Discussion
essayer said:
Someone was telling me that basically all pro sportsmen/women have a diagnosis of asthma. Is that true?
There does seems to be a huge amount that have TUEs for Asthma yes. Especially rife in tennis IIRC.I was watching a piece on this recently and their tests showed that with a TUE someone with asthma out performs a non-asthma sufferer. According to the person in the interview this meant they had the balance right......
Well for the use of this particular drug there isn't even a need for TUE.
My own mind would want to know is there an advantage to be gained or is it genuinely for asthma , that said the whole world seems to have a hard on for any sort of 'dirt' on team sky they are basically cheats without anything being proven. Sad the sport is like this.
My own mind would want to know is there an advantage to be gained or is it genuinely for asthma , that said the whole world seems to have a hard on for any sort of 'dirt' on team sky they are basically cheats without anything being proven. Sad the sport is like this.
RemyMartin81D said:
Well for the use of this particular drug there isn't even a need for TUE.
My own mind would want to know is there an advantage to be gained or is it genuinely for asthma , that said the whole world seems to have a hard on for any sort of 'dirt' on team sky they are basically cheats without anything being proven. Sad the sport is like this.
There have been a few studies on it - apparently it doesn't do much, but in high doses more study is needed:My own mind would want to know is there an advantage to be gained or is it genuinely for asthma , that said the whole world seems to have a hard on for any sort of 'dirt' on team sky they are basically cheats without anything being proven. Sad the sport is like this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8781870
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15459835
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/56/9/675
In the past riders have been suspended for salbutamol levels lower than Froome. Unless they can convince the UCI that there are credible reasons for this finding then surely Froome is looking at probably a years ban and the loss of his Vuelta title at the very least.
David Walsh and Paul Kimmage seem quiet about this. As do a lot of people.
David Walsh and Paul Kimmage seem quiet about this. As do a lot of people.
Well David Walsh has been replaced by Matt Dickinson as The Times/Sunday Times cycling bitbull in chief. He has been desperate for a result against Sky from the Wiggins stuff.
I have to admit, Im a bit confused.com by this one as nobody apart from the Press is causing a fuss. Froome has basically said Yes, you all know I have asthma and have one for years and Ive been taking this stuff. Im happy to co-op with everybody about it. Sky have said the same. UCI have basically we know about him. Both his A and B came back over the lints, but nobody seems to be talking bans.
Its all a bit weird.
I have to admit, Im a bit confused.com by this one as nobody apart from the Press is causing a fuss. Froome has basically said Yes, you all know I have asthma and have one for years and Ive been taking this stuff. Im happy to co-op with everybody about it. Sky have said the same. UCI have basically we know about him. Both his A and B came back over the lints, but nobody seems to be talking bans.
Its all a bit weird.
kritter86 said:
Is this now a witch hunt against Sky? Tony Martin is certainly vocal about the double standards that they seem to get.
That said it's easy to hit the guys at the top of the tree.
With the jiffy bag, TUEs, Sutton's interview, random delivery of testosterone patches, and now this, there's more than enough out there to at least question that 'marginal gains' may not be as they seem.That said it's easy to hit the guys at the top of the tree.
fuzzyyo said:
kritter86 said:
Is this now a witch hunt against Sky? Tony Martin is certainly vocal about the double standards that they seem to get.
That said it's easy to hit the guys at the top of the tree.
With the jiffy bag, TUEs, Sutton's interview, random delivery of testosterone patches, and now this, there's more than enough out there to at least question that 'marginal gains' may not be as they seem.That said it's easy to hit the guys at the top of the tree.
I think CF is innocent IMO but who really knows? The biological passport was leaked wasn't it and nothing came of that IIRC.
kritter86 said:
You've absolutely got a point but why are no other teams under the same investigation? Look at the fuss around the skin suits from the tour last year. Can't help but think these kind of things come to light and as it's Sky it's highlighted even further.
I think CF is innocent IMO but who really knows? The biological passport was leaked wasn't it and nothing came of that IIRC.
I think its because sky made a big play to begin with about running their team whiter than white. Now its coming out that it may not be the case. I think CF is innocent IMO but who really knows? The biological passport was leaked wasn't it and nothing came of that IIRC.
Some Gump said:
Substance has limit because it has performance advantages.
Not srictly true. In the case of inhaled Salbutimol, the limit is mainly there because of health implications over a certain dosage, not for any performance enhancing benefits. It might have some anobolic effect if injected in high doses, but I don't believe there's any conclusive proof of this yet. The other remote possibility being discussed is that Salbutimol was being used as a masking agent for some other PED, but that would require a level of cheating and deception from Team Sky on par with the Armstrong years - and I just can't see that being credible TBH.The point of asthma drugs is not to improve your performance as such, it is to bring you back to normal from sub-normal. Everyone knows Froome has suffered from asthma his whole life, so there are no issues with his use of Salbutimol and he freely admits he upped his doseage at that stage of the Vuelta. Froome and Sky knew he would be tested and they knew what the limit was. For something as hum-drum as Salbutimol, it seems dumb beyond measure to purposefully go over the limit in that situation, which is why feel there must be some other, more innocent explanation for the positive (possibly dehydration increasing the concentration in the urine sample).
blade runner said:
Not srictly true. In the case of inhaled Salbutimol, the limit is mainly there because of health implications over a certain dosage, not for any performance enhancing benefits. It might have some anobolic effect if injected in high doses, but I don't believe there's any conclusive proof of this yet. The other remote possibility being discussed is that Salbutimol was being used as a masking agent for some other PED, but that would require a level of cheating and deception from Team Sky on par with the Armstrong years - and I just can't see that being credible TBH.
The point of asthma drugs is not to improve your performance as such, it is to bring you back to normal from sub-normal. Everyone knows Froome has suffered from asthma his whole life, so there are no issues with his use of Salbutimol and he freely admits he upped his doseage at that stage of the Vuelta. Froome and Sky knew he would be tested and they knew what the limit was. For something as hum-drum as Salbutimol, it seems dumb beyond measure to purposefully go over the limit in that situation, which is why feel there must be some other, more innocent explanation for the positive (possibly dehydration increasing the concentration in the urine sample).
I do wish they would just give us all of the facts, we would know for certain then. There is always a feeling that the public aren't getting the full story which is why there is so much doubt. I hope it isn't to hide something more serious.The point of asthma drugs is not to improve your performance as such, it is to bring you back to normal from sub-normal. Everyone knows Froome has suffered from asthma his whole life, so there are no issues with his use of Salbutimol and he freely admits he upped his doseage at that stage of the Vuelta. Froome and Sky knew he would be tested and they knew what the limit was. For something as hum-drum as Salbutimol, it seems dumb beyond measure to purposefully go over the limit in that situation, which is why feel there must be some other, more innocent explanation for the positive (possibly dehydration increasing the concentration in the urine sample).
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff