Yeah - this is one of the clinical studies I was referring to earlier. Obviously, the validity of a study with such a small subject body is questionable at the very least - but it certainly provides 'proof' that, if there is a performance enhancement from using Salbutamol, it's far from universal
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.
Road cycling is way more popular than track cycling. The Tour is one of the most widely watch sporting events globally. There's a huge industry built up around road cycling, with the equipment and clothing being multi billion dollar industries globally. There are many magazines dedicated to road cycling and road racing. I don't think there are any devoted to track cycling. Two to three billion people watch the Tour, globally. Track cycling gets nothing like that audience. I love track cycling and road cycling. But to say track cycling is more watched or more popular than road cycling is just plain wrong. And double wrong. Triple wrong. And yes, watching a six hour stage of the Tour can be dull, but rather like watching test cricket, the great days make up for it.
If he was Russian then he'd be a dirty drug taking scumbag but as he's British its just a mistake and unintentional.
In this case that's probably correct. Who won the road race gold in the London Olympics? A self confessed and unreformed Russian (probably state sponsored) doper that nobody likes.
Salbutamol isn't on the banned list because it isn't performance enhancing. Unless you've got bad asthma, in which case it merely gets you back to normal.
A good read... Sadly the worst bit is the fact there could be many cases like this that lead to nothing yet because they're not high cases we wont know about them
Because of that the whole incident could be a harmless investigation conducted by the UCI who find nothing wrong and let Froome go as per other situations - As the public and media arent made aware (they rightly shouldnt because these are innocent people and is no different to how an accused rapist gets named before trial rather only if guilty) they'll instantly think that something suspect is going on and that Froome has only been cleared because of his name.
What I find a joke is you go on Social Media and people are demanding that he be honest about the whole situation yet are failing to realise that he could be being honest right at this moment in time
As someone who knows little to nothing about the issue this was an enlightening read - thank you @Leroy Ambrose .
What I don't understand is the asthma issue. I thought that when asthma flared up the last thing you would do is anything physical until the episode had passed. I realise it's a chronic condition and that people with it can be fit and active - but athletes at that high level?
As someone who knows little to nothing about the issue this was an enlightening read - thank you @Leroy Ambrose .
What I don't understand is the asthma issue. I thought that when asthma flared up the last thing you would do is anything physical until the episode had passed. I realise it's a chronic condition and that people with it can be fit and active - but athletes at that high level?
It's a weird one, asthma. I race at a reasonable amateur level, and some of the guys I race against have Ventolin/Salbutamol inhalers. Generally they're not used in the kind of races I do as there aren't any savage hills - but occasionally I'll see one of them have a puff in the middle of a road race. There are some theories that say the comparative prevalence of asthma in elite athletes (not choppers like me) indicates there may be a correlation between that and a high VO2 Max (the efficiency with which you can metabolise oxygen, enabling you to push yourself harder and further than others). Can't find the study to cite the evidence properly, but it looked only at athletes who had childhood asthma (ie deliberately excluding those who were 'diagnosed' with adult asthma) so as not to potentially skew the results with people who were attempting to exploit the system by getting a diagnosis that allowed them to take potentially performance-enhancing substances. Whilst there was no physiological testing done, there was indeed a higher incidence of asthma amongst athletes than the general population.
Point of order here as well - Chris Froome has not 'failed a drug test'. The public aren't aware of this, and may consider it a subtle difference - but in reality it is absolutely paramount to the case. Salbutamol is NOT a banned substance. An incidence higher than a certain level in an athlete's system requires the rider and his medical team to issue a response to questions. This will play out dozens of times a year in cycling - the majority of them are explained away as metabolic issues due to dehydration or similar. What's happened here is that, once again, the media have been tipped off regarding a British rider before due process has taken place (Wiggins, Armitstead, Yates etc) in order to sensationalise a story which has absolutely nothing in common with the doping scandals of the 90s and 2000s. As a result, Froome will now be tried in the kangaroo court of public opinion, vilified on social media and have his career in ruins for what probably amounts to nothing more than using his inhaler too often
Thanks to Leroy for being more informative on this subject than anyone else on here and most of the media. We will no doubt have to suffer a lot more sensationalism and factually incorrect statements in the media for months to come.
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.
It always surprises me how the best drivers seem to find themselves in the best cars!
Just like KP is referred to as "South African born Kevin Pieterson" whenever something dodgy comes up, I guess Froome will forever be known as "Kenyan born and raised Chris Froome"
Cycling is a weird one in terms of liking or disliking as a sport I think.
I’ve never been into cycling as an activity (as an adult) and find pretty much all types of cycling as boring as hell (up there with horse racing for me) - although I appreciate the skill and athleticism.
I have a few of mates who totally eulogise about it as a sport - but are themselves keen cyclists.
Do you think that you need to be a cyclist in order to really enjoy it as a sport?
Same as Andy Murray is the British hope until he's knocked out then he becomes Scottish.
Except he isn't and that's just something made up by Scots with chips on their shoulders which has been repeated so many times that people think it's true.
Just like KP is referred to as "South African born Kevin Pieterson" whenever something dodgy comes up, I guess Froome will forever be known as "Kenyan born and raised Chris Froome"
There's also a flip side to these "not really British" claims. Froome's ancestors are British, both his parent's are British, they moved to kenya just before he was born and he's always held duel nationality. But of course because he's successful and chosen to represent Britain you get lots of people saying he's not really British. Yet the great current cyclist Dan Martin, English Dad, Irish Mum, born in England and grew up in England and never lived properly in Ireland. Has chosen to represent Ireland yet when he had an excellent TDF including winning a stage no-one ever goes "oh well he's not really Irish". There's a huge anti English/British thing when it comes to complaining about peoples origins.
Cycling is a weird one in terms of liking or disliking as a sport I think.
I’ve never been into cycling as an activity (as an adult) and find pretty much all types of cycling as boring as hell (up there with horse racing for me) - although I appreciate the skill and athleticism.
I have a few of mates who totally eulogise about it as a sport - but are themselves keen cyclists.
Do you think that you need to be a cyclist in order to really enjoy it as a sport?
I think actually being a cyclist helps, yes - in a way that playing football doesn't make you more of a football fan. I've always liked cycling - loved the highlights of the classics (the tiny amount we used to get, anyway) and always tried to follow it as best I could on telly, bought the Geekly etc. But I certainly started enjoying it 'more' when I started riding more
I think participating in a sport definitely increases your appreciation of it. I cycle and ski, although not to a high standard. But it does give you a better appreciation of how hard it really is.
Just read the BBC Sport article and it doesn’t look good. Seems that Team Sky find themselves in a position that is completely indefensible to the allegations.
It's a disaster for cycling really. After all the years of drug issues, Team Sky were set up promising the moral high ground, and sadly it seem to be same old, same old...
Ive read and seen enough about him over the years and must say if there is/was any sort of a technically legal edge to be gained,Ethical or non ethical,then Dave Brailsford would most definitely take advantage all day long.
Comments
Two to three billion people watch the Tour, globally. Track cycling gets nothing like that audience.
I love track cycling and road cycling. But to say track cycling is more watched or more popular than road cycling is just plain wrong. And double wrong.
Triple wrong.
And yes, watching a six hour stage of the Tour can be dull, but rather like watching test cricket, the great days make up for it.
Salbutamol isn't on the banned list because it isn't performance enhancing. Unless you've got bad asthma, in which case it merely gets you back to normal.
http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/
Because of that the whole incident could be a harmless investigation conducted by the UCI who find nothing wrong and let Froome go as per other situations - As the public and media arent made aware (they rightly shouldnt because these are innocent people and is no different to how an accused rapist gets named before trial rather only if guilty) they'll instantly think that something suspect is going on and that Froome has only been cleared because of his name.
What I find a joke is you go on Social Media and people are demanding that he be honest about the whole situation yet are failing to realise that he could be being honest right at this moment in time
What I don't understand is the asthma issue. I thought that when asthma flared up the last thing you would do is anything physical until the episode had passed. I realise it's a chronic condition and that people with it can be fit and active - but athletes at that high level?
Point of order here as well - Chris Froome has not 'failed a drug test'. The public aren't aware of this, and may consider it a subtle difference - but in reality it is absolutely paramount to the case. Salbutamol is NOT a banned substance. An incidence higher than a certain level in an athlete's system requires the rider and his medical team to issue a response to questions. This will play out dozens of times a year in cycling - the majority of them are explained away as metabolic issues due to dehydration or similar. What's happened here is that, once again, the media have been tipped off regarding a British rider before due process has taken place (Wiggins, Armitstead, Yates etc) in order to sensationalise a story which has absolutely nothing in common with the doping scandals of the 90s and 2000s. As a result, Froome will now be tried in the kangaroo court of public opinion, vilified on social media and have his career in ruins for what probably amounts to nothing more than using his inhaler too often
I’ve never been into cycling as an activity (as an adult) and find pretty much all types of cycling as boring as hell (up there with horse racing for me) - although I appreciate the skill and athleticism.
I have a few of mates who totally eulogise about it as a sport - but are themselves keen cyclists.
Do you think that you need to be a cyclist in order to really enjoy it as a sport?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42395393
Wiggins called out as a cheat by that pillar of the community Piers Morgan live on GMB and challenged him to sue him.