of substance intake.


You don't have to be a psychologist to know why someone takes more drug than they need. If the drug is believed to be performance enhancing at larger doses (clear evidence of other beta-2 agonist anabolic effects) and an athlete takes more than the dose needed for a non-performance enhancing indication (bronchodilation for asthma), then pure logic dictates that they took it for performance enhancing (or perceived performance enhancing) effects.

There at plenty of data out there demonstrating the performance enhancing effect of beta-2 agonists. Take a look a just a few studies below. If you read the studies, you can see the oral or inhaled doses used in the studies. You will also see evidence for the potential short term (meaning using a bigger dose acutely) performance enhancing effects. 

Please don't be so naive as to think that a professional athlete with millions of dollars on the line, wouldn't use everything at their disposal to win. Even if it requires the "diagnosis" of a clinical condition to explain the presence of a drug in their body. 

Animal data:
Comparison of the effects of salbutamol and clenbuterol on skeletal muscle mass and carcass composition in senescent rats.
Carter WJ1, Lynch ME. Metabolism. 1994 Sep;43(9):1119-25.


Human data:
Salbutamol, a β2-adrenoceptor agonist, increases skeletal muscle strength in young men
Lucie Martineau, Michael A. Horan, Nancy J. Rothwell, Roderick A. Little
Clinical Science Nov 01, 1992, 83 (5) 615-621; DOI: 10.1042/cs0830615
(These data demonstrate that short-term administration of salbutamol increases voluntary muscle strength in man. However, the magnitude and duration of this effect vary between muscle groups. This study implies that the beta 2-adrenoceptor agonists may be of therapeutic potential in altering skeletal muscle function in humans.)


Effect of acute and short-term oral salbutamol treatments on maximal power output in non-asthmatic athletes.
Sanchez AM, Collomp K, Carra J, Borrani F, Coste O, Préfaut C, Candau R.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Sep;112(9):3251-8. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2307-3. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
(In conclusion, these data indicate that oral administration of SAL is an effective ergogenic aid for sprint exercise in non-asthmatic athletes. Moreover, an acute treatment seems to be more effective than 3 weeks of continuous treatment.)

Effects of short-term salbutamol ingestion during a Wingate test.
Le Panse B, Collomp K, Portier H, Lecoq AM, Jaffre C, Beaupied H, Richard O, Benhamou L, De Ceaurriz J, Courteix D.
Int J Sports Med. 2005 Sep;26(7):518-23.
(The data demonstrate that the chronic administration of therapeutic levels of salbutamol increases maximal anaerobic power in man, irrespective of the subjects' training status)

Impact of salbutamol on muscle metabolism assessed by ³¹P NMR spectroscopy.
Decorte N, Lamalle L, Carlier PG, Giacomini E, Guinot M, Levy P, Verges S, Wuyam B.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015 Jun;25(3):e267-73. doi: 10.1111/sms.12312. Epub 2014 Sep 17.
(The maximal power (28 ± 7 W/23 ± 7 W; P = 0.001) and total work (1702 ± 442 J/1381 ± 432 J; P = 0.003) performed during plantar flexions were significantly increased with salbutamol. Salbutamol induced significant improvement in calf muscle endurance with similar metabolic responses during exercise, except slight differences in pHi. Other mechanisms than changes in muscle metabolism may be responsible for the ergogenic effect of salbutamol administration.)


Negative studies (just so you understand the breadth of the literature):
Pharmacogenetic Effects of Inhaled Salbutamol on 10-km Time Trial Performance in Competitive Male and Female Cyclists.
Koch S, MacInnis MJ, Rupert JL, Sporer BC, Koehle MS.
Clin J Sport Med. 2016 Mar;26(2):145-51. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000201.
(The inhalation of 1600 μg salbutamol improved FEV1 regardless of EVH status but did not improve 10-km time trial performance in trained competitive male cyclists regardless of relative dose per kilogram of body weight or EVH status.) *Note: They used the maximum therapeutic dosing, not supratherapeutic dosing. * 

The Effect of 400 µg Inhaled Salbutamol on 3 km Time Trial Performance in a Low Humidity Environment.
Molphy J, Dickinson JW, Chester NJ, Loosemore M, Whyte G.
J Sports Sci Med. 2017 Dec 1;16(4):581-588. eCollection 2017 Dec.
(Administration of 400µg inhaled salbutamol does not improve 3 km time-trial performance in either mild EVH+ve or EVH-ve individuals despite significantly increased HR and FEV1.) *Note: Again, normal dosing.*


----------



## ngl

You can copy and paste all the jargon you want, but, until you can publish a number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance (beyond any reasonable doubt) you are still blowing hot air. That is what is needed. If you can produce that number you should go to WADA and make yourself a million dollars. Maybe you'll be the guy that can take down Froome and SKY once and for all.


----------



## jspharmd

ngl said:


> You can copy and paste all the jargon you want, but, until you can publish a number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance (beyond any reasonable doubt) you are still blowing hot air. That is what is needed. If you can produce that number you should go to WADA and make yourself a million dollars. Maybe you'll be the guy that can take down Froome and SKY once and for all.


You really don't seem to understand science. The citations and summaries show the performance enhancement you requested. Nobody has to prove anything to you. You don't really matter in the grand scheme of things (neither do I for that matter). So, I'll let you continue to ignore the evidence and stand your ignorant ground.


----------



## ngl

jspharmd said:


> You really don't seem to understand science.


Sorry, but I have 32 years experience in the field of science.



jspharmd said:


> The citations and summaries show the performance enhancement you requested.


I didn't ask for citations and summaries that show the performance enhancement. I asked for one number that you failed to supply. 



jspharmd said:


> Nobody has to prove anything to you. You don't really matter in the grand scheme of things (neither do I for that matter). So, I'll let you continue to ignore the evidence and stand your ignorant ground.


I don't know why your'e not on your way to WADA. Well actually I do.
WADA (like you) does not know how much Salbutamol is required to be performance enhancing, therefore, WADA could not defend their adverse analytical finding.
Secondly, WADA has already concluded a urine sample is not a reliable indication of the amount of substance intake.


----------



## The Weasel

ngl said:


> You can copy and paste all the jargon you want, but, until you can publish a number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance (beyond any reasonable doubt) you are still blowing hot air.


By actually taking the time to read just one example this guy provided, I soon read this:
"Peak power was significantly increased (p < 0.05) after SAL intake in all subjects (T: 11.9 %; UT: 8.3 %) with a decrease in time to peak power with SAL compared to placebo (PLA) (p < 0.05). "

Now, I could be wrong, but those look like numbers to me. Now both of you being science guys, you can tell the rest of us if those numbers are significant and consistent with PED use.

Even if they are not, it's still artificial improvement in a sport where seconds matter. If not, it's a matter of optics by each camp.


----------



## Oxtox

taxidermy man said:


> Froome is a friendly polite interview...I think people don't like him simply because of the way he rides a bike LOL.


word. 

listening to CF speak isn't difficult, but watching him ride makes the enamel on my teeth hurt...


----------



## ngl

The Weasel said:


> By actually taking the time to read just one example this guy provided, I soon read this:
> "Peak power was significantly increased (p < 0.05) after SAL intake in all subjects (T: 11.9 %; UT: 8.3 %) with a decrease in time to peak power with SAL compared to placebo (PLA) (p < 0.05). "
> 
> Now, I could be wrong, but those look like numbers to me. Now both of you being science guys, you can tell the rest of us if those numbers are significant and consistent with PED use.
> 
> Even if they are not, it's still artificial improvement in a sport where seconds matter. If not, it's a matter of optics by each camp.


Look, I would imagine WADA has this data and a whole $hit load of test data from various sources. 

There are 3 things that are known:
1) WADA states the presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above. 
2) WADA does not know the specific number that is consistent with performance enhancement. They just do not know what that specific number is and that's why Froome was never charged with DOPING.
3) For argument sake lets say jspharmd went to WADA and provided a specific number that is consistent with performance enhancement. That would be great, but unfortunately, SKY has already produced documentation to prove urine samples (out take) cannot be accurately correlated to substance intake (beyond any reasonable doubt) because of a whole host of variables; dehydration being only one of them. WADA now agrees and closed their AAF case.


----------



## PBL450

The Weasel said:


> By actually taking the time to read just one example this guy provided, I soon read this:
> "Peak power was significantly increased (p < 0.05) after SAL intake in all subjects (T: 11.9 %; UT: 8.3 %) with a decrease in time to peak power with SAL compared to placebo (PLA) (p < 0.05). "
> 
> Now, I could be wrong, but those look like numbers to me. Now both of you being science guys, you can tell the rest of us if those numbers are significant and consistent with PED use.
> 
> Even if they are not, it's still artificial improvement in a sport where seconds matter. If not, it's a matter of optics by each camp.


In lay terms, the numbers aren’t a reliable goal post in this case. The amount of the drug needed to treat the problem varies widely. The drug is only a PED when the doses exceed the clinically necessary result to treat the illness. Drawing a line in the sand with this drug specifically is nearly impossible. That makes regulating it as a PED a particularly sticky wicket. We know that when used in excess of clinical need or in the absence of clinical need it is a PED. No argument. Determining when it is a PED is complicated enough to make it an unrealistic endeavor. Now, jspharm is going to tell me again that I don’t get it. At least this time he will be right!


----------



## GlobalGuy

ngl said:


> You can copy and paste all the jargon you want, but, until you can publish a number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance (beyond any reasonable doubt) you are still blowing hot air. That is what is needed. If you can produce that number you should go to WADA and make yourself a million dollars. Maybe you'll be the guy that can take down Froome and SKY once and for all.


One thing that I hear constantly from admitted dopers or those that administer and control the PEDs is that the science of it is always ahead of the testing and enforcement against PED use. 

Lance never failed any of the hundreds of drug tests administered to him. Yet he was a heavy user of PEDs. 

The two factors above as well as the history of the sport and other sports too, makes me confident that PEDs in some form are widely used.


----------



## jspharmd

ngl said:


> Look, I would imagine WADA has this data and a whole $hit load of test data from various sources.
> 
> There are 3 things that are known:
> 1) WADA states the presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.
> 2) WADA does not know the specific number that is consistent with performance enhancement. They just do not know what that specific number is and that's why Froome was never charged with DOPING.
> 3) For argument sake lets say jspharmd went to WADA and provided a specific number that is consistent with performance enhancement. That would be great, but unfortunately, SKY has already produced documentation to prove urine samples (out take) cannot be accurately correlated to substance intake (beyond any reasonable doubt) because of a whole host of variables; dehydration being only one of them. WADA now agrees and closed their AAF case.


Define performance enhancement. You're looking for a number that correlates with performance enhancement, yet you haven't defined it. 

Also, I supplied you data that shows that if you correct for specific gravity, the urine samples won't exceed the 1000 ng/mL. So, your statement about SKY is wrong, they haven't proven anything.


----------



## DrSmile

It irks me that someone like Simon Richardson from GCN doesn't believe there is a doping problem in cycling anymore. It's interesting how a winner being from your home country makes unbelievable performances more believable. The same applied to Lance for Americans.

Objectively, Geraint Thomas winning the TDF is circumspectly preposterous. Before Team Sky, he wasn't winning anything. Now, at 32, he has progressed in 5 years from coming in 140th place in 2013 to winning in 2018. Conveniently he did this at a time when the favorite from team Sky is under suspicion of doping. Oddly enough the sponsors stuck with the team, and voila, they get another win. 

These people are morally and ethically bankrupt. Do you really want to be associated or supporting these people? There is only one solution. Stop watching professional cycling. Don't buy products made by sponsors (Trek, Scott, etc), and just go out and ride your bike.


----------



## 9W9W

DrSmile said:


> Objectively, Geraint Thomas winning the TDF is circumspectly preposterous. Before Team Sky, he wasn't winning anything. Now, at 32, he has progressed in 5 years from coming in 140th place in 2013 to winning in 2018. Conveniently he did this at a time when the favorite from team Sky is under suspicion of doping. Oddly enough the sponsors stuck with the team, and voila, they get another win.


Not that it would ever happen, but would be interesting if brands associated with certain teams were made toxic by those teams' performances and ethical decisions, a boycott of sorts by fed up fans. If feasible, which it is not - because not everyone is sitting on a very narrow centered bell curve - you'd see companies dropping sponsorship real fast. 

I think it's too convenient that, with Froome laying low, the race was claimed by another Sky rider. Come on, how gullible are you?


----------



## coldash

DrSmile said:


> It irks me that someone like Simon Richardson from GCN doesn't believe there is a doping problem in cycling anymore. It's interesting how a winner being from your home country makes unbelievable performances more believable. The same applied to Lance for Americans.
> 
> Objectively, Geraint Thomas winning the TDF is circumspectly preposterous. Before Team Sky, he wasn't winning anything. *Now, at 32, he has progressed in 5 years from coming in 140th place in 2013 to winning in 2018.* Conveniently he did this at a time when the favorite from team Sky is under suspicion of doping. Oddly enough the sponsors stuck with the team, and voila, they get another win.
> 
> These people are morally and ethically bankrupt. Do you really want to be associated or supporting these people? There is only one solution. Stop watching professional cycling. Don't buy products made by sponsors (Trek, Scott, etc), and just go out and ride your bike.


Talking about morally and ethically bankrupt, do you not think it would add some context if you had mentioned that in the 2013 TdF, Thomas rode 20 of the stages with a broken hip.


----------



## DrSmile

coldash said:


> Talking about morally and ethically bankrupt, do you not think it would add some context if you had mentioned that in the 2013 TdF, Thomas rode 20 of the stages with a broken hip.


Forgot about that. Probably because I don't watch or think about professional cycling anymore. Thank you for the correction. Doesn't make him winning any less preposterous.


----------



## Wookiebiker

coldash said:


> Talking about morally and ethically bankrupt, do you not think it would add some context if you had mentioned that in the 2013 TdF, Thomas rode 20 of the stages with a broken hip.


So ... in 5 years we should expect Lawson Cradduck to be the TDF Champion?


----------



## ddave12000

DrSmile said:


> Forgot about that. Probably because I don't watch or think about professional cycling anymore. Thank you for the correction. Doesn't make him winning any less preposterous.


I won't go so far as to say his win isn't without suspicion, but it's a lot less nefarious than it's being made out to be. Despite never being a team leader, GT has a pretty steady progression in results in TDF, not including the year he rode with a fractured pelvis. He also wore the white jersey in previous editions, generally taken as a sign of high potential for riders. He's won other stage races, though never a 3-week tour. Lastly, if you look at pictures from 10 years ago when GT was still focused on track, he was much bulkier. Everyone I know that has lost weight has become a faster cyclist as a result. I imagine it would be the same for a pro. 

All that to say, who knows?


----------



## ngl

jspharmd said:


> Define performance enhancement. You're looking for a number that correlates with performance enhancement, yet you haven't defined it.


I don't have to define anything because the words "performance enhancement" come directly from WADA documentation. Also, I didn't say I am looking for a specific number but WADA would sure like one if you can provide it. See item 2) & 3) in my earlier post. 



jspharmd said:


> Also, I supplied you data that shows that if you correct for specific gravity, the urine samples won't exceed the 1000 ng/mL. So, your statement about SKY is wrong, they haven't proven anything.


I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but, WADA and SKY have already agreed that your data (and a lot of other data like yours) is not reliable based on the premise that a urine sample cannot be accurately correlated to substance intake. So when you say "SKY is wrong and they haven't proved anything" then you are forgetting SKY have already won their AAF case against WADA. 

You seem to be taking your frustration out on me. I'm just telling you that Froome's case has already been closed. You know what's really funny? No one seems to be remotely interested in who leaked Froome's case and for what motive. WADA guidelines specifically state under no circumstances shall a case be made public unless an ADRV is reported.


----------



## ogre

Oxtox said:


> listening to CF speak isn't difficult, but watching him ride makes the enamel on my teeth hurt...


I agree. He looks like a spider on a hotplate.


----------



## Rashadabd

Apparently, Thomas didn’t actually didn’t complete a deal with Sky before the Tour and is now a free agent. It sounds like they agreed to terms and he might have signed something, but not a final contract. This should be interesting if any teams have money left at this point. My guess is he still stays with them but for a lot more money. 

https://www.velonews.com/2018/08/ne...wn_473832?mc_eid=847020aef5&mc_cid=87a2b909fb


----------



## DaveG

Rashadabd said:


> Apparently, Thomas didn’t actually didn’t complete a deal with Sky before the Tour and is now a free agent. It sounds like they agreed to terms and he might have signed something, but not a final contract. This should be interesting if any teams have money left at this point. My guess is he still stays with them but for a lot more money.
> 
> https://www.velonews.com/2018/08/ne...wn_473832?mc_eid=847020aef5&mc_cid=87a2b909fb


This is definitely the time to shop around and reap the benefits. Even if another team offered him more money he'd be hard-pressed to find a new team with the same world-class pharmaceutical program that SKY has


----------



## taodemon

Just because Froome got off on technicalities and had his case closed doesn't mean he wasn't using it as a performance enhancer. Lance passed all his tests. The Russians, and who knows who else have had ways around testing for years in the olympics. WADA isn't exactly reliable or efficient in catching dopers.




> A controversial study suggesting that doping in sport is far more prevalent than was found to be by conventional testing has finally been published after years of wrangling.
> The research, based on anonymous surveys carried out at two elite athletics competitions in 2011, found that up to 57% of competitors admitted doping in the previous 12 months, a figure far surpassing the 1-2% identified by blood and urine tests carried out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), and higher even than the 14% prevalence estimated from the athlete biological passport.


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-wider-usage-published-after-scandalous-delay


----------



## jspharmd

> I don't have to define anything because the words "performance enhancement" come directly from WADA documentation. Also, I didn't say I am looking for a specific number but WADA would sure like one if you can provide it. See item 2) & 3) in my earlier post.


Then I've given you plenty of data demonstrating the "performance enhancement" of salbutamol. It clearly improves performance. 

The incidence of "asthma" in the pro peloton is far above the average in the general population. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that the diagnosis is higher due to people wanting the "performance enhancement" of a beta-2 agonist. 

I'm not sure what data WADA reviewed. I only have the published literature to make an assessment. I've given you that assessment, which you refuse to read or think about. 




> I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but, WADA and SKY have already agreed that your data (and a lot of other data like yours) is not reliable based on the premise that a urine sample cannot be accurately correlated to substance intake. So when you say "SKY is wrong and they haven't proved anything" then you are forgetting SKY have already won their AAF case against WADA.


This has nothing to do with the pharmacokinetics of salbutamol. If it did, they would share the data publicly so that the decision could be supported. 



> You seem to be taking your frustration out on me.


I'm not frustrated at all. I'm just trying to educate you about the published literature on the topic and provide my perspective. 

 I used a smiley face here to help with the lack of inflection in my writing. See, not upset or frustrated.



> I'm just telling you that Froome's case has already been closed.


You already said this. Is there something more you wanted to say?



> You know what's really funny?No one seems to be remotely interested in who leaked Froome's case and for what motive. WADA guidelines specifically state under no circumstances shall a case be made public unless an ADRV is reported.


You seem to have an issue with WADA. I'm just trying to provide an objective viewpoint on the science. WADA/UCI/ASO all have things other than science to take into consideration. One of them being money...


----------



## coldash

jspharmd said:


> .....
> 
> The incidence of "asthma" in the pro peloton is far above the average in the general population. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that the diagnosis is higher due to people wanting the "performance enhancement" of a beta-2 agonist.


Or... People who exercise at higher levels have a higher incidence of exercise induced asthma than the general population, which is just as valid a conclusion.


----------



## ngl

jspharmd said:


> Then I've given you plenty of data demonstrating the "performance enhancement" of salbutamol. It clearly improves performance.


Sorry, now I see why you are so frustrated. I never ever stated Salbutamol couldn't be used to improve performance because it clearly can. What I stated was the Manufacturer nor WADA never published any specific number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance because there isn't one. 

Hypothetically lets say that magic number that is consistent with "performance enhancement" happened to be 2000ng/ml. Now WADA could say anyone that has a urine sample below 1000ng/ml is ok; anyone with a urine sample between 1000ng/ml and 2000ng/ml will have an AAF which they will have to answer for or be issued an ADRV; anyone with a urine sample above 2000ng/ml will be charged with doping. 



jspharmd said:


> The incidence of "asthma" in the pro peloton is far above the average in the general population. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that the diagnosis is higher due to people wanting the "performance enhancement" of a beta-2 agonist.


That is just your opinion. There are numerous studies that conclude many athletes (not just the pro peloton) suffer from exercise induced asma. 



jspharmd said:


> I'm not sure what data WADA reviewed. I only have the published literature to make an assessment. I've given you that assessment, which you refuse to read or think about.


The literature you gave is worthless to the topic we are discussing. In addition, WADA has already concluded that a urine sample (OUT TAKE) cannot be accurately correlated to substance (INTAKE) because there are too many variables. 



jspharmd said:


> You already said this. Is there something more you wanted to say?


Nope.


----------



## PBL450

coldash said:


> Or... People who exercise at higher levels have a higher incidence of exercise induced asthma than the general population, which is just as valid a conclusion.


Yep. People who exercise at a higher level and people who exercise at altitude and in the cold have significantly increased risk for developing exercise induced asthma. These are conditions elite cyclists face at disproportionately higher levels than recreational cyclists or the general public. Just sayin...


----------



## Rashadabd

PBL450 said:


> Yep. People who exercise at a higher level and people who exercise at altitude and in the cold have significantly increased risk for developing exercise induced asthma. These are conditions elite cyclists face at disproportionately higher levels than recreational cyclists or the general public. Just sayin...


Then where are the corollary findings with elite runners (Kenyans, etc.). They also live and train at high altitude but I don’t hear much about them and exercise induced asthma. I haven’t seen it with Colombian climbers on the World Tour or elite triathletes either.... I’m just sayin’.


----------



## PBL450

Rashadabd said:


> Then where are the corollary findings with elite runners (Kenyans, etc.). They also live and train at high altitude but I don’t hear much about them and exercise induced asthma. I haven’t seen it with Colombian climbers on the World Tour or elite triathletes either.... I’m just sayin’.


I’m not even close to qualified... I only read it in Eric Heiden’s book and had it explained to me by our medical director at work. Our MD thought 40% was kind of ridiculous. But he said these two conditions increase risk dramatically. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rashadabd

PBL450 said:


> I’m not even close to qualified... I only read it in Eric Heiden’s book and had it explained to me by our medical director at work. Our MD thought 40% was kind of ridiculous. But he said these two conditions increase risk dramatically.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I hear ya, I just have a hard time buying it when I don't see similar occurrences in other grueling endurance sports.


----------



## jspharmd

> Sorry, now I see why you are so frustrated. I never ever stated Salbutamol couldn't be used to improve performance because it clearly can. What I stated was the Manufacturer nor WADA never published any specific number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance because there isn't one.


Now I understand why you are so confused. There doesn't need to be a number that is consistent with PED. There just needs to be a number (which we have) that establishes a therapeutic dosing range for an actual medical diagnosis. By default, anything above that is pointless. By default, if you used more than the medically therapeutic dose, you are cheating. 



> Hypothetically lets say that magic number that is consistent with "performance enhancement" happened to be 2000ng/ml. Now WADA could say anyone that has a urine sample below 1000ng/ml is ok; anyone with a urine sample between 1000ng/ml and 2000ng/ml will have an AAF which they will have to answer for or be issued an ADRV; anyone with a urine sample above 2000ng/ml will be charged with doping.


Doesn't have to correlate. You just don't need to use more than the acceptable prescription dose. 





> That is just your opinion. There are numerous studies that conclude many athletes (not just the pro peloton) suffer from exercise induced asma.


The incidence is higher than the general population. Something like double (20% vs 10%). However, nobody knows why. There are medical guesses, but there are non-medical guesses too. I was diagnosed with asthma when I was two years old. I could argue that my asthma is a contributor to the increased incidence. It could be because my mom felt sports would help "strengthen" my lungs. So, I did sports. 





> The literature you gave is worthless to the topic we are discussing. In addition, WADA has already concluded that a urine sample (OUT TAKE) cannot be accurately correlated to substance (INTAKE) because there are too many variables.


So worthless that scientific peers read the research (in sports medicine journals) and thought that the research was valuable enough to publish. So, I'll take their word over yours. You're just an engineer.


----------



## coldash

jspharmd said:


> The incidence is higher than the general population. Something like double (20% vs 10%). However, nobody knows why. There are medical guesses, but there are non-medical guesses too.


.. and yet you state 



> You don't have to be a scientist to realize that the diagnosis is higher due to people wanting the "performance enhancement" of a beta-2 agonist.


So either nobody knows (including you) or you do know. That is hardly a scientific approach


----------



## jspharmd

coldash said:


> .. and yet you state
> 
> 
> 
> So either nobody knows (including you) or you do know. That is hardly a scientific approach



One is my opinion. The other is based on reading the literature. 

My conclusion is that a cyclist goes into there physician and states that he can’t breathe when cycling at high altitude and in cold weather. The physician diagnoses him with EIA. Now it is okay to take a beta-2 agonist. 

When those that study EIA write about it, there isn’t a clear reason why athletes would have this condition. Reasonable theories would relate to exposure to allergens due to being outside more, pulmonary musculature (bronchial smooth muscle) reactivity due to changes in temperature and humidity, changes in blood flow to those muscles, and several others. Another reasonable theory is that they say they have asthma to gain access to a drug that is know to enhance performance. 

Having played sports at the college level, I’ve seen people do anything (at that low level) to gain an edge. Maybe I’m biased, but I believe it only gets worse when millions of dollars are at stake.


----------



## coldash

jspharmd said:


> One is my opinion. The other is based on reading the literature.


... but you failed to qualify the statement of “fact” as being your opinion. It is difficult to take what you post seriously if you happily switch between conjecture / subjectivity / assertion / opinion and real “facts” (which in themselves may be just conclusions based on a limited set of criteria).


----------



## jspharmd

coldash said:


> ... but you failed to qualify the statement of “fact” as being your opinion. It is difficult to take what you post seriously if you happily switch between conjecture / subjectivity / assertion / opinion and real “facts” (which in themselves may be just conclusions based on a limited set of criteria).


We’re on a cycling forum. For fun. Everyone here is stating opinion. I added in some citations to support my opinion. I haven’t really seen many “facts” posted, but somehow you’re taking my word as fact?

Maybe you should supply some “facts” for us and make this thread more reputable.


----------



## coldash

jspharmd said:


> We’re on a cycling forum. For fun. Everyone here is stating opinion. I added in some citations to support my opinion. I haven’t really seen many “facts” posted, but somehow you’re taking my word as fact?
> 
> Maybe you should supply some “facts” for us and make this thread more reputable.


. I accept some of that and think your assertions would have been better presented if you had clearly delineated between the published literature (albeit a subset) and your opinion. Given the variability of such studies in medicine in general, for example look at the controversy regarding statins, the NOACs, etc it is unlikely IHMO, that a definitive conclusion can be / will be drawn other than, “it all depends .....”


----------



## jspharmd

coldash said:


> . I accept some of that and think your assertions would have been better presented if you had clearly delineated between the published literature (albeit a subset) and your opinion. Given the variability of such studies in medicine in general, for example look at the controversy regarding statins, the NOACs, etc it is unlikely IHMO, that a definitive conclusion can be / will be drawn other than, “it all depends .....”


You can find controversy in nearly anything. Educated opinions can easily differ based on what findings you see, review, and support (opinion). If you know about statins and NOACs, then you have likely read a review of a medical topic. Reviews are opinions supported by the literature chosen by the author. So, they present their opinion and support it with a subset of the literature. There really isn't any difference between that and what I've done.


----------



## Rashadabd

Another interesting read and a bit of insight into the new TdF champ's history:

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...bering-geraint-thomass-barloworld-days-389292


----------



## aclinjury

coldash said:


> ... but you failed to qualify the statement of “fact” as being your opinion. It is difficult to take what you post seriously if you happily switch between conjecture / subjectivity / assertion / opinion and real “facts” (which in themselves may be just conclusions based on a limited set of criteria).


I can follow what jspharmd was saying and distinguish between facts and conjecture. And an internet forum is not a formal dissertation so there is no need to take jspharmd or anyone seriously. In fact, it's hard to take Sky's scientists seriously too, and they are scientists.


----------



## aclinjury

jspharmd said:


> We’re on a cycling forum. For fun. Everyone here is stating opinion. I added in some citations to support my opinion. I haven’t really seen many “facts” posted, but somehow you’re taking my word as fact?
> 
> Maybe you should supply some “facts” for us and make this thread more reputable.


Hint: 
coldash is a Sky and Froome jocker. Anything said by anyone to cast any slight suspicious on Sky/Froome and now Thomas will be questioned and eventually not be treated "seriously" (even though we're on an internet forum). But he'll gladly cite any Guardian and/or Telegraph article as serious evidence if such articles support Sky/Froome/Thomas. Cherry picking the evidence is his real forte, not medical science.


----------



## aclinjury

Rashadabd said:


> Then where are the corollary findings with elite runners (Kenyans, etc.). They also live and train at high altitude but I don’t hear much about them and exercise induced asthma. I haven’t seen it with Colombian climbers on the World Tour or elite triathletes either.... I’m just sayin’.


My observation is that the African distance runners don't complain about "exercise induced asthma" nearly as much as the other endurance athletes in cycling, triathlon, and swimming. Yes, there are a boatload of tri athletes saying they have asthma, ever seen the startline of a tri/ironman event? it's littered with inhalers. 

My theory is that:
1. your typical African runner is poor and cannot afford products such as inhalers or other marginal PED product that may not have a significant effect given the money paid. Your typical white male cyclist or tri or swimmer can probably hound his mom/dad for the money.
2. Runners in general cannot train as much hours as cyclists or tri guys or swimmers. This is due to the physical stress on the body due to running. So the limited training hours may help runners to avoid exercised induced asthma. Cyclists can train hours on end on the road, sucking in allergen and smog pollution.

But in my view, if you're having exercise induced asthma, it should be seen as your body's limitation and should not be assisted by drug. Without such drugs, you're not able to train and perform as well, so then such drugs are in effect performance enhancers. Period.


----------



## coldash

aclinjury said:


> Hint:
> coldash is a Sky and Froome jocker. Anything said by anyone to cast any slight suspicious on Sky/Froome and now Thomas will be questioned and eventually not be treated "seriously" (even though we're on an internet forum). But he'll gladly cite any Guardian and/or Telegraph article as serious evidence if such articles support Sky/Froome/Thomas. Cherry picking the evidence is his real forte, not medical science.


Hint:
aclinjury has displayed complete ignorance of pro-cycling and the TdF. He doesn’t even understand that team busses can’t get to the top of some mountain top finishes. He is without credibility

Hint: 
Coldash was the first to post about Froome’s AAF and highlight that Froome was in trouble. Coldash also wanted Dumoulin to win the TdF and said so on this very forum. Both of these qualify as “Sky and Froome jocker” in the strange place that is aclinjury land


----------



## aclinjury

coldash said:


> Hint:
> aclinjury has displayed complete ignorance of pro-cycling and the TdF. He doesn’t even understand that team busses can’t get to the top of some mountain top finishes. He is without credibility
> 
> Hint:
> Coldash was the first to post about Froome’s AAF and highlight that Froome was in trouble. Coldash also wanted Dumoulin to win the TdF and said so on this very forum. Both of these qualify as “Sky and Froome jocker” in the strange place that is aclinjury land


lol welp.... thanks for the friday laugh! honestly you put a smile on face. Good day sir.


----------



## PBL450

coldash said:


> Hint:
> aclinjury has displayed complete ignorance of pro-cycling and the TdF. He doesn’t even understand that team busses can’t get to the top of some mountain top finishes. He is without credibility
> 
> Hint:
> Coldash was the first to post about Froome’s AAF and highlight that Froome was in trouble. Coldash also wanted Dumoulin to win the TdF and said so on this very forum. Both of these qualify as “Sky and Froome jocker” in the strange place that is aclinjury land


What in all hell is a jocker? Is this a term from a faraway land I’ve never heard? It’s been used a few times, perhaps only by acl, but I might be wrong.


----------



## Rashadabd

aclinjury said:


> My observation is that the African distance runners don't complain about "exercise induced asthma" nearly as much as the other endurance athletes in cycling, triathlon, and swimming. Yes, there are a boatload of tri athletes saying they have asthma, ever seen the startline of a tri/ironman event? it's littered with inhalers.
> 
> My theory is that:
> 1. your typical African runner is poor and cannot afford products such as inhalers or other marginal PED product that may not have a significant effect given the money paid. Your typical white male cyclist or tri or swimmer can probably hound his mom/dad for the money.
> 2. Runners in general cannot train as much hours as cyclists or tri guys or swimmers. This is due to the physical stress on the body due to running. So the limited training hours may help runners to avoid exercised induced asthma. Cyclists can train hours on end on the road, sucking in allergen and smog pollution.
> 
> But in my view, if you're having exercise induced asthma, it should be seen as your body's limitation and should not be assisted by drug. Without such drugs, you're not able to train and perform as well, so then such drugs are in effect performance enhancers. Period.


There’s so much fiction in here I don’t know where to begin. Pro African runners, almost all pro runners in fact are sponsored so the fact that they come from impoverished nations often has nothing to do with the medical services they have access to as a pro. My point is really this (and you kind of missed it), when was the last time you saw some marathon or other endurance running event result called into question because of suspected doping or a TUE? How about with Ironman or ITU? When was the last time you saw the biggest names in marathon or triathlon being openly considered cheats? You can try to spin it however you want, but pro cycling clearly has a problem, something strange is definitely going on at Sky with the use of restricted medications and TUEs, and the sport just punched itself in the face a few times by letting a multi-time TdF champ walk away scott free after getting busted with double the legal limit of a restricted medication in his system during a race he won when it had previously banned other riders for having much less of the same drug in their system in races they did not win. That’s not happening in other endurance sports is my point because they are doing a better job of policing their own at all levels. 

https://www.usada.org/lisa-roberts-accepts-public-warning-doping-violation/


----------



## PBL450

Rashadabd said:


> I hear ya, I just have a hard time buying it when I don't see similar occurrences in other grueling endurance sports.


I’m far From knowledgeable enough but I’d think it’s some combination of a few things. 1. How much time do runners, swimmers or tri folk spend at altitude and/or in the cold? 2. How often do they train/race day after day after day? 3. They have fewer fans, and they haven’t had Lance Armstrong... so it’s quiet, easily hidden sans mass scandal, or outfight suppressed but as widespread as cycling. 

Iminclined to think its rampant.


----------



## ngl

jspharmd said:


> Now I understand why you are so confused. There doesn't need to be a number that is consistent with PED. There just needs to be a number (which we have) that establishes a therapeutic dosing range for an actual medical diagnosis. By default, anything above that is pointless.


Why don't you read my post before you start typing. I said "Manufacturer nor WADA never published any specific number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance because there isn't one." This is one of the reasons they have the AAF program. 



jspharmd said:


> By default, if you used more than the medically therapeutic dose, you are cheating.





jspharmd said:


> Doesn't have to correlate. You just don't need to use more than the acceptable prescription dose.


Again read my post before typing. WADA (not me) has already determined that WADA cannot accurately determine the "acceptable prescription dose" taken by the person by analyzing urine samples. Please notice I said "accurately". 



jspharmd said:


> So worthless that scientific peers read the research (in sports medicine journals) and thought that the research was valuable enough to publish. So, I'll take their word over yours. You're just an engineer.


Wrong again. I didn't say their literature was worthless, I stated "The literature you gave is worthless to the topic we are discussing."


----------



## aclinjury

Rashadabd said:


> There’s so much fiction in here I don’t know where to begin. Pro African runners, almost all pro runners in fact are sponsored so the fact that they come from impoverished nations often has nothing to do with the medical services they have access to as a pro. My point is really this (and you kind of missed it), when was the last time you saw some marathon or other endurance running event result called into question because of suspected doping or a TUE? How about with Ironman or ITU? When was the last time you saw the biggest names in marathon or triathlon being openly considered cheats? You can try to spin it however you want, but pro cycling clearly has a problem, something strange is definitely going on at Sky with the use of restricted medications and TUEs, and the sport just punched itself in the face a few times by letting a multi-time TdF champ walk away scott free after getting busted with double the legal limit of a restricted medication in his system during a race he won when it had previously banned other riders for having much less of the same drug in their system in races they did not win. That’s not happening in other endurance sports is my point because they are doing a better job of policing their own at all levels.
> 
> https://www.usada.org/lisa-roberts-accepts-public-warning-doping-violation/


What part do you consider fiction? 

Not all pro marathoners are elite with sponsors. You probably don't know this, but there are many poor "contract runners" from East Africa, hired by European coaches, to run smaller less well known marathons, and the prize money would be split between the coaches and athletes. It is a money making business model. These runners don't have the glamorous sponsors like the top elite ones. If you think that almost all pro runners are sponsored, then you don't know the business very well, and you're just watching the top elite ones.

And for a time, Ethiopian runners were called "EPO-thians".

As for tri, well it's even more of a fringe sport than cycling is. Nobody really cares about tri, so nobody makes a big stink about it. But like I said, ever seen the start line of a tri event? it's litter with inhalers, yet nobody question anything about it because ultimately nobody cares about who wins or loses in a tri event. Do you even know the top 3 tri athletes? I certainly don't and don't care.


----------



## jspharmd

> Why don't you read my post before you start typing. I said "Manufacturer nor WADA never published any specific number that would be consistent with PED use of the substance because there isn't one." This is one of the reasons they have the AAF program.


I did read your post. I'm trying to educate you on the fact that a manufacturer is in the business of selling their product for the treatment of a disease. Why would they spend money to determine a dose (and thus a blood or urine concentration) that correlates with performance enhancement? You're being ridiculous to think they would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on something so meaningless to their bottom line. Thus, the reason that any concentration above the normal upper limit should be banned. It means you took too much (on purpose or by accident). 

Not to mention that nobody has define the term you keep holding them to...performance enhancement. Which is why I asked for your definition. You keep saying that nobody has a number that correlates to performance enhancement. We would have to know that definition before we could find a correlative blood or urine concentration. That's not even getting into the pharmacodynamics of the topic.





> Again read my post before typing. WADA (not me) has already determined that WADA cannot accurately determine the "acceptable prescription dose" taken by the person by analyzing urine samples. Please notice I said "accurately".


Again. I addressed this before. 





> Wrong again. I didn't say their literature was worthless, I stated "The literature you gave is worthless to the topic we are discussing."


Explain how the literature I gave is worthless. It applies to the topic at hand. Maybe you can't interpret it in the context of this conversation, but it still applies to the topic.


----------



## ngl

jspharmd said:


> I did read your post. I'm trying to educate you on the fact that a manufacturer is in the business of selling their product for the treatment of a disease. Why would they spend money to determine a dose (and thus a blood or urine concentration) that correlates with performance enhancement? You're being ridiculous to think they would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on something so meaningless to their bottom line. Thus, the reason that any concentration above the normal upper limit should be banned. It means you took too much (on purpose or by accident).
> 
> Not to mention that nobody has define the term you keep holding them to...performance enhancement. Which is why I asked for your definition. You keep saying that nobody has a number that correlates to performance enhancement. We would have to know that definition before we could find a correlative blood or urine concentration. That's not even getting into the pharmacodynamics of the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again. I addressed this before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how the literature I gave is worthless. It applies to the topic at hand. Maybe you can't interpret it in the context of this conversation, but it still applies to the topic.


I don't know why you still ask me questions when you don't believe anything I say.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/13/chris-froome-wada-permitted-level-salbutamol-cut

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome


----------



## jspharmd

ngl said:


> I don't know why you still ask me questions when you don't believe anything I say.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/13/chris-froome-wada-permitted-level-salbutamol-cut
> 
> https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome




These links support my point. Thanks. I think we are finally on the same page!


----------



## ngl

jspharmd said:


> These links support my point. Thanks. I think we are finally on the same page!


Well, I'm glad this old confused and naive engineer could bail you out and finally put a smile on your face because it wasn't looking too good for you earlier. But hey, that's what engineers do. And look at the brighter side. Froome won his Salbutamol case and SKY put TWO on the podium this year. Wow, I can't wait for next year's TdF!


----------



## eugenetsang

aclinjury said:


> But like I said, ever seen the start line of a tri event? it's litter with inhalers, yet nobody question anything about it ....


Acl, you brought up an excellent point. I am in my late 30's. I remember during gym time/recess while in elementary school, my classmates who have asthma woud constantly use their inhalers... If Froome did have "asthma", I sure didn't see him use it on the tour.

I'll be honest, I don't have asthma. But is there medication where it's a one time use and can last an entire 100+ mile stage race? If you ask me, I would expect Froome to be using it constantly. Because you know, cycling is a strenuous sport that require every single drop of oxygen... riding up mountains is taxing on your body and lungs...


----------



## aclinjury

eugenetsang said:


> Acl, you brought up an excellent point. I am in my late 30's. I remember during gym time/recess while in elementary school, my classmates who have asthma woud constantly use their inhalers... If Froome did have "asthma", I sure didn't see him use it on the tour.
> 
> I'll be honest, I don't have asthma. But is there medication where it's a one time use and can last an entire 100+ mile stage race? If you ask me, I would expect Froome to be using it constantly. Because you know, cycling is a strenuous sport that require every single drop of oxygen... riding up mountains is taxing on your body and lungs...


IMO, if you have asthma, then unlucky you you don't get to be an endurance athlete. It's like if you have low T, then you don't get to be a strength athlete. A person with a naturally low T level isn't allowed to take exogenous testosterone to compete in weightlifting. So I'm wondering why a person with asthma is allowed to take a drup to help him breathe easier when the sports essentially put a huge tax on his ability to breathe??? Part of the "fitness" of a cyclist to possess a great respiratory system, and if there is a problem with his system, then he needs to find another sport. In nature, guys whose respiratory system choke under stress of exercise would never rise to the top without pharmaceutical assistance.

does it make any sense at all to see guys who claim to be life longer suffer of asthma and then see them dominate in an endurance sport where asthma is like a death warrant?? Not in nature.


----------



## jspharmd

aclinjury said:


> IMO, if you have asthma, then unlucky you you don't get to be an endurance athlete. It's like if you have low T, then you don't get to be a strength athlete. A person with a naturally low T level isn't allowed to take exogenous testosterone to compete in weightlifting. So I'm wondering why a person with asthma is allowed to take a drup to help him breathe easier when the sports essentially put a huge tax on his ability to breathe??? Part of the "fitness" of a cyclist to possess a great respiratory system, and if there is a problem with his system, then he needs to find another sport. In nature, guys whose respiratory system choke under stress of exercise would never rise to the top without pharmaceutical assistance.
> 
> does it make any sense at all to see guys who claim to be life longer suffer of asthma and then see them dominate in an endurance sport where asthma is like a death warrant?? Not in nature.


Just for clarification. Use of a fast-acting rescue inhaler (salbutamol in europe, albuterol in the US) can be done without requiring the full 1600 mcg dose acceptable by WADA/UCI. In fact, I regularly pre-treat prior to racing with two puffs of albuterol (90 mcg each for a total of 180 mcg). My personal opinion (just for you coldash) is that well-controlled asthma doesn't require the large doses of beta-2 agonists tested in studies and allowed by WADA/UCI. My races are regularly 70 miles and I've done races of 100 miles with only one pre-treatment. 

This is why I suggest that someone needing 1600 micrograms in a day is 1) a poorly controlled asthmatic or 2) taking the beta-2 agonist for performance enhancement. 

If you need 1600 mcg in a day (and Froome likely took much more to get his adverse finding), you are poorly controlled. As having been a poorly controlled asthmatic, I know that you can't perform well at lower levels, let alone the top of a sport. So, Froome must be a poorly controlled asthmatic who happens to be the world's freakiest talent, because he beats normal men EVEN with his bad asthma. 

OR 

Froome is taking the beta-2 agonist for PED purposes. If you read about long-acting beta-2 agonist, you will see that they are just as effective as short-acting beta-2 agonist. Therefore, you should be able to take something like salmetorol or fomoterol and only need one dose the morning before the race. This would effectively control your symptons for nearly 12 hours. No pro cyclists do this, because it would limit their dose. Why would they care, if they can breathe okay? Because they don't care about the bronchodilation, they care about the effect on muscle contraction. Basically, they care about performance enhancement.


----------



## aclinjury

jspharmd said:


> Just for clarification. Use of a fast-acting rescue inhaler (salbutamol in europe, albuterol in the US) can be done without requiring the full 1600 mcg dose acceptable by WADA/UCI. In fact, I regularly pre-treat prior to racing with two puffs of albuterol (90 mcg each for a total of 180 mcg). My personal opinion (just for you coldash) is that well-controlled asthma doesn't require the large doses of beta-2 agonists tested in studies and allowed by WADA/UCI. My races are regularly 70 miles and I've done races of 100 miles with only one pre-treatment.
> 
> This is why I suggest that someone needing 1600 micrograms in a day is 1) a poorly controlled asthmatic or 2) taking the beta-2 agonist for performance enhancement.
> 
> If you need 1600 mcg in a day (and Froome likely took much more to get his adverse finding), you are poorly controlled. As having been a poorly controlled asthmatic, I know that you can't perform well at lower levels, let alone the top of a sport. So, Froome must be a poorly controlled asthmatic who happens to be the world's freakiest talent, because he beats normal men EVEN with his bad asthma.
> 
> OR
> 
> Froome is taking the beta-2 agonist for PED purposes. If you read about long-acting beta-2 agonist, you will see that they are just as effective as short-acting beta-2 agonist. Therefore, you should be able to take something like salmetorol or fomoterol and only need one dose the morning before the race. This would effectively control your symptons for nearly 12 hours. No pro cyclists do this, because it would limit their dose. Why would they care, if they can breathe okay? Because they don't care about the bronchodilation, they care about the effect on muscle contraction. Basically, they care about performance enhancement.


Thanks for the clarification. I'm no medical expert, and I'm not hating on asthma sufferers who just want a fair chance to compete in endurance sports that they otherwise would never be competitive without pharmaceutical assistance. I'm just trying to express my crude opinion of how to block guys like Sky from taking advantage of the system thru lawyers.

BTW, what's to stop Froome from using this same excuse again next time he's caught?? I mean he has already set a precedence of allowing himself to exceed the dosage because of his bullshit unique physiology, and apparently the UCI accepted it. So what's to stop him (or anyone else) from using this loophole again? Has this question been addressed?


----------



## J-Flo

So much heat, yet so little light in this thread. 

Thomas sure had a great TdF though. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

