Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[TheJDog]

200 puffs in a single inhaler. That's 20000 microgrammes. I assume that would be waaaay over the limit.

WADA rules say over 16 puffs a day and you need a TUE. I can't believe that the SKY doctor would have just told him to increase his dosage without being incredibly careful. Oh, hang on, I can.

 

[mjr]

*Cough* Sky zero tolerance *cough*

If Sky fire him, I expect another team will take him to the Tour. It would be the toughest ever tour for Froome, riding without the fabled Sky train (but maybe getting help from his former teammates, like he did from Porte?), but if he managed to come back from a ban and win it with another team, it would surely establish him up there with Merckx and Anquetil... albeit a bit more closely than he might like!

 

[mjr]

Tony Martin is being a bit ingenuous here. The type of adverse finding turned in by Chris Froome does not call for an immediate ban, and he must know that.

Yes, but TM only needs another 7 riders banned and he gets a Rio Olympics medal.

 

[sleaver]

I was in Madrid only about 30m from home while he was on the top step of the podium holding the trophy aloft. Not sure how I feel about that now.

Anyway, he was in the leaders jersey so he knew he was going to be tested. So unless several people had a major brain fart, it would be career suicide to knowingly overdose. Will be interesting to see if Sky’s record keeping is up to old standards or if it’s suddenly improved.

Just throwing a wild theory here but as Ing say and mentioned in a previous post, there are the “unknown unknowns“ in regards to AAFs and there seems to be some suspicion as to how Le Monde and The Guardian got wind of this. Could Froome be some of those “unknown unknowns” which may account for his wins but someone in the UCI went “Here you go Team Sky, let’s see how you deal with this”?

 

[kingrollo]

Can't possibly see how he can escape a ban. In some way I think he might be best to take the ban rather than weasel out of it with some ropey excuse.

 

[hoopdriver]

Can't possibly see how he can escape a ban. In some way I think he might be best to take the ban rather than weasel out of it with some ropey excuse.

I can see the logic to that but it would really make no difference - he will forever have that asterisk in the mind. I think his best course is to fight it.

 

[mjr]

I can see the logic to that but it would really make no difference - he will forever have that asterisk in the mind. I think his best course is to fight it.

If - and I think it's big if - he can establish that a permitted dose resulted in an adverse analytical finding, it would be a great thing for everyone, moving forwards the treatment of asthma in sports. Even if he tries and fails, it helps publicise that salbutamol usage should be minimised because there's some dispute about the current test regime.

 

[kingrollo]

I can see the logic to that but it would really make no difference - he will forever have that asterisk in the mind. I think his best course is to fight it.

But he is way over, ? - I don't see how he can explain that away.

Unless with a TUE there is no limit to the dose - and explains that really he should have a gotten a TUE - so its an admin error - rather than an overdose

 

[hoopdriver]

If - and I think it's big if - he can establish that a permitted dose resulted in an adverse analytical finding, it would be a great thing for everyone, moving forwards the treatment of asthma in sports. Even if he tries and fails, it helps publicise that salbutamol usage should be minimised because there's some dispute about the current test regime.

I agree totally. If you step back and look at this dispassionately, the odds if Froome or anyone trying to cheat with this drug is vanishingly small. It confers virtually no benefits - if indeed any at all - and is easily detected. Froome as race leader and a high profile rider would be tested daily and know he was going to be tested daily, so where is the logic or the perceived ‘benefit’? There isn’t any. Clearly there is an anomaly here, an adverse finding, which requires explanation but there are already clinical studies showing that dehydration can produce adverse findings with this drug - one that is routinely prescribed to asthmatics. Whatever the result here, I would say the test regime would need to be examined as well, because there is simply no logic to this.

 

[kingrollo]

I agree totally. If you step back and look at this dispassionately, the odds if Froome or anyone trying to cheat with this drug is vanishingly small. It confers virtually no benefits - if indeed any at all - and is easily detected. Froome as race leader and a high profile rider would be tested daily and know he was going to be tested daily, so where is the logic or the perceived ‘benefit’? There isn’t any. Clearly there is an anomaly here, an adverse finding, which requires explanation but there are already clinical studies showing that dehydration can produce adverse findings with this drug - one that is routinely prescribed to asthmatics. Whatever the result here, I would say the test regime would need to be examined as well, because there is simply no logic to this.

But if that happens wouldn't they have go back and review all Asthma bans. ?
On a level playing field it gives little or no benefit - However in my experience of asthma it does give a benefit if you are having a bad asthma day - ie if you're airways are inflamed due to allergy or a cold then it helps - it such circumstances it can also get pretty addictive my son was once puffing his every couple of minutes when he was suffering with a chest infection.
He's over the limit and that comes with a consequence whether it boosts his performance or not ....IMO of course.

 

[mjr]

But if that happens wouldn't they have go back and review all Asthma bans. ?

At worst, only the salbutamol ones since the last rule change (is Ulissi the only pro-level one?). Other asthma medications could remain prohibited.

 

[kingrollo]

More than anything I am sad about the whole thing - it just taints a great story and some great cycling.

Ive said before sky ruin every sport they get involved in.

 

[Siclo]

It confers virtually no benefits - if indeed any at all

I keep seeing this stated but there's some evidence of salbutamol having anabolic effects at high doses, hence the limit and the ban on oral and intramuscular administration.

Froome as race leader and a high profile rider would be tested daily and know he was going to be tested daily, so where is the logic or the perceived ‘benefit’? There isn’t any

Agreed, unless you want to break out the tin foil hat and think Jorge Jaschke is on to something.

It's interesting that the WADA guidance for maximum dosage for inhalation is based on inhaler use. I'm wondering if some bright spark has decided to use a nebuliser pre-stage, still a legal administration route (inhalation) but a much more efficient mechanism of delivery and then he's topped it up by inhaler use through the stage, he would have stayed within the rules on delivery method and dosage but ended up with much ore in his system than the guidance predicts.

The extreme dehydration defence could be sticky since the stage was a short one, less than 4 hours (interestingly about the same as the half life of salbutamol) and the weather was cool.

 

[hoopdriver]

From what I have read any “benefits” if using higher, non-inhaler, doses, would possibly be for a short sprints. And even then the benefits, if any, are said to be small to negligable. We go back to logic. Where is the logic for Froome to be messing with it? Against the certainty of being caught?

 

[mjr]

We go back to logic. Where is the logic for Froome to be messing with it? Against the certainty of being caught?

Do we think he was sufficiently knowledgeable or well-advised to know it was a certainty? If he was using pre-stage nebulisers or other innovative letter-but-arguably-not-spirit-of-the-rule usages, might he have gotten away with it for other longer stages?