# Froome 2018 TdF doping thread - chat away!



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

Froome 2018 TdF doping thread - chat away!
(It is hard for me to figure out how well TdF 2018 predictions have gone when the thread has been hijacked by a discussion of UCI drug policy and the epidemiology of asthma.)


----------



## GlobalGuy (Jun 9, 2015)

Everybody in the TDF uses PEDs.


----------



## azpeterb (Jun 1, 2006)

GlobalGuy said:


> Everybody in the TDF uses PEDs.


Even the podium girls dammit. 😡


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doping? What doping? He is innocent and never, never, never used any illegal substances. He is all natural talent which has been enhanced by marginal gains. LOL. 

I can't believe they let him off. The truth will eventually come out, just like with Lance.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

I went to bed last night, and ASO had said he couldn't race. I wake up, and apparently he was only 19% over the limit, and that is fine, so the case is dropped.

The sport is just a complete joke. It's US Postal all over again.

Anyone want to bet which stages he'll have bottles of piss squirted at him in?



love4himies said:


> Doping? What doping? He is innocent and never, never, never used any illegal substances. He is all natural talent which has been enhanced by marginal gains. LOL.
> 
> I can't believe they let him off. The truth will eventually come out, just like with Lance.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

SNS1938 said:


> I went to bed last night, and ASO had said he couldn't race. I wake up, and apparently he was only 19% over the limit, and that is fine, so the case is dropped.
> 
> The sport is just a complete joke. It's US Postal all over again.
> 
> Anyone want to bet which stages he'll have bottles of piss squirted at him in?


How did they get 19% I wonder. I thought he was double the limit????


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

love4himies said:


> How did they get 19% I wonder. I thought he was double the limit????


This has been well documented elsewhere and I can’t be bothered to do searches on other people’s behalf however it goes like something along the lines of 2000 reduced to high 1400s after taking local conditions etc into account. Although 1000 is the stipulated limit where a rider has to justify his reading, the actual trigger point is 1200


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

I still think the Ventolin is just a masking agent for some next level sh*t.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

9W9W said:


> I still think the Ventolin is just a masking agent for some next level sh*t.


You are probably right.


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

love4himies said:


> How did they get 19% I wonder. I thought he was double the limit????


They pulled it out of their ass, like they do so many other things excuses and rules/regulations. What's the point of having any testing anymore away? Dope away!


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

The Weasel said:


> They pulled it out of their ass, like they do so many other things excuses and rules/regulations. What's the point of having any testing anymore away? Dope away!


Provided you are from a wealthy team and a top rider, you are now all but untouchable (again). The other riders who got popped below Froome's original readings, they must be so pissed. 9 month bans, they tried to get out of, and were told no. Froome keeps racing, has a stage win that harks back to Landis, and then the case is just dropped. They were reported to be pulling all sorts of bu!!**** justifications out of their a$$, and then it's dropped. Zero creditability for Sky, UCI and WADA.

Froome will win TdF this month. He is untouchable.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

If I had the time and lived in France I'd be tempted to start storing some rotten eggs... This is going to be one hell of a welcome reception for team Sky!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

For those who are interested

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ppeal-uci-decision-in-christopher-froome-case

Meanwhile the UCI don’t appear to have got too far in their investigation of the source of the leak. Given that there should be an even approach they should now publish the details of everyone who has a current and / or past AAF. Might make for some interesting reading


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

DrSmile said:


> If I had the time and lived in France I'd be tempted to start storing some rotten eggs... This is going to be one hell of a welcome reception for team Sky!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


And I would help you by holding the carton and handing them to you.


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

coldash said:


> For those who are interested
> 
> https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ppeal-uci-decision-in-christopher-froome-case


WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.
In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).

OK, so let me get this straight...
Only a CPKS can demonstrate such a *rare* instance in which an athlete used the allowed dose, but still tested over target, AND they determined a CPKS is not feasible in this case, BUT they still found in Froome's favor.

Amazing!

This amounts to:
UCI - "Mr. Froome, did you use more than allowed?"
Chris Froome - "No"
UCI - "OK, works for me"

This essentially amounted to no investigation at all.

When anybody asks if there's a lot of PEDs in cycling, I say 'Yes, and the governing organization doesn't really care'.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

love4himies said:


> And I would help you by holding the carton and handing them to you.


I believe a bottle of piss is the usual French style. Maybe you could help with that as well


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

VeloNews has a good article on the damage the UCI and WADA just did to cycling:

"The burden of proof is getting turned around in this case. Instead of an athlete having to prove their innocence, the argument now is that you, the authorities, have to prove to me, the athlete, that the test is credible and robust. Can you be confident that the test is not going to throw up a false positive?"

"...there are challenges just waiting to happen, but it’s just that they are rarely made. It takes the right athlete, with the right drug, to challenge WADA, and then they back off really quickly. Look again at that statement where the UCI writes: “In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime” – what that means is that WADA, who authored the current salbutamol guidelines, were presented with a ton of information undermining their work, and they backed off. They said, ‘We can’t defend this.’ Proceedings closed."

Expert on Froome case: â€˜This shows the system is unequalâ€™ | VeloNews.com


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

DrSmile said:


> If I had the time and lived in France I'd be tempted to start storing some rotten eggs... This is going to be one hell of a welcome reception for team Sky!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


you are giving the french gendarmerie heavy breathing.


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

DrSmile said:


> If I had the time and lived in France I'd be tempted to start storing some rotten eggs... This is going to be one hell of a welcome reception for team Sky!


While I'd hate to see other riders get hit by missed shots, I wouldn't mind seeing the Sky cars and buses get absolutely pelted. I think the team deserves a lot of the blame for all of this.
Well I won't be watching anyway.


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

SNS1938 said:


> Provided you are from a wealthy team and a top rider, you are now all but untouchable (again). The other riders who got popped below Froome's original readings, they must be so pissed. 9 month bans, they tried to get out of, and were told no. Froome keeps racing, has a stage win that harks back to Landis, and then the case is just dropped. They were reported to be pulling all sorts of bu!!**** justifications out of their a$$, and then it's dropped. Zero creditability for Sky, UCI and WADA.
> 
> Froome will win TdF this month. He is untouchable.


I've been engaged in a conversation over on cyclingnews.com, and the Froome supporters were twisting themselves in knots, trying to justify the Froome decision vs the UCI's decision to suspend Petacchi and Ulissi.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

coldash said:


> I believe a bottle of piss is the usual French style. Maybe you could help with that as well


I will be amazed if Froome doesn't get something thrown at him everyday. And the Dutch fans normally get very tipsy, so dutch (given CF bet Dumolin in Giro) corner could be a monsoon of piss when Froome rides past.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

Is there no equivalent of that Travis Tygant guy in the UK or France/Spain who could investigate this? Reading Tylers book and a few others, Travis seemed very determined to actually investigate doping.

How's about a gofundme page to pay Travis and give him a budget to get to the bottom of this?


----------



## GlobalGuy (Jun 9, 2015)

love4himies said:


> Doping? What doping? He is innocent and never, never, never used any illegal substances. He is all natural talent which has been enhanced by marginal gains. LOL.
> 
> I can't believe they let him off. The truth will eventually come out, just like with Lance.


No, only because more and more of the MS of society in general plus sports fans too and even a growing number of athletes are accepting PEDs in cycling and most other sports as normal, growing, common, accepted, and just one of those things. (Track and field, MMA, being just two of the more blatant fields.) 

Good gosh isn't anyone that likes tennis and seeing the historically unprecedented rise from the dead or continued success in very old tennis age resurgence of Federer, Nadal, and others?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

But he's so graceful on a bicycle.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> I've been engaged in a conversation over on cyclingnews.com, and the Froome supporters were twisting themselves in knots, trying to justify the Froome decision vs the UCI's decision to suspend Petacchi and Ulissi.


Yep no kidding. It's amazing the gymnastics they are going through.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

Today the UCI/WADA have proven that anti doping is a complete and total farce. They also have completely confirmed that the peloton is as dirty if not dirtier than it's ever been. At this point, reinstate Lance and give everyone who has ever served a ban their results back and a huge apology and monetary compensation for income lost. Because this decision proves beyond a shadow of a doubt they don't care if the riders are doped to the gills or not.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Someone should start a petition to reinstate Lance's 7 titles


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> Someone should start a petition to reinstate Lance's 7 titles


I second that motion.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

SNS1938 said:


> I will be amazed if Froome doesn't get something thrown at him everyday. And the Dutch fans normally get very tipsy, so dutch (given CF bet Dumolin in Giro) corner could be a monsoon of piss when Froome rides past.


There is a lack of proportion in the response to this whole episode from all sides. I for one don't support violence in any form against the riders of any team and the incitement to do so going on in this forum is nauseating.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Just picked this up from elsewhere 


> Here's an interview with the World Anti-Doping Agency's science director defending their handling of Chris Froome's case. Pretty sure it's a global exclusive as he was about to board a long-haul flight. Given the criticism WADA is getting on social media since the Froome decision broke, I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up. I'll blame the World Cup, the heat wave and my dull intro and post it here to see who wants to read his quotes.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has strongly denied that the decision to clear Chris Froome of cheating has left its policy on the asthma drug salbutamol in shreds.
> Speaking to Press Association Sport, WADA’s science director Dr Oliver Rabin said the case was “not unique” and he did not believe it would lead to a wave of appeals from athletes who have been banned in the past.
> ...


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Froome's test results were leaked. Had it not been for that we would probably never have known about it and WADA and UCI had to scramble to come up with an explanation to exonerate him. 

They need to go back and re-look at Ulissi and Petacchi's findings again to retest for the same criteria that allowed Froome to get off.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

coldash said:


> Just picked this up from elsewhere


There was nothing in there about the pay off.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

love4himies said:


> Froome's test results were leaked. Had it not been for that we would probably never have known about it and WADA and UCI had to scramble to come up with an explanation to exonerate him.
> 
> They need to go back and re-look at Ulissi and Petacchi's findings again to retest for the same criteria that allowed Froome to get off.


IMO, they need to release all current and past AAFs, irrespective of the outcome because it appears to be not an uncommon situation. Publishing the names, teams, sports affected would add some perspective


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

coldash said:


> Just picked this up from elsewhere


so after almost a year, after ASO went "nuclear" and threaten to ban Froome,... that was the best explanation that WADA and Dr Rabin could come up with? Did Dr Rabin mention that Sky used dog studies in their 1500-page body of evidence too?

But Froomie sure sounded like one sick puppy there in the WADA report, didn't it? It's amazing how a sickly life long asthma suffer can put on a performance at that level doesn't it? Makes one wonder if asthma is even a disadvantage at all.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

coldash said:


> IMO, they need to release all current and past AAFs, irrespective of the outcome because it appears to be not an uncommon situation. Publishing the names, teams, sports affected would add some perspective


That seems rather reckless given the rather feral responses this one has caused.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

coldash said:


> IMO, they need to release all current and past AAFs, irrespective of the outcome because it appears to be not an uncommon situation. Publishing the names, teams, sports affected would add some perspective


Agree it would.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

KoroninK said:


> Today the UCI/WADA have proven that anti doping is a complete and total farce. They also have completely confirmed that the peloton is as dirty if not dirtier than it's ever been. At this point, reinstate Lance and give everyone who has ever served a ban their results back and a huge apology and monetary compensation for income lost. Because this decision proves beyond a shadow of a doubt they don't care if the riders are doped to the gills or not.


yeah because asthma med = EPO/transfusions

I think not. Doped to the gills? such hyperbole. Salbutamol should really be treated like caffeine is.


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

BCSaltchucker said:


> yeah because asthma med = EPO/transfusions
> 
> I think not. Doped to the gills? such hyperbole. Salbutamol should really be treated like caffeine is.


Uh-oh. We have a fanboi here. 

It doesn't matter what Salbutamol does. This isn't about its efficacy on Froome's performance, this is about favoritism. 

They tossed riders for this very same thing before, why not Froome? 

I still think the Salbutamol is a masking agent meant to hide/react with whatever he is on. You'll know about it in a few years.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

9W9W said:


> Uh-oh. We have a fanboi here.
> 
> It doesn't matter what Salbutamol does. This isn't about its efficacy on Froome's performance, this is about favoritism.
> 
> ...


That's what it is for me. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.


----------



## ghostryder (Dec 28, 2009)

SNS1938 said:


> I second that motion
> 
> Lance = GOAT
> 
> Greatest Of All Time.


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

ghostryder said:


> SNS1938 said:
> 
> 
> > I second that motion
> ...


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

9W9W said:


> ghostryder said:
> 
> 
> > Say no more!
> ...


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

9W9W said:


> Uh-oh. We have a fanboi here.
> 
> It doesn't matter what Salbutamol does. This isn't about its efficacy on Froome's performance, this is about favoritism.
> 
> ...


we'll see but I'm not so much a fanboi but fed up with the abuse so many h8ters have heaped on the guy. the topic discussion deserves some counterpoint, is all. even if he receives preferential treatment, how is that his fault? It's a UCi problem

speculation is worthy of discussion, but not justification for the tossing of the urine, nor the equating of blood doping to Ventolin. I know some day in the future we may get the real story of who is doping today, just as we only really came to the realization recently that Indurain likely doped his entire career. 

the sport is poisoned ( maybe or maybe not by Sky guys, and maybe Movistar, UAE, Astana, BMC too) .. but still worth enjoying for its entertainment value


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

BCSaltchucker said:


> we'll see but I'm not so much a fanboi but fed up with the abuse so many h8ters have heaped on the guy. the topic discussion deserves some counterpoint, is all. even if he receives preferential treatment, how is that his fault? It's a UCi problem
> 
> speculation is worthy of discussion, but not justification for the tossing of the urine, nor the equating of blood doping to Ventolin. I know some day in the future we may get the real story of who is doping today, just as we only really came to the realization recently that Indurain likely doped his entire career.
> 
> the sport is poisoned ( maybe or maybe not by Sky guys, and maybe Movistar, UAE, Astana, BMC too) .. but still worth enjoying for its entertainment value


UCI and WADA are counting on people like you who will accept any fuzzy explanation.
And why obligate yourself to feel fed up of other people hating on Froome? Is he your hero? He's hated on for a reason. He and his team and his defense lawyers all know he's doping. Dog studies are not fooling anyone. I don't think people are necessarily hating on Froome or Sky, they're hating on the fact that they can get away with a lot of things because they have the money to lawyer up. That's what it is, and not just the doping story. It's the favoritism that money can buy that people are also hating.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

There are reports in various cycling media e.g. GCN etc that there are at least 10+ other cyclists / athletes who have been through the same process as Froome and have been exonerated. We don’t know who they are because the UCI didn’t leak the details of the cases but some of the individuals contacted Froome to let him know what they had been through.

The UCI really do have to react to this and publish the data on the other cases. The also need to produce an update on how their investigation into the leak of the Froome (and only his) data is progressing


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Looks like there may be some retrospective claims from some “guilty” riders

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...f?shareToken=9744f1f83b5e0c75b480e278402b2388



The guy who invented the test says it is unreliable / wrong

(Link not working so I’ve copied the whole thing)

————————-

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.

“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.

“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.

“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.


----------



## mapeiboy (Oct 31, 2007)

KoroninK said:


> Today the UCI/WADA have proven that anti doping is a complete and total farce. They also have completely confirmed that the peloton is as dirty if not dirtier than it's ever been. At this point, reinstate Lance and give everyone who has ever served a ban their results back and a huge apology and monetary compensation for income lost. Because this decision proves beyond a shadow of a doubt they don't care if the riders are doped to the gills or not.


This is exactly my though when I heard the news . Thankx to Froome I spend more time on the road these days instead of watching Giro D'italia , TDF .


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

If this is true, the UCI needs to offer Petacchi and Ulissi and everybody else who has gotten a ban, reimburse them all their legal fees as well as any lost wages due to the ban.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> VeloNews has a good article on the damage the UCI and WADA just did to cycling:
> 
> "The burden of proof is getting turned around in this case. Instead of an athlete having to prove their innocence, the argument now is that you, the authorities, have to prove to me, the athlete, that the test is credible and robust. Can you be confident that the test is not going to throw up a false positive?"
> 
> ...



Based on this Valverde actually has a claim to reopen and re argue his case, esp if that blood bag has been destroyed. One of the claims he made was that the Italian anti doping agency tampered with his DNA to match it to a blood bag. They then refused to allow him to have it retested in his presence in a neutral lab (which the rules state because he asked they had to allow to be done.) If that blood bag has been destroyed they actually can't prove it was his because they can't re test it and not sure if they can prove they didn't tamper with his DNA. I doubt he'll actually do it, but it does lead to the question that is probably could. Esp considering he's never actually failed one of their anti doping tests.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Someone should start a petition to reinstate Lance's 7 titles


I'll third that motion.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

love4himies said:


> If this is true, the UCI needs to offer Petacchi and Ulissi and everybody else who has gotten a ban, reimburse them all their legal fees as well as any lost wages due to the ban.


Exactly. Either this happens or we have the ultimate definition of a double standard. 

I also do not believe the UCI/WADA/Sky/Froome expected the push-back they are getting by a large part of the fan base saying, nope not buying this BS.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Asthma scientist behind WADA salbutamol rules says they aren’t fit for purpose - which is why he defended Froome

https://mobile.twitter.com/dickinsontimes/status/1014401883031638016?s=21

Looks like salbutamol could be going the same way as caffeine 

..... and the sport of cycling, the accusers of Froome, the UCI, and WADA owe Sky and Froome a huge vote of thanks ( and apologies, of course) for Sky exposing this huge injustice to Froome and Petacchi 

Game, set and match as they say (in another sport where one of the leading competitors complains about being tested 6 times in a year. So unfair boo hoo.)


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

coldash said:


> Asthma scientist behind WADA salbutamol rules says they aren’t fit for purpose - which is why he defended Froome
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/dickinsontimes/status/1014401883031638016?s=21
> 
> ...


Only applicable IF ALL others who have received any ban not only get huge apologies and results back AND monetary compensation.

Only thing this case did was prove if you have money you can get out of anything. No apologies to Sky or Froome. Anti doping is a total farce what is what we now know.


----------



## n2deep (Mar 23, 2014)

UCI just confirmed how crooked the system truly is. Think about this, Everyone knows if you make a rule it has to apply across the board, to everyone regardless of stature-team and or circumstances or the rule is worthless. So how do they justify penalizing some riders for a smaller infraction of the rule and then let Froome off scott free? They justify it by some bullshit evaluation using a questionable expert.. In short,, it's the same old popularity contest. UCI is a farce and should give up the pretense of trying to keep cycling clean. 

No one in their right mind believes all these athletes are asthmatics and need TUEs to keep from wheezing?? F-ME, they must think we're all stupid.


----------



## BacDoc (Aug 1, 2011)

Chris Froome is innocent!

Classic case of white man opressin the black man, well almost. Actually this is racism at its worst, white man from Africa, which is like reverse white privilege. White African lives matter bro, especially if they are asthmatic pro bike racer!

You think it's easy being part of multi million dollar bike racing team? I mean TUE is legal right? With all the pressure any reasonable person knows that it's not really doping if you got some issues, right? Hey everyone has issues, just trying to "level the playing field" with some cool drugs and everybody cops an attitude! Just watch those TV commercials, don't you want to sleep like a baby with a butterfly on your pillow? How about running thru a field of wild flowers like the hot babe in that commercial for allergy drug? You got allergies and you want to look that good running thru weeds and flowers. So maybe liver damage, coma and death but that chick is running in a field of flowers! It's so worth it bro!

Better living thru chemistry and don't forget to get that flu shot!


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Had a chance to do lunch over this with our Medical Director. He’s older, super well respected and runs the residency program at a local teaching hospital. Brilliant guy. Very down to earth. Ran the scenario past him, offered some quick reading... Intersting response. He basically said you can’t have the same protocols for salbutamol as you would with other, more blatant PEDs. He said it is def a PED in mildly or non asthamatic people but dose to level of affliction is so variable. He said, assuming a lack of malfeasance in the sport docs, altitude training will dramatically increase asthma rates. Some noticeable wheezing at altitude could very well justify a diagnosis. (He thought 40% was absurd, statistically though) He thought the diagnostic criteria was simple enough. Then he got technical on me and I started to loose him... In a nutshell, allow salbutamol because it can’t be regulated and placed at permissible levels like other PEDs. Therapeutic doses vary wildly, and when used responsibly, it is NOT a PED, when used responsibly.... On this case, he said, with little in depth information he would allow the rider and toss out the drug as banned, mostly because it can’t be regulated fairly and evenly. He was not dismissive of cold and altitude based asthma, especially when added to endurance limits. He said, and I laughed, it’s not a safe sport on any level, so why get all up in arms over this little thing, it’s a pimple not melanoma. He said long term risk from use was minor. Again, he made the case that it does not hold for the vast other types of PEDs. So, I just figured I’d leave that here.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

This case opens up the case the Petacchi and Ulissi need their bans over turned immediately. It also opens up a possibility for Valverde to challenge his ban on the basis that the rules weren't followed to the letter. In his case the rules state if a rider request his DNA retested in his presence he is to have that granted. They refused and banned him without him being able to have that done, thus allowing for his argument that they tampered with his DNA. Granted that is highly unlikely, but he threw it out there because they refused to allow what was in the rules. Then we have Contador's case in which they basically said you're responsible for anything that ends up in your body doesn't matter how much or how it got there. So based on how this was decided, he also has a case to have his over turned.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

KoroninK said:


> Only applicable IF ALL others who have received any ban not only get huge apologies and results back AND monetary compensation.
> 
> Only thing this case did was prove if you have money you can get out of anything. No apologies to Sky or Froome. Anti doping is a total farce what is what we now know.


What this case proves is that the testing regime for salbutamol is fatally flawed. It has taken the resources of Sky to bring this into the public domain and Froome should receive apologies from all who used this tarnished process to discredit him. 

It only applies to salbutamol; not anything else, not PEDs, not blood doping, so your proven cheating hero is not off the hook. 

Petacchi and others may well now be exonerated and that we should welcome and they will no doubt be grateful that Sky has made this a possibility


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

KoroninK said:


> This case opens up the case the Petacchi and Ulissi need their bans over turned immediately. It also opens up a possibility for Valverde to challenge his ban on the basis that the rules weren't followed to the letter. In his case the rules state if a rider request his DNA retested in his presence he is to have that granted. They refused and banned him without him being able to have that done, thus allowing for his argument that they tampered with his DNA. Granted that is highly unlikely, but he threw it out there because they refused to allow what was in the rules. Then we have Contador's case in which they basically said you're responsible for anything that ends up in your body doesn't matter how much or how it got there. So based on how this was decided, he also has a case to have his over turned.


We all know about Valverde - enough said. Contador was found to have a banned substance present - not an AAF result. Due process followed and the rules were applied. The substance was present. There is no equivocation possible with the Contador example


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

Except they still didn't fully follow their own rules with Valverde. That actually is an issue. 

Petacchi, Ulissi and others with this one MUST be cleared otherwise this is a horrible case of double standards. They need public apologies, results reinstated, and monetary compensation for income lost to do their bans.

I'd also add Simon Yates may also have a case due to the misfiled paperwork and his TUE and ban due to the way this case was handled.


----------



## n2deep (Mar 23, 2014)

KoroninK said:


> Except they still didn't fully follow their own rules with Valverde. That actually is an issue.
> 
> Petacchi, Ulissi and others with this one MUST be cleared otherwise this is a horrible case of double standards. They need public apologies, results reinstated, and monetary compensation for income lost to do their bans.
> 
> I'd also add Simon Yates may also have a case due to the misfiled paperwork and his TUE and ban due to the way this case was handled.


Agree, I think I would have my lawyers on speed dial for this one!!!


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

n2deep said:


> Agree, I think I would have my lawyers on speed dial for this one!!!


I really don't think they have any idea the can of worms they just opened with this. 

Wonder how Roson can use this to his advantage. He was just given a provision suspension due to an adverse analytical finding on his bio passport. I am sure his and Movistar lawyers are pouring over this to see how to get him off.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

PBL450 said:


> Had a chance to do lunch over this with our Medical Director. He’s older, super well respected and runs the residency program at a local teaching hospital. Brilliant guy. Very down to earth. Ran the scenario past him, offered some quick reading... Intersting response. He basically said you can’t have the same protocols for salbutamol as you would with other, more blatant PEDs. He said it is def a PED in mildly or non asthamatic people but dose to level of affliction is so variable. He said, assuming a lack of malfeasance in the sport docs, altitude training will dramatically increase asthma rates. Some noticeable wheezing at altitude could very well justify a diagnosis. (He thought 40% was absurd, statistically though) He thought the diagnostic criteria was simple enough. Then he got technical on me and I started to loose him... In a nutshell, allow salbutamol because it can’t be regulated and placed at permissible levels like other PEDs. Therapeutic doses vary wildly, and when used responsibly, it is NOT a PED, when used responsibly.... On this case, he said, with little in depth information he would allow the rider and toss out the drug as banned, mostly because it can’t be regulated fairly and evenly. He was not dismissive of cold and altitude based asthma, especially when added to endurance limits. He said, and I laughed, it’s not a safe sport on any level, so why get all up in arms over this little thing, it’s a pimple not melanoma. He said long term risk from use was minor. Again, he made the case that it does not hold for the vast other types of PEDs. So, I just figured I’d leave that here.


Seems we're at the top of a slippery slope. We might see 40% of ''serious'' bike riders now using dozens of puffs of salbutamol each day, as it's not banned and it's what the pro's do, and the side effects are small.

Whole situation is just so disappointing. I was about to sign up for NBC Gold to watch TdF this year, but now there's no way I'm paying any money to NBC if they've paid some to ASO for TV rights. And avoiding the sponsors who back Froome too. At least when some other teams came to light for crap behavior, the sponsors left them (RaboBank, T-mobile etc). Sky are sticking with their team of ''unbelievable'' riders and results.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

It needs to be remembered that the Froome case applies ONLY to SALBUTAMOL. It appears that the scientific basis of the SALBUTAMOL test is invalid. Therefore using this test solely to judge SALBUTAMOL input by looking at output (via the urine test) cannot be used to judge guilt or innocence of the offence of inhaling above the stipulated level of SALBUTAMOL.

It may/will impact previous cases where this test was used to judge guilt of excessive SALBUTALMOL intake.

It will not impact previous cases of PED, blood doping, unauthorised use of drugs without the correct TUE. These are entirely separate cases, share no scientific relationship to the SALBUTAMOL test and stand or fall by their own protocols.

It isn't that difficult really.

.... and the SALBUTAMOL case will not be used to pardon the cyclocross rider found guilty of using an E-bike either, just in case anyone thinks that is likely.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

SNS1938 said:


> Seems we're at the top of a slippery slope. We might see 40% of ''serious'' bike riders now using dozens of puffs of salbutamol each day, as it's not banned and it's what the pro's do, and the side effects are small.
> 
> Whole situation is just so disappointing. I was about to sign up for NBC Gold to watch TdF this year, but now there's no way I'm paying any money to NBC if they've paid some to ASO for TV rights. And avoiding the sponsors who back Froome too. At least when some other teams came to light for crap behavior, the sponsors left them (RaboBank, T-mobile etc). Sky are sticking with their team of ''unbelievable'' riders and results.


I don’t know how slippery it is, or better yet, how much more slippery it is than it was a week ago... So Froome wheezed once at altitude and got the diagnosis, and got the TUE like almost half the peloton. He may well have abused the drug while climbing to improve his ability to use oxygen (technical level beyond me) but the substance can’t be well regulated. And, it can’t be reliably tested. That matters. You have a drug that is used to treat a condition common to these athletes. The drug may give them an advantage under certain conditions. 

I think other Salbutomol cases must be reviewed and reversed immediately. And, based on this decision the drug must be removed from the banned list to avoid this happening again. Just because it’s Froome and just because it was leaked is all irrelevant. You can’t assign a permissible level to this drug. So what else can you do?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

is cycling the only sport where asthma suffers seem to thrive?


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> is cycling the only sport where asthma suffers seem to thrive?


As posted earlier


> “I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “*The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. *But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

How can somebody, not in the best of health, win a race that is one of the hardest in the world, while competing against those who are in better health and at the same athletic ability? And how does somebody do this more than once in a year? Even Lance didn't try to accomplish that and concentrated on one grand tour a year.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">According to Dr. Oliver Rabin, <a href="https://twitter.com/wada_ama?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@wada_ama</a> Froome was apparently sick in the days before the test on sept. 7th in the Vuelta last year.A quick look at his results in those days surely indicates sickness. A healthy Froome would win every stage by minutes. 🤔🤔 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BSalert?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BSalert</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/shutdownwada?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#shutdownwada</a> <a href="https://t.co/yRYPHSOtSU">pic.twitter.com/yRYPHSOtSU</a></p>— Michael Rasmussen (@MRasmussen1974) <a href="https://twitter.com/MRasmussen1974/status/1014758157468434432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

love4himies said:


> How can somebody, not in the best of health, win a race that is one of the hardest in the world, while *competing against those who are in better health and at the same athletic ability?*


How do you know this? Show your sources



> And how does somebody do this more than once in a year?


 Where is the data to substantiate this assertion. How often was he “in not the best of health”. Give dates, places and events. If you are intenting to traduce Froome’s reputation, having failed miserably with the Salbutamol AAF case, you must try harder.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

PBL450 said:


> I don’t know how slippery it is, or better yet, how much more slippery it is than it was a week ago... So Froome wheezed once at altitude and got the diagnosis, and got the TUE like almost half the peloton. He may well have abused the drug while climbing to improve his ability to use oxygen (technical level beyond me) but the substance can’t be well regulated. And, it can’t be reliably tested. That matters. You have a drug that is used to treat a condition common to these athletes. The drug may give them an advantage under certain conditions.
> 
> I think other Salbutomol cases must be reviewed and reversed immediately. And, based on this decision the drug must be removed from the banned list to avoid this happening again. Just because it’s Froome and just because it was leaked is all irrelevant. You can’t assign a permissible level to this drug. So what else can you do?


That is more or less where I am on it as well. Don't particularly like it but I think it has to come off the list, at least until a reliable test can be introduced. Petacchi, IMV, definitely has a case, although I seem to remember he said something along the lines of he might have exceeded the intake amount. It doesn't really matter because there is sufficient doubt. IIRC, Ulissi, fessed up so that might be different.

There is still a wealth of data that WADA and the UCI should release e.g. the suggestion that some people with a higher reading than Froome were exonerated and the number of cases resolved and outstanding. The UCI still have to publish a report on how Froome and only Froome's data was leaked by them.

Meanwhile I don't know what is/was happening with the suggestion that caffeine should be reintroduced to the banned list. That would be fun.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

coldash said:


> As posted earlier


Your boy Froome should have received a suspension under the rules that were in place, *and then *the UCI can change the rules to take the specific gravity measurement into consideration.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

velodog said:


> Your boy Froome should have received a suspension under the rules that were in place, *and then *the UCI can change the rules to take the specific gravity measurement into consideration.


1) Froome is not my boy

2) You clearly don't understand the rules. The AAF essentially says "You can compete, without prejudice and without this being made public, until your case is heard and judged. If you win your case then that is the end of it". The UCI and WADA agreed that the test result was unreliable.

Them's the rules. like it or not.


----------



## n2deep (Mar 23, 2014)

coldash said:


> If you are intenting to traduce Froome’s reputation.


I do no believe we intend to do anything but to let the facts speak for themselves. I have nothing against Froome but do not believe for one microsecond that he needs salbutamol to keep from wheezing or that the UCI is impartial.. If you do please drop by as I'm selling ocean front property close to Phoenix.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I'm sorry but if you have asthma, you don't get to be elite endurance athletes. In nature, you would not have survived if you undertake such extreme endurance events. Allowing sick asthma suffers to thrive in an endurance sport is like fkin affirmative action for minority into universities. I'm all for affirmative action to help underprivileged children, but say it like it is. Bottomline is, without artifical man made chemistry, these asthma suffers would never become champions, am I right, because their lungs would be filled with fluid?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

coldash said:


> 1) Froome is not my boy
> 
> 2) You clearly don't understand the rules. The AAF essentially says "You can compete, without prejudice and without this being made public, until your case is heard and judged. If you win your case then that is the end of it". The UCI and WADA agreed that the test result was unreliable.
> 
> Them's the rules. like it or not.


The vulnerability of the test was known by the same doctor back in 2007, or so he said. But then he never defended the others who were sanctioned under such rule until Froome came along. Now, he's coming out to defend Froome. But WADA has said they don't expect those who have been sanctioned to file grievances. So why not?

btw are you a Brit? you sound like a Brit who's a Froome fan


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

n2deep said:


> I do no believe we intend to do anything but to let the facts speak for themselves. I have nothing against Froome but do not believe for one microsecond that he needs salbutamol to keep from wheezing or that the UCI is impartial.. If you do please drop by as I'm selling ocean front property close to Phoenix.


So you jump from “let the facts speak for themselves” to “do not *believe* for one microsecond”. Your beliefs are not facts (nor is anyone else’s). They may be prejudices but that is up to you to justify


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> The vulnerability of the test was known by the same doctor back in 2007, or so he said. But then he never defended the others who were sanctioned under such rule until Froome came along. Now, he's coming out to defend Froome. But WADA has said they don't expect those who have been sanctioned to file grievances. So why not?
> 
> btw are you a Brit? you sound like a Brit who's a Froome fan


FFS. Do you read anything that has been stated by the experts including this ALREADY QUOTED IN THIS THREAD



> Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. *“I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . .* They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> The vulnerability of the test was known by the same doctor back in 2007, or so he said. But then he never defended the others who were sanctioned under such rule until Froome came along. Now, he's coming out to defend Froome. But WADA has said they don't expect those who have been sanctioned to file grievances. So why not?
> 
> btw are you a Brit? you sound like a Brit who's a Froome fan


With comments Petacchi has said, I have a feeling he IS going to file a grievance. Once that happens, it's going to get really interesting. I really hope both he and Ulissi do.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

coldash said:


> That is more or less where I am on it as well. Don't particularly like it but I think it has to come off the list, at least until a reliable test can be introduced. Petacchi, IMV, definitely has a case, although I seem to remember he said something along the lines of he might have exceeded the intake amount. It doesn't really matter because there is sufficient doubt. IIRC, Ulissi, fessed up so that might be different.
> 
> There is still a wealth of data that WADA and the UCI should release e.g. the suggestion that some people with a higher reading than Froome were exonerated and the number of cases resolved and outstanding. The UCI still have to publish a report on how Froome and only Froome's data was leaked by them.
> 
> Meanwhile I don't know what is/was happening with the suggestion that caffeine should be reintroduced to the banned list. That would be fun.




The caffeine should be fun if they do, since we see the entire peloton drinking coke during the middle of stages and everyone know it has caffeine, plus most cyclists drink coffee when out on a training ride and stop in at cafe.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

KoroninK said:


> With comments Petacchi has said, I have a feeling he IS going to file a grievance. Once that happens, it's going to get really interesting. I really hope both he and Ulissi do.


I’m with you on Petacchi. I thought it was a bit odd at the time and I really hoped when he came back out of retirement he would have got more of a reward for his efforts. Don’t really know much about the Ulissi case


----------



## n2deep (Mar 23, 2014)

coldash said:


> So you jump from “let the facts speak for themselves” to “do not *believe* for one microsecond”. Your beliefs are not facts (nor is anyone else’s). They may be prejudices but that is up to you to justify


You make some interesting points but my beliefs are based on experience, discussions with a few doctors, a healthy dose of skepticism and just good ole common sense; you know,, if it quacks like a duck, has feathers, webed feet, looks like a duck,, than most likely its a duck. What are your's based on,, Sky’s press releases??


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

n2deep said:


> You make some interesting points but my beliefs are based on experience, discussions with a few doctors, a healthy dose of skepticism and just good ole common sense; you know,, if it quacks like a duck, has feathers, webed feet, looks like a duck,, than most likely its a duck. What are your's based on,, Sky’s press releases??


Sky has been quacking since Wiggo.

On the track cycling side, the French are wondering why the Brits seem to peak only at the Olympics, but nonexistent for all Worlds in between. Serious "cycling" methodology? 

On the cultural side, it's estimated that 1 in 30 men takes steroids in the UK. Regular desk pushers and accounts casually and openly use them like vitamin T. Makes one wonder what the serious athletes are doing eh. I find that Brits are more willing to defend their athletes than Americans; perhaps it's because 1 in 30 Brit men consider using dope is like drinking vitamin waters, nothing to make a fuzz


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Sky has been quacking since Wiggo.
> 
> On the track cycling side, the French are wondering why the Brits seem to peak only at the Olympics, but nonexistent for all Worlds in between. Serious "cycling" methodology?
> 
> On the cultural side, it's estimated that 1 in 30 men takes steroids in the UK. Regular desk pushers and accounts casually and openly use them like vitamin T. Makes one wonder what the serious athletes are doing eh. I find that Brits are more willing to defend their athletes than Americans; perhaps it's because 1 in 30 Brit men consider using dope is like drinking vitamin waters, nothing to make a fuzz



That's interesting. My husband's had 2 steriod shots over about 8 years until he was finally diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis and was able to get on medication for that. You may be on to something about why the Brits are so defensive of their athletes vs Americans and other nationalities?


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

LA’s view (from the latest The Move on YouTube)



> For the folks who think you can just lawyer up and get round these guys. No, you can’t. I had more money and lawyers than Sky do and I couldn’t get round them.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

coldash said:


> LA’s view (from the latest The Move on YouTube)


The charges against LA were much more serious and there was far more evidence. He certainly did try to fight it with all those resources. I do think the Froome case shows that big money can help you get off. Perhaps the UCI and WADA did not feel they had the resources or expertise to combat all the stuff in the 1500 page rebuttal.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

DaveG said:


> The charges against LA were much more serious and there was far more evidence. He certainly did try to fight it with all those resources. I do think the Froome case shows that big money can help you get off. Perhaps the UCI and WADA did not feel they had the resources or expertise to combat all the stuff in the 1500 page rebuttal.


they have in the past.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

DaveG said:


> The charges against LA were much more serious and there was far more evidence. He certainly did try to fight it with all those resources. I do think the Froome case shows that big money can help you get off. Perhaps the UCI and WADA did not feel they had the resources or expertise to combat all the stuff in the 1500 page rebuttal.


Early in his career, he was getting around the UCI just fine by bribing. It's only later when he's all washed up, with USADA bearing down on him, and his teammates ratting out against him, including his buddy Hincapie, did Armstrong finally gave in. Had he stayed retired and kept his mouth shut, history would have changed in his favor.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> Early in his career, he was getting around the UCI just fine by bribing. It's only later when he's all washed up, with USADA bearing down on him, and his teammates ratting out against him, including his buddy Hincapie, did Armstrong finally gave in. Had he stayed retired and kept his mouth shut, history would have changed in his favor.


I agree with this. Had he not come out of retirement the investigations would have eventually fizzled out and he would be home with his 7 jerseys. He was not able to control his ego


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Is asthma an advantage? 



> As for the origins of the mysterious "asthmatic advantage," the leading theory is that prolonged training, particularly in certain endurance sports, can eventually damage the airways. As a result, the athletes with asthma are generally the ones who've been training longest and hardest -- and thus, are more likely to medal. For example, 17 percent of cyclists and 19 percent of swimmers in Beijing reported asthma diagnoses; those athletes won 29 and 33 percent of the medals in those sports, respectively.


source: https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a20826976/the-asthmatic-advantage-at-the-olympics/

Another study linking higher prevalence of asthma to endurance sport:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954611115001560

So prolonged endurance training can induce asthma. Maybe asthma is the body's natural way of telling the individual to back off or die. My question is, is using asthma drug so that you can cope with the training any different than weighlifter using steroid to speed up muscle recovery? I will argue that it's time we should ban asthma drugs all together. I'm sorry, but having asthma in endurance sport is like having low testosterone in weightlifting or short legs in running. Having all these TUEs or "sick individuals" is only proving that those with the most money to hire the best doctors and medical teams (and lawyers) are have the best chances to game the system.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Tin foil hats at the ready 

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

Let the conspiracy theories begin (or restart)


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

coldash said:


> Tin foil hats at the ready
> 
> https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome
> 
> Let the conspiracy theories begin (or restart)


It seems like a good part of this response by WADA is to put most of the blame on the UCI


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

coldash said:


> Tin foil hats at the ready
> 
> https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome
> 
> Let the conspiracy theories begin (or restart)


what is this, a WADA hoax release? Based on their reasoning, Froome can just use this same tactic again now that he already has a dismissal precedence. Money can guy a lot of convoluted reasoning eh, 1500 pages of them, when given half a chance eh.

perhpas WADA should post videos of Mr Froome's acute asthma sickness following Vuelta 2017 stage 17 & 18 to give the world a glimpse of what a sick asthma suffer looks like post race. Whew, glad that's settled.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)




----------

