Yeah, that's a legit question. Team doctors are supposed to look after the athletes' welfare above all else - and allowing a rider to use an inhaler too often can potentially be dangerous (high heart rate is a noted potential side-effect of Salbutamol, which could be lethal when they're already riding at their physical limit). I also don't buy the angle that doctors make 'mistakes' like not applying for TUEs properly (that is some DEEP bullshit that always gets trotted out when a rider gets popped)
The problem with all of this is that cycling has such a terrible record - including having a governing body who were fully invested in maintaining the illusion of a clean sport for decades - that 'grey areas' only ever lead to more questions. Add a media interested solely in scandal, and it's a recipe for disaster.
The real tragedy here is that Salbutamol as a substance isn't even on the banned list - just the level of it in your system is in question, which invariably leads to grey areas (not everyone metabolises things in the same way, was his high reading due to being physically exhausted, does the high heat he was racing in have an effect on concentration of a substance in urine etc etc)
Most people find road cycling to be as dull as dishwater. Me included.
Track cycling is much more explosive and grabs peoples attention.
That's not to take anything away from what Froome has achieved. He's just involved in a sport that is way down in the publics interest in Britain.
Unless you’re a drug dealer ;0)
You sound like you're speaking from experience
I've known a few, shall we say, 'dodgy' people in and around the Shooters Hill area throughout my life. They all had one thing in common.....they all held a 'tick' list.
Most people find road cycling to be as dull as dishwater. Me included.
Track cycling is much more explosive and grabs peoples attention.
That's not to take anything away from what Froome has achieved. He's just involved in a sport that is way down in the publics interest in Britain.
By 'most people' - I think you mean 'some people you know'. I don't know a single person who finds track cycling better to watch (with the possible exception of a six-day, which is more about getting pissed up and shouting than the actual cycling)
Track cycling is the dullest spectator sport on Earth. The reason most people find road cycling dull is because they don't know what's involved in it. There are more nuances to road cycling than pretty much any other sport.
I think you're confusing 'people who don't really like cycling anyway' (i.e. most people!) with 'people who like cycling'. Amongst people who like cycling, I'd say about 95% of them would watch a road race over a track race. If you took the time to get to understand what's involved in a road race, you'd be pleasantly surprised
Most people find road cycling to be as dull as dishwater. Me included.
Track cycling is much more explosive and grabs peoples attention.
That's not to take anything away from what Froome has achieved. He's just involved in a sport that is way down in the publics interest in Britain.
By 'most people' - I think you mean 'some people you know'. I don't know a single person who finds track cycling better to watch (with the possible exception of a six-day, which is more about getting pissed up and shouting than the actual cycling)
Track cycling is the dullest spectator sport on Earth. The reason most people find road cycling dull is because they don't know what's involved in it. There are more nuances to road cycling than pretty much any other sport.
I think you're confusing 'people who don't really like cycling anyway' (i.e. most people!) with 'people who like cycling'. Amongst people who like cycling, I'd say about 95% of them would watch a road race over a track race. If you took the time to get to understand what's involved in a road race, you'd be pleasantly surprised
No, by 'most people' I mean 'most people'. Otherwise I'd have said 'some people I know'.
Take the viewing figures (British) for any given stage of the tour and then compare it with a major track cycling event.
So, again, people don't like something because they don't get it or are too stupid to understand it? It can't possibly be down to it just not intriguing people enough or grabbing their attention? It's not a dig at the sport, which seems to be why you've taken a degree of offence to my comment, it's just that people tend to have shorter spans of attention and track cycling feeds in to that whereas road cycling doesn't.
I think you've made a massive assumption that I haven't given road cycling any time and need to, again, understand what's involved. Why can't someone understand what's involved and still find it dull? Is that not possible? It's like saying to someone who doesn't like test cricket but enjoys T20 "if only you gave test cricket a chance and tried to understand it then you'd like it".
You said 'Amongst people who like cycling, I'd say about 95% of them would watch a road race over a track race'....and I'd say the opposite for those that aren't particularly in to cycling, and they are far greater in number (I've said that fully knowing that neither of our claims are backed up by any evidence).
I reiterate, I'm not digging the sport out. Merely vocalising, through the art of typing, my opinion
I didn't say 'too stupid'? I clearly - and deliberately - said if people took the time to understand it, they'd get enjoyment out of it. I wasn't saying people SHOULD do that, I'm just saying that would happen if they DID do that.
I think the viewing figures for a major tour stage would be better than for a 'major track cycling event' (unless you count the Olympics, which are a totally different kettle of fish). This is borne out by the fact that the world track cycling championships were barely even aired on terrestrial TV (due to lack of interest)
You're definitely right that 'the public' (i.e. people who don't give a toss one way or the other) are more likely to watch track cycling - but that's because the only time they'd watch it would be the Olympics, where they'd watch beach fucking volleyball if Britain had a chance of winning something
There's a theory that you are more likely to be asthmatic if you have a high Vo2 max - which is something that all elite athletes (especially cyclists, distance runners and cross-country skiers) all have.
The stupid thing about this is that salbutamol isn't even performance-enhancing - clinical tests have proven no performance improvement when dosed way beyond the levels found here. If he hasn't got an exemption from the UCI, then he's fucked - end of
Not accusing him of anything but a lot of the time aren't these other drugs some take a way of masking actual performance enhancing drugs. I know a number of MMA fighters who have done similar and wasn't it suspected that Kolo Toure's diet pills an example of this? Any chance that this could have happened here?
Salbutamol isn't a particularly effective masking agent. It can be used to mask the use of Clenbuterol (commonly used for weight loss) but there are far better drugs available for that. The problem here is that it's another 'grey area'. Froome has had asthma since he was a child - that's not in dispute. The dose we're being told he had in his system is the equivalent of four double pumps of an inhaler in a 24 hour period. Of a drug that isn't performance-enhancing (actually proven not to be, in clinical studies - and is on the banned list because it's dangerous, rather than performance-enhancing) What's ridiculous is that being equated with Armstrong et al juicing themselves up to the gills on EPO, blood bags, Steroids and fuck knows what else
It won't matter a jot though because people who don't know this will just see 'drugs' and 'cycling' and jump to conclusions. He's fucked whatever happens.
Well quite hence why I asked as I'm not the type to accuse an athlete just because I see failed drugs test.
The reaction to this is very different to that of the news of the Furys yesterday. It's quite telling and I guess part of Cycling's past that people react in this way.
In my opinion, the potential damage from this is far greater than Froome himself - Team Sky are in the crosshairs (which does happen when anyone adopts a holier than thou attitude in a competitive environment - you just have to actually be holier than thou to get away with it).
I must be unusual in that I really like Froome, but I really don't want him to be as good as he is and dominate the sport - I want cycling to have genuine competition in the grand tours, and he is too far out ahead of most of the rest. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he is proved to have done wrong.
Mind you, I agree with @McBobbin, any substance that allows you continue when otherwise you would not be able to, including inhalers, is, almost by definition, performance enhancing, in that it allows athletes to continue to perform.
PS. I cannot stand Lewis Hamilton, for all that he is a good driver, but I don't think he is that good (all F1 drivers are talented, and I accept he is, but he has never had to drive a genuinely bad car, and quite often he is in the best, but that's just my natural Irish begrudgery).
In my opinion, the potential damage from this is far greater than Froome himself - Team Sky are in the crosshairs (which does happen when anyone adopts a holier than thou attitude in a competitive environment - you just have to actually be holier than thou to get away with it).
I must be unusual in that I really like Froome, but I really don't want him to be as good as he is and dominate the sport - I want cycling to have genuine competition in the grand tours, and he is too far out ahead of most of the rest. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he is proved to have done wrong.
Mind you, I agree with @McBobbin, any substance that allows you continue when otherwise you would not be able to, including inhalers, is, almost by definition, performance enhancing, in that it allows athletes to continue to perform.
PS. I cannot stand Lewis Hamilton, for all that he is a good driver, but I don't think he is that good (all F1 drivers are talented, and I accept he is, but he has never had to drive a genuinely bad car, and quite often he is in the best, but that's just my natural Irish begrudgery).
Oh, come on ...really ??!!
Don't you realize that to get to drive one of the 'elite' cars you need to an exceptional driver - its a given. Hamilton is THE best driver out there - he's proved it, time and time again. Cant believe that anyone would say 'I don't think he is that good' - i'm still chuckling now. !!
I didn't say 'too stupid'? I clearly - and deliberately - said if people took the time to understand it, they'd get enjoyment out of it. I wasn't saying people SHOULD do that, I'm just saying that would happen if they DID do that.
I think the viewing figures for a major tour stage would be better than for a 'major track cycling event' (unless you count the Olympics, which are a totally different kettle of fish). This is borne out by the fact that the world track cycling championships were barely even aired on terrestrial TV (due to lack of interest)
You're definitely right that 'the public' (i.e. people who don't give a toss one way or the other) are more likely to watch track cycling - but that's because the only time they'd watch it would be the Olympics, where they'd watch beach fucking volleyball if Britain had a chance of winning something
Apologies. The misrepresentation of peoples words on here seems to be an epidemic
In my opinion, the potential damage from this is far greater than Froome himself - Team Sky are in the crosshairs (which does happen when anyone adopts a holier than thou attitude in a competitive environment - you just have to actually be holier than thou to get away with it).
I must be unusual in that I really like Froome, but I really don't want him to be as good as he is and dominate the sport - I want cycling to have genuine competition in the grand tours, and he is too far out ahead of most of the rest. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he is proved to have done wrong.
Mind you, I agree with @McBobbin, any substance that allows you continue when otherwise you would not be able to, including inhalers, is, almost by definition, performance enhancing, in that it allows athletes to continue to perform.
PS. I cannot stand Lewis Hamilton, for all that he is a good driver, but I don't think he is that good (all F1 drivers are talented, and I accept he is, but he has never had to drive a genuinely bad car, and quite often he is in the best, but that's just my natural Irish begrudgery).
That's like saying Messi isn't that great because he's never had to play in a bad team.
Hamilton is widely accepted as one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
This is from Dr John Dickinson, head of the respiratory clinic at the University of Kent in an interview with Cycling Weekly:
How large a dose?
One or two puffs is not going to go anywhere beyond the lungs. Using salbutamol, to get anywhere near a performance-enhancing effect, you would need to take 16 puffs in one go, and that’s the upper limit permitted by WADA. The downside of such doses is that they may increase heart rate and cause tremors, so the potential benefits in muscle function you may lose in terms of increased heart rate. If you wanted to cheat, there would be far more effective ways.
diving nicking 10 yards at a throw shirt pulling feigning injury..
This, if you take squad sizes into account I would estimate there are more cheats in football than there are in cycling.
And you are not telling me that when a footballer rips his shirt off to reveal that muscular physique he has not been on the creatine, or that box to box midfielder who is not even puffing has not been on the energy supplements.
In my opinion, the potential damage from this is far greater than Froome himself - Team Sky are in the crosshairs (which does happen when anyone adopts a holier than thou attitude in a competitive environment - you just have to actually be holier than thou to get away with it).
I must be unusual in that I really like Froome, but I really don't want him to be as good as he is and dominate the sport - I want cycling to have genuine competition in the grand tours, and he is too far out ahead of most of the rest. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he is proved to have done wrong.
Mind you, I agree with @McBobbin, any substance that allows you continue when otherwise you would not be able to, including inhalers, is, almost by definition, performance enhancing, in that it allows athletes to continue to perform.
PS. I cannot stand Lewis Hamilton, for all that he is a good driver, but I don't think he is that good (all F1 drivers are talented, and I accept he is, but he has never had to drive a genuinely bad car, and quite often he is in the best, but that's just my natural Irish begrudgery).
Oh, come on ...really ??!!
Don't you realize that to get to drive one of the 'elite' cars you need to an exceptional driver - its a given. Hamilton is THE best driver out there - he's proved it, time and time again. Cant believe that anyone would say 'I don't think he is that good' - i'm still chuckling now. !!
I don't think he is that good, in the sense that I do not believe that he is as good as some in the media portray.
He is certainly the most successful current driver, but a huge degree of any F1 success has to be down to the car (and all that goes in to it), including aerodynamics, engine, reliability, etc.
I'd love to see what would happen if there was a level playing field.
Not that it matters, as I don't imagine my opinion is giving him sleepless nights.
In my opinion, the potential damage from this is far greater than Froome himself - Team Sky are in the crosshairs (which does happen when anyone adopts a holier than thou attitude in a competitive environment - you just have to actually be holier than thou to get away with it).
I must be unusual in that I really like Froome, but I really don't want him to be as good as he is and dominate the sport - I want cycling to have genuine competition in the grand tours, and he is too far out ahead of most of the rest. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he is proved to have done wrong.
Mind you, I agree with @McBobbin, any substance that allows you continue when otherwise you would not be able to, including inhalers, is, almost by definition, performance enhancing, in that it allows athletes to continue to perform.
PS. I cannot stand Lewis Hamilton, for all that he is a good driver, but I don't think he is that good (all F1 drivers are talented, and I accept he is, but he has never had to drive a genuinely bad car, and quite often he is in the best, but that's just my natural Irish begrudgery).
Oh, come on ...really ??!!
Don't you realize that to get to drive one of the 'elite' cars you need to an exceptional driver - its a given. Hamilton is THE best driver out there - he's proved it, time and time again. Cant believe that anyone would say 'I don't think he is that good' - i'm still chuckling now. !!
I don't think he is that good, in the sense that I do not believe that he is as good as some in the media portray.
He is certainly the most successful current driver, but a huge degree of any F1 success has to be down to the car (and all that goes in to it), including aerodynamics, engine, reliability, etc.
I'd love to see what would happen if there was a level playing field.
Not that it matters, as I don't imagine my opinion is giving him sleepless nights.
In my opinion, the potential damage from this is far greater than Froome himself - Team Sky are in the crosshairs (which does happen when anyone adopts a holier than thou attitude in a competitive environment - you just have to actually be holier than thou to get away with it).
I must be unusual in that I really like Froome, but I really don't want him to be as good as he is and dominate the sport - I want cycling to have genuine competition in the grand tours, and he is too far out ahead of most of the rest. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he is proved to have done wrong.
Mind you, I agree with @McBobbin, any substance that allows you continue when otherwise you would not be able to, including inhalers, is, almost by definition, performance enhancing, in that it allows athletes to continue to perform.
PS. I cannot stand Lewis Hamilton, for all that he is a good driver, but I don't think he is that good (all F1 drivers are talented, and I accept he is, but he has never had to drive a genuinely bad car, and quite often he is in the best, but that's just my natural Irish begrudgery).
Oh, come on ...really ??!!
Don't you realize that to get to drive one of the 'elite' cars you need to an exceptional driver - its a given. Hamilton is THE best driver out there - he's proved it, time and time again. Cant believe that anyone would say 'I don't think he is that good' - i'm still chuckling now. !!
I don't think he is that good, in the sense that I do not believe that he is as good as some in the media portray.
He is certainly the most successful current driver, but a huge degree of any F1 success has to be down to the car (and all that goes in to it), including aerodynamics, engine, reliability, etc.
I'd love to see what would happen if there was a level playing field.
Not that it matters, as I don't imagine my opinion is giving him sleepless nights.
I've not even gonna bother responding.
Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso were/are also over rated
An interesting case. The thing that intrigued me is that salbutamol could be being used intravenously to increase thyroid activity to make it easier for an athlete to shed weight. Whilst there may be no direct respiratory improvement from using it pro cyclists, especially climbers, might conceivably be keen on a legal drug that might enhance their thyroid activity to help them lose weight.
In my opinion, the potential damage from this is far greater than Froome himself - Team Sky are in the crosshairs (which does happen when anyone adopts a holier than thou attitude in a competitive environment - you just have to actually be holier than thou to get away with it).
I must be unusual in that I really like Froome, but I really don't want him to be as good as he is and dominate the sport - I want cycling to have genuine competition in the grand tours, and he is too far out ahead of most of the rest. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he is proved to have done wrong.
Mind you, I agree with @McBobbin, any substance that allows you continue when otherwise you would not be able to, including inhalers, is, almost by definition, performance enhancing, in that it allows athletes to continue to perform.
PS. I cannot stand Lewis Hamilton, for all that he is a good driver, but I don't think he is that good (all F1 drivers are talented, and I accept he is, but he has never had to drive a genuinely bad car, and quite often he is in the best, but that's just my natural Irish begrudgery).
Oh, come on ...really ??!!
Don't you realize that to get to drive one of the 'elite' cars you need to an exceptional driver - its a given. Hamilton is THE best driver out there - he's proved it, time and time again. Cant believe that anyone would say 'I don't think he is that good' - i'm still chuckling now. !!
I don't think he is that good, in the sense that I do not believe that he is as good as some in the media portray.
He is certainly the most successful current driver, but a huge degree of any F1 success has to be down to the car (and all that goes in to it), including aerodynamics, engine, reliability, etc.
I'd love to see what would happen if there was a level playing field.
Not that it matters, as I don't imagine my opinion is giving him sleepless nights.
I've not even gonna bother responding.
Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso were/are also over rated
I agree,i think they were both rubbish, and that bloke Fangio, pah, I never rated him either.
In my opinion, the potential damage from this is far greater than Froome himself - Team Sky are in the crosshairs (which does happen when anyone adopts a holier than thou attitude in a competitive environment - you just have to actually be holier than thou to get away with it).
I must be unusual in that I really like Froome, but I really don't want him to be as good as he is and dominate the sport - I want cycling to have genuine competition in the grand tours, and he is too far out ahead of most of the rest. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he is proved to have done wrong.
Mind you, I agree with @McBobbin, any substance that allows you continue when otherwise you would not be able to, including inhalers, is, almost by definition, performance enhancing, in that it allows athletes to continue to perform.
PS. I cannot stand Lewis Hamilton, for all that he is a good driver, but I don't think he is that good (all F1 drivers are talented, and I accept he is, but he has never had to drive a genuinely bad car, and quite often he is in the best, but that's just my natural Irish begrudgery).
Oh, come on ...really ??!!
Don't you realize that to get to drive one of the 'elite' cars you need to an exceptional driver - its a given. Hamilton is THE best driver out there - he's proved it, time and time again. Cant believe that anyone would say 'I don't think he is that good' - i'm still chuckling now. !!
I don't think he is that good, in the sense that I do not believe that he is as good as some in the media portray.
He is certainly the most successful current driver, but a huge degree of any F1 success has to be down to the car (and all that goes in to it), including aerodynamics, engine, reliability, etc.
I'd love to see what would happen if there was a level playing field.
Not that it matters, as I don't imagine my opinion is giving him sleepless nights.
I've not even gonna bother responding.
Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso were/are also over rated
I agree, and that bloke Fangio, pah, I never rated him either.
Graham and Damon Hill? More like Benny Keith Hill.
Comments
The problem with all of this is that cycling has such a terrible record - including having a governing body who were fully invested in maintaining the illusion of a clean sport for decades - that 'grey areas' only ever lead to more questions. Add a media interested solely in scandal, and it's a recipe for disaster.
The real tragedy here is that Salbutamol as a substance isn't even on the banned list - just the level of it in your system is in question, which invariably leads to grey areas (not everyone metabolises things in the same way, was his high reading due to being physically exhausted, does the high heat he was racing in have an effect on concentration of a substance in urine etc etc)
Track cycling is much more explosive and grabs peoples attention.
That's not to take anything away from what Froome has achieved. He's just involved in a sport that is way down in the publics interest in Britain.
I've known a few, shall we say, 'dodgy' people in and around the Shooters Hill area throughout my life. They all had one thing in common.....they all held a 'tick' list.
Are you a cash or 'happy to tick' man?
Track cycling is the dullest spectator sport on Earth. The reason most people find road cycling dull is because they don't know what's involved in it. There are more nuances to road cycling than pretty much any other sport.
I think you're confusing 'people who don't really like cycling anyway' (i.e. most people!) with 'people who like cycling'. Amongst people who like cycling, I'd say about 95% of them would watch a road race over a track race. If you took the time to get to understand what's involved in a road race, you'd be pleasantly surprised
Take the viewing figures (British) for any given stage of the tour and then compare it with a major track cycling event.
So, again, people don't like something because they don't get it or are too stupid to understand it? It can't possibly be down to it just not intriguing people enough or grabbing their attention? It's not a dig at the sport, which seems to be why you've taken a degree of offence to my comment, it's just that people tend to have shorter spans of attention and track cycling feeds in to that whereas road cycling doesn't.
I think you've made a massive assumption that I haven't given road cycling any time and need to, again, understand what's involved. Why can't someone understand what's involved and still find it dull? Is that not possible? It's like saying to someone who doesn't like test cricket but enjoys T20 "if only you gave test cricket a chance and tried to understand it then you'd like it".
You said 'Amongst people who like cycling, I'd say about 95% of them would watch a road race over a track race'....and I'd say the opposite for those that aren't particularly in to cycling, and they are far greater in number (I've said that fully knowing that neither of our claims are backed up by any evidence).
I reiterate, I'm not digging the sport out. Merely vocalising, through the art of typing, my opinion
I think the viewing figures for a major tour stage would be better than for a 'major track cycling event' (unless you count the Olympics, which are a totally different kettle of fish). This is borne out by the fact that the world track cycling championships were barely even aired on terrestrial TV (due to lack of interest)
You're definitely right that 'the public' (i.e. people who don't give a toss one way or the other) are more likely to watch track cycling - but that's because the only time they'd watch it would be the Olympics, where they'd watch beach fucking volleyball if Britain had a chance of winning something
The reaction to this is very different to that of the news of the Furys yesterday. It's quite telling and I guess part of Cycling's past that people react in this way.
Or, indeed, lots of amateur competitions.
I must be unusual in that I really like Froome, but I really don't want him to be as good as he is and dominate the sport - I want cycling to have genuine competition in the grand tours, and he is too far out ahead of most of the rest. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he is proved to have done wrong.
Mind you, I agree with @McBobbin, any substance that allows you continue when otherwise you would not be able to, including inhalers, is, almost by definition, performance enhancing, in that it allows athletes to continue to perform.
PS. I cannot stand Lewis Hamilton, for all that he is a good driver, but I don't think he is that good (all F1 drivers are talented, and I accept he is, but he has never had to drive a genuinely bad car, and quite often he is in the best, but that's just my natural Irish begrudgery).
The French are creaming themselves.
http://www.msn.com/fr-fr/sport/cyclisme/cyclisme-le-quadruple-vainqueur-du-tour-de-france-chris-froome-épinglé-pour-un-contrôle-antidopage-anormal-lors-de-la-dernière-vuelta/ar-BBGFFd3?li=BBwlBpb&ocid=ientp
Oh, come on ...really ??!!
Don't you realize that to get to drive one of the 'elite' cars you need to an exceptional driver - its a given.
Hamilton is THE best driver out there - he's proved it, time and time again.
Cant believe that anyone would say 'I don't think he is that good' - i'm still chuckling now. !!
diving
nicking 10 yards at a throw
shirt pulling
feigning injury..
Hamilton is widely accepted as one of the best F1 drivers of all time.
How large a dose?
One or two puffs is not going to go anywhere beyond the lungs. Using salbutamol, to get anywhere near a performance-enhancing effect, you would need to take 16 puffs in one go, and that’s the upper limit permitted by WADA. The downside of such doses is that they may increase heart rate and cause tremors, so the potential benefits in muscle function you may lose in terms of increased heart rate. If you wanted to cheat, there would be far more effective ways.
And you are not telling me that when a footballer rips his shirt off to reveal that muscular physique he has not been on the creatine, or that box to box midfielder who is not even puffing has not been on the energy supplements.
Can't really see how salbutamol can help.....
He is certainly the most successful current driver, but a huge degree of any F1 success has to be down to the car (and all that goes in to it), including aerodynamics, engine, reliability, etc.
I'd love to see what would happen if there was a level playing field.
Not that it matters, as I don't imagine my opinion is giving him sleepless nights.