Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Professional Cycling For the Fans
Reload this Page >

Chris Froome.....UH-OH!

Notices
Professional Cycling For the Fans Follow the Tour de France,the Giro de Italia, the Spring Classics, or other professional cycling races? Here's your home...

Chris Froome.....UH-OH!

Old 12-14-17, 10:41 AM
  #26  
fietsbob
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 43,599

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 197 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7607 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times in 832 Posts
F1 drivers live there too.. waiting for the Monaco National anthem to be played for the Podium top 2 places ...
fietsbob is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 02:02 PM
  #27  
jefnvk
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,212

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3635 Post(s)
Liked 78 Times in 48 Posts
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
That's part of this controversy... there is no TUE required for Salbutamol, just a strict concentration limit. It's fair game for anybody up to that limit and Froome tested past that upper limit by 100%.
My bad on the classification, but my general point remains. If it isn't performance enhancing, why bother with a limit? If it needs a limit, it should be banned.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 02:26 PM
  #28  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 13,129

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6320 Post(s)
Liked 1,268 Times in 726 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk View Post
If it isn't performance enhancing, why bother with a limit? If it needs a limit, it should be banned.
Because some stuff is useful in normal doses and might be a PED at higher doses?

As an asthmatic I can say .... I cannot get better performance than my best from an inhaler ... but I can get better performance than none at all. Some days I just can't breathe ... but with the inhaler I can ride.

Imagine if diabetes meds could, if taken in extreme doses, boost fat metabolism (as this drug, salmonbutterball, supposedly could) and glucose conversion .... should every diabetic be ruled out of competition?

What about athletes who needed psych meds?

If in extreme doses the best medication for a certain condition could provide an advantage ... you either ban everyone who is not in perfect health or you set a max limit.

I don't think the issue here is max limits anyway ... it is a culture is sports in general in which a certain amount of cheating is accepted, a certain amount of doping is accepted, and the focus by the controlling interests (the money people) is on the money made by offering entertainment instead of the challenge to the human spirit offered by athletic competition.

Rules change so the sport is more exciting on TV ... because entertainment is what "sports" is really about nowadays. "Stars" get special treatment---they can beat their wives, shoot up night clubs, **** fans, and get away with it ... because "Stars" sell the product, they enhance marketing which increases income, and "sport"---the actual pitting of human against human---is passe anyway.

In a culture of decent people All cheating would be scorned. People who cannot win without cheating are Losers ... not just not winners. The glory of sport is supposed to be the struggle, the effort, the nobility gained and expressed by human striving, by people reaching deeper and pushing harder and going beyond limits.

Nowadays, all that stuff is considered trite BS. Even winning is not as important as Earning, and if competitors need to destroy their bodies and their honor with PEDs to keep setting records to help the hype machine, so be it.

So ... when our ten-year-olds want to do drugs to excel in elementary school sports, or amateur racers dope to win ribbons in races they are paying to enter ... we should accept that we accepted all that long ago when we decided that it was fine if spectacle was what we were really after.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 04:17 PM
  #29  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,351

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3326 Post(s)
Liked 299 Times in 214 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan333SP View Post
Whether they get any benefit from using ashma inhalers in huge quantities is up for debate-

What's the deal with asthma and pro cycling? - Cycling Weekly

Are asthma medicines unofficial PEDs? - Cycling Weekly

Still, it's a controlled substance, and Froome of all people needs to monitor everything that he puts into his body almost to the molecular level to avoid "accidentally" doubling the amount of a controlled substance in his urine.
I agree. Accidental or not, effective or not both need the same sanctions or we will never see changes.

I predict:
Red jersey goes.
Smallest suspension they allow (what is that?).
Doge is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 05:03 PM
  #30  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 13,129

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6320 Post(s)
Liked 1,268 Times in 726 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge View Post
Smallest suspension they allow (what is that?).
Time served. However many days it is from the Worlds to the first even he plans to race in 2018 (Abu Dhabi, Tour Down Under?) Should be able to squeeze a three-month "suspension" in there.

Retroactive, of course, because the case will be in arbitration until 2019.

Am I being cynical or realistic?

You know the world is forked when you really cannot tell.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 05:06 PM
  #31  
HardyWeinberg
GATC
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: south Puget Sound
Posts: 8,728
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk View Post
My bad on the classification, but my general point remains. If it isn't performance enhancing, why bother with a limit? If it needs a limit, it should be banned.
It is performance enhancing and has been documented to be so, when ingested, not inhaled. It is not possible to get to the level Froome tested at (or even to the legal limit, half the level he tested at) from permissible inhalation use.
HardyWeinberg is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 05:15 PM
  #32  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,351

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3326 Post(s)
Liked 299 Times in 214 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Time served. However many days it is from the Worlds to the first even he plans to race in 2018 (Abu Dhabi, Tour Down Under?) Should be able to squeeze a three-month "suspension" in there.

Retroactive, of course, because the case will be in arbitration until 2019.

Am I being cynical or realistic?

You know the world is forked when you really cannot tell.
When I started officiating soccer games I was concerned about if players intended to do what they did. I was corrected by a wise senior referee.
For youth, those starting, you instruct a bit. For the real game - you call what you see. It was simple and pure.

I do not like the consideration of intent, or the advantage. While there is a moral/ethical component, I don't care about that with regard to the sport. It is a distraction that costs too much to deal with and not part of cycling.

Hearings and arbitration will cost hundred of times what more testing will that will catch more that are not in compliance. The sport would have done well to penalize immediately based on result. The excuses should be dealt with outside of the sport.
Doge is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 05:17 PM
  #33  
Shimagnolo
Senior Member
 
Shimagnolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zang's Spur, CO
Posts: 8,982
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2545 Post(s)
Liked 2,597 Times in 1,322 Posts
Not directly cycling-related, but alarming:

NYTimes: Why Do So Many Winter Olympians Have Asthma?

Exercise-induced asthma has been diagnosed in as many as half of all elite cross-country skiers and almost as many world-class ice skaters and hockey players. Itís far more common in winter athletes than in those who compete in the summer, although nearly 17 percent of Olympic-level distance runners have been given the same diagnosis.

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...s-have-asthma/
Shimagnolo is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 06:51 PM
  #34  
torero310
Senior Member
 
torero310's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 86

Bikes: Nashbar Carbon 105

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ok honestly they should have 2 types of races for pros... ones where everyone's a doper and one where arguably everyone isn't a doper. I mean does it really matter? I get why some drugs are straight cheating but I think WADA needs to overlook health conditions that won't have a huge factor... for example if you have asthma you can't breathe therefore take some drugs and your lungs open up. If you have no muscle, you aren't going to be able to power up a climb even if your lungs are open. And seriously... just start testing drugs and see if there's an actual performance increase.
torero310 is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 06:55 PM
  #35  
torero310
Senior Member
 
torero310's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 86

Bikes: Nashbar Carbon 105

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bikecrate View Post
As much as I'm not a fan of Froome or Team Sky I hope he doesn't lose his Vuelta over this. It "sounds" like he was having some asthma issues and doubled his dose with Dr's advice. Not smart, but I don't think he intended to cheat. I guess we will have to see what comes of it.
If you don't mind me asking? Is there a reason you (correct me if I'm wrong) don't like Team Sky? (granted I like all of the teams in pro races currently). And I agree with you on the rest of it.
torero310 is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 08:39 PM
  #36  
Iride01
Hits [ENTER] b4 thinking
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 8,325

Bikes: '20 Tarmac Disc Comp '91, '78 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3279 Post(s)
Liked 1,874 Times in 1,332 Posts
During the Vuelta there was at least one time while on camera that Froome appeared to me to be using an inhaler. Several stages I seem to remember Contador using one.

I imagine the desire to make seven figures will tempt many pro's. Maybe a salary cap would help along with raising the minimum salary for the others. You might think that awful, but I'm only talking what the team pays as a salary. With no chance to make several magnitudes more salary than another it might lessen the desire to dope.

Winning pros can make big time money from endorsements, but they might think twice about doping then. What company will want to risk a doper endorsing their product and the potential fallout from the public?
Iride01 is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 10:02 PM
  #37  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,351

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3326 Post(s)
Liked 299 Times in 214 Posts
I would think every rider would use an inhaler Asthma or not if it helped them ride better.
Just as long as they stay under the limits.
Go over, get caught, get suspended.
Doge is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 10:34 PM
  #38  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,671

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2992 Post(s)
Liked 1,589 Times in 1,053 Posts
I don't have a ton of sympathy for Froome/Sky. They certainly should know nearly exactly by now how an inhale affects his urine. To be twice the limit? Maybe a lowly Continental team that just landed a pharmaceutical sponsorship could claim they just didn't know how an allowed number of snorts would show, but Froome? Sky? After six years and how many tests? On the team of marginal gains? Missing by 100%.

They missed. It is clear in the rules. (It is also clear that the day they missed, Froome was clearly not the struggling rider of the day before.) He/Sky should be penalized. If he isn't, the rules don't mean much.

Ben
79pmooney is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 12:09 AM
  #39  
RFEngineer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Westminster, CO
Posts: 186

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu Gravel Bike, 2015 Motobecane Turino Team

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Trakhak View Post
Thanks for posting that link. I was inclined to agree with you until I read the linked page.

The doctor who was interviewed for the article at the link explains why the proportion of swimmers and cyclists with asthma is genuinely higher than the proportion in the general population. The doctor also argues that there is no performance-enhancing effect:

"And, the thing is that if you have asthma and you take [a bronchodilator], it will improve repeated efforts. But thatís because it is just bringing you back to normal.

The point of asthma drugs is not to improve your performance as such, it is to bring you back to normal from sub-normal."
"CMG: There are two medications that are used as immediate relief. Salbutamol and Terbutaline. Salbutamol doesnít need a TUE as long as you donít exceed a certain amount. And, to be honest, you canít go near that amount using an inhaler, unless you are taking 20 to 40 puffs [a day]. You just canít."

This anti-doping doctor said it's very difficult to reach the limits for Salbutamol using an inhaler....
Alan
RFEngineer is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 06:37 AM
  #40  
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,463
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2190 Post(s)
Liked 335 Times in 253 Posts
Someone please explain.... How much does this drug open up the airways of an athlete that suffers from asthma in comparison to the airways of an athlete that doesn't suffer from asthma?

My point is, would this drug help a non-asthmatic athlete?

It would seem to me that an athlete's airways are open as much as possible; however, an athlete that suffers from asthma would not, but any use of this drug would open the airways only so much, thereby not giving them any real benefit over non-asthmatic athletes. But I've never heard of this kind of "doping", so I need some catching up...
work4bike is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 06:58 AM
  #41  
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
There's a couple things that make testing over the limit for this particular drug that makes it much less innocuous than someone is implying by saying that the using an inhaler does not enhance performance. If you'd thoroughly read the other articles linked in this thread you would have discovered:
  1. Salbutamol has been found to enhance performance when ingested rather than inhaled.
  2. Salbutamol is on the list of substances that can be used to mask the presence of other PED's.

The fact is that the concentration level was exceedingly high, especially for an athlete and support staff who are considered some of the best in the sport at managing such stuff. The investigation may very well reveal some mitigating factors but they definitely have an uphill battle ahead of them.
Originally Posted by work4bike View Post
Someone please explain.... How much does this drug open up the airways of an athlete that suffers from asthma in comparison to the airways of an athlete that doesn't suffer from asthma?

My point is, would this drug help a non-asthmatic athlete?

It would seem to me that an athlete's airways are open as much as possible; however, an athlete that suffers from asthma would not, but any use of this drug would open the airways only so much, thereby not giving them any real benefit over non-asthmatic athletes. But I've never heard of this kind of "doping", so I need some catching up...
It's killing me that so many are still chiming in with this position. If you read the thread and the linked articles you whould have the answer to your questions.

See my quote above and also the post directly above yours.

It's fairly obvious that they are trying to accommodate asthma sufferers by not restricting the drug entirely but some athletes have perhaps used this loophole to give them a perceived edge.
Moose is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 08:32 AM
  #42  
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,463
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2190 Post(s)
Liked 335 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
It's killing me that so many are still chiming in with this position. If you read the thread and the linked articles you whould have the answer to your questions.

See my quote above and also the post directly above yours.

It's fairly obvious that they are trying to accommodate asthma sufferers by not restricting the drug entirely but some athletes have perhaps used this loophole to give them a perceived edge.
First off Moose, not all of us are glued to our computers; this is the first time I read the thread and the first hearing of this allegation, despite having it in my email (which I just noticed after reading it here). And I'm not all that up on the issue of doping, but just curious enough...

Secondly, your post makes it seem as if you think you have some required burden to enlighten those unenlightened Ė it's NOT, you don't have to post anything if it's a burden.

I did read you post after posting my post (and other posts) and some links, but haven't gotten around to all Ė I only have so much time. I'm sorry if I don't take your post as gospel; I'm not saying it's wrong, but the way you worded it was not convincing or only creates more questioning.

If Salbutamol has been found to enhance performance when ingested rather than inhaled, then why isn't it at least a TUE?

If Salbutamol is on the list of substances that can be used to mask the presence of other PED's, then why isn't it a banned substance?

And my original question still is not answered by your post. How is this drug a performance enhancing drug? Does it do something other than opening airways? And if not, how much do airways constrict in athletes? Should that tape that opens the nasal passageway be banned?

If you feel it's too much of a burden to address these questions, then don't worry, I won't hold it against you and I don't think anyone else will care.



.
work4bike is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 08:50 AM
  #43  
texaspandj
Senior Member
 
texaspandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Heart Of Texas
Posts: 4,139

Bikes: '85, '86 , '87 , '88 , '89 Centurion Dave Scott Ironman.

Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1552 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times in 318 Posts
Is chris froome really asthmatic?
Aren't some asthma meds steroids?
texaspandj is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 08:58 AM
  #44  
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by work4bike View Post
First off Moose, not all of us are glued to our computers; this is the first time I read the thread and the first hearing of this allegation, despite having it in my email (which I just noticed after reading it here). And I'm not all that up on the issue of doping, but just curious enough...

Secondly, your post makes it seem as if you think you have some required burden to enlighten those unenlightened – it's NOT, you don't have to post anything if it's a burden.

I did read you post after posting my post (and other posts) and some links, but haven't gotten around to all – I only have so much time. I'm sorry if I don't take your post as gospel; I'm not saying it's wrong, but the way you worded it was not convincing or only creates more questioning.

If Salbutamol has been found to enhance performance when ingested rather than inhaled, then why isn't it at least a TUE?

If Salbutamol is on the list of substances that can be used to mask the presence of other PED's, then why isn't it a banned substance?

And my original question still is not answered by your post. How is this drug a performance enhancing drug? Does it do something other than opening airways? And if not, how much do airways constrict in athletes? Should that tape that opens the nasal passageway be banned?

If you feel it's too much of a burden to address these questions, then don't worry, I won't hold it against you and I don't think anyone else will care.



.
I am not qualified to answer your questions...they are good ones though, hopefully someone can come along and shed some light on them.

Maybe they are just trying to protect the athletes from themselves.

If a rider thinks he can get an advantage, it may not matter whether the benefits are quantifiable...they could still go overboard and pose a health risk to themselves. That seems to be the case here because Froome had way more of this stuff in his system than typically found after normal use of the substance.

Perhaps limiting the concentrations of drugs is as much for the athletes health as it is to maintain a level playing field.

No one wants to look back years from now when a bunch of aging athletes have failing livers or other such maladies from abusing chemical substances and wonder if it could have been prevented.
Moose is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 09:42 AM
  #45  
Shimagnolo
Senior Member
 
Shimagnolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zang's Spur, CO
Posts: 8,982
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2545 Post(s)
Liked 2,597 Times in 1,322 Posts
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
No one wants to look back years from now when a bunch of aging athletes have failing livers or other such maladies from abusing chemical substances and wonder if it could have been prevented.
Not much different from now as we look at aging boxers and football players with failing brains.
Shimagnolo is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 09:55 AM
  #46  
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,463
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2190 Post(s)
Liked 335 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
....Maybe they are just trying to protect the athletes from themselves.

If a rider thinks he can get an advantage, it may not matter whether the benefits are quantifiable...they could still go overboard and pose a health risk to themselves. That seems to be the case here because Froome had way more of this stuff in his system than typically found after normal use of the substance.

Perhaps limiting the concentrations of drugs is as much for the athletes health as it is to maintain a level playing field.

No one wants to look back years from now when a bunch of aging athletes have failing livers or other such maladies from abusing chemical substances and wonder if it could have been prevented.
I remember seeing a post here by someone that seemed to indicate it was banned because of it simply having a placebo effect; however, that just doesn't seem right to me, since there are so many placebo effects out there -- it just seems unreasonable to attempt to regulate placebos.

As for the health issue, that's a possibility, but I would think that the organization would come at health issues in a much different way, making it absolutely clear that their concern is health and not at all PED related.

It seems it would be more advantageous to address these health concerns in ways that don't attempt to ruin one's reputation, in a way that stripping away one's titles would definitely do. I don't know, maybe very heavy fines or not allowing them to participate in certain events...

It's also kind of slippery, because you can make an argument that how the riders ride are very dangerous to their health, but it's kind of forced on them. Maybe they shouldn't ride in the rain or maybe they need to greatly reduce the peloton size....
work4bike is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 09:58 AM
  #47  
Shimagnolo
Senior Member
 
Shimagnolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zang's Spur, CO
Posts: 8,982
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2545 Post(s)
Liked 2,597 Times in 1,322 Posts
Originally Posted by work4bike View Post
I remember seeing a post here by someone that seemed to indicate it was banned because of it simply having a placebo effect; however, that just doesn't seem right to me, since there are so many placebo effects out there -- it just seems unreasonable to attempt to regulate placebos.
Now here is an idea: Homeopathic drugs!
You could get the placebo effect, but there would be no worries about a positive drug test!
Shimagnolo is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 11:45 AM
  #48  
HardyWeinberg
GATC
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: south Puget Sound
Posts: 8,728
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by work4bike View Post
How is this drug a performance enhancing drug? .
Demonstrated to enhance performance of cyclists both trained and untrained when ingested but not when inhaled in therapeutic doses (which cannot produce the output that Froome's body did)

Brief thoughts on Froome's salbutamol result | The Science of Sport

To get a handle on what Froome had to have been doing, the amount allowed into your body for therapeutic use (1600 micrograms in 24 hours) is less than the amount Froome was peeing out (2 micrograms per mL of urine)
HardyWeinberg is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 12:27 PM
  #49  
fantom1 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle of the desert
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HardyWeinberg View Post

To get a handle on what Froome had to have been doing, the amount allowed into your body for therapeutic use (1600 micrograms in 24 hours) is less than the amount Froome was peeing out (2 micrograms per mL of urine)
Can you explain a little bit more what you mean? 1600 is obviously more than 2, but I realize that is not what you are saying.
fantom1 is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 12:31 PM
  #50  
fantom1 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle of the desert
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Also, FWIW, two cyclists have received suspensions for salbutamol in recent years, and both of them had LESS in their samples than Froome...doesn't look good for him or cycling.
fantom1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.