Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

If you read some of the pro cycling forums/comments sections there's often people arguing that Salbutamol from an inhaler isn't performance enhancing. This is sued to assert that Froome taking Salbutamol (even in large doses) doesn't help his performance. However, WADA says that's not correct.

‘We have an upper limit because we have multiple publications showing that systemic use of beta-2 agonists, including salbutamol, can be performance enhancing,’ Rabin explains.

‘Systemic use’ usually means injection or ingestion of a pill – a form that delivers it directly into the gastrointestinal tract or blood system, rather than inhalation. However, inhalation can also result in ingestion.

‘When people inhale salbutamol a fraction is going to go into the lungs but a significant fraction is also going to go to the gastrointenstinal tract [it is swallowed], which would be similar to an oral intake,’ Rabin explains. ‘So the minute you really significantly increase the inhaled dose of a salbutamol a good fraction of it is going to end up being a systemic route.

I also noted what Dr Rabin said towards the end of May about the Salbutamol limit, versus a month later.

‘We have some of the leading experts in respiratory physiology and pharmacology working with us,’ Rabin says. ‘So we are very confident that what is established today is adequate.’

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salb ... -says-wada

Regarding my previous post, even Froome falsely claims there is no performance benefit from inhaled Salbutamol.

https://www.teamsky.com/article/chris-f ... n-le-monde

The Froome issue is just the tip of the iceberg. TUEs in sport are supposed to be exceptions - but they are so widespread now thay are effectively standard practice. If Froome's asthma condition is caused by maxing out his lungs 's aerobic ability in intensive training and he needs the drug for this - it clearly imples his natural physical limit was reached so giving him medical aid to push past it is effectively performance enhancement. Doping with a doctor's note is still cheating. TUEs need reining in, much more rigorous thresholds need to be structured to allow an athlete to be given one.

CrankNFurter wrote:If Froome's asthma condition...

To be clear, the concentration Froome tested at is reached when you inject or swallow salbutamol. Inhaled salbutamol is permitted for asthma treatment - especially if you actually have asthma - but you don't get readings like his from an inhaler unless you eat it.

biker jk wrote:Regarding my previous post, even Froome falsely claims there is no performance benefit from inhaled Salbutamol.

https://www.teamsky.com/article/chris-f ... n-le-monde

Wow...that sites just one big Sky did nothing wrong page

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

biker jk wrote:

Alex Simmons/RST wrote: Consistent in regard to what's considered integral part of clothing and what's not. e.g. stick on aero trip strips you can place on your lower leg, or additional items which change the form/shape of the suit for aero purposes are not permitted but strategically placed seams are OK, since a seam is a normal feature of cycle clothing.

Article 1.3.033 applies, see it here along with an explanation guide for interpretation:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rule ... nglish.pdf

A seam is a normal feature but dimples are non-essential, so I'm at loss as to why the Sky aerodynamic aids were permitted.

i. The nature of the fabric was presented to the UCI technical committee and deemed OK since it conforms to the shape of the body. That is within the very same rules I posted a link to.

ii. Sky were not the first or only team or riders to use such suits. Singling out Sky on this point is a logical fallacy. They are simply following what other smarter people had already been doing. Keep in mind amateurs are well ahead of pro teams when it comes to development and use of such items.

Sky have dropped the dimples. As I suspected, they were breaking the rules.

"It's an all-new skinsuit: the pimples are out and smooth is in. We showed it to the UCI last Wednesday and there was absolutely no problem with it. Indeed, they were happy we had a different skinsuit and appreciated us respecting the spirit of the rules.

The new UCI Equipment Manager Jean-Christophe Péraud intends to finally amend and clarify the UCI technical rules by the end of the season and make it more difficult for teams and brands to take advantage of loopholes via different interpretations.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sk ... -tour-ttt/

biker jk wrote:... and appreciated us respecting the spirit of the rules

Is that a sly Team Sky jab at itself... now it is respecting the spirit of the rules but before...

You have to ask are there any other ways they are not respecting the spirit of the rules.

Team Sly indeed!

biker jk wrote:

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

biker jk wrote:
A seam is a normal feature but dimples are non-essential, so I'm at loss as to why the Sky aerodynamic aids were permitted.

i. The nature of the fabric was presented to the UCI technical committee and deemed OK since it conforms to the shape of the body. That is within the very same rules I posted a link to.

ii. Sky were not the first or only team or riders to use such suits. Singling out Sky on this point is a logical fallacy. They are simply following what other smarter people had already been doing. Keep in mind amateurs are well ahead of pro teams when it comes to development and use of such items.

Sky have dropped the dimples. As I suspected, they were breaking the rules.

"It's an all-new skinsuit: the pimples are out and smooth is in. We showed it to the UCI last Wednesday and there was absolutely no problem with it. Indeed, they were happy we had a different skinsuit and appreciated us respecting the spirit of the rules.

The new UCI Equipment Manager Jean-Christophe Péraud intends to finally amend and clarify the UCI technical rules by the end of the season and make it more difficult for teams and brands to take advantage of loopholes via different interpretations.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sk ... -tour-ttt/

The way I read that quote is he was happy they respected the rules by presenting the change to the UCI technical committee in advance, not that they thought their previous suits were not permitted. The previous suits were also permitted since the UCI tech commission approved them when they were presented last time.

BTW - Movistar also used same last year and their suits this year have dimples. Here's their TTT suit from overnight:

biker jk wrote:Sky have dropped the dimples. As I suspected, they were breaking the rules.

WOW ! I knew you were influential but didn't realise just how much. Can you use your influence so that Sky don't present riders suspected of doping

This is the detailed WADA response. Again discrepencies and missing Froome data and explanation.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... her-froome

UCI said it was a WADA decision and WADA says it was a UCI decision. Sounds like they are embarrassed to take ownership.

Great article by Shane Stokes.

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/analysi ... -decision/

My understanding is that the "scientific evidence" to let off Froome was based on his reported Salbutamol doses versus actual measured Salbutamol in urine and so has no credibility whatsoever. This is no substitute for a pharmacokinetic study.

I almost read the article, and in the end couldn’t be bothered as the whole thing is a group of people (and I use that definition with a sense of irony ...), including Sky, Brailsford, Froome, UCI, WADA, etc digging such a big hole that soon it will be a mine that will actually yield something useful.

At the end of the day, as disappointed and disillusioned with the whole saga as I am, I’ve decided I’ve got better things to think about as it seems that no one will provide a satisfactory basic understanding that works.

Meh.

Well, I am doing an almost bycott and am forcing myself not to watch any TV coverage and til now have suceeded. But I still read a daily wrap from a respected media outlet... but that’s all.

Never saw the news of the ASO retracting their ban on Froome... I get it that Team Sky are too big to fight, but we still don’t have the ‘convincing’ evidence Froome delivered, instead UCI and WADA who can’t agree with oneanother but say that they can be trusted.

I went for a nice evening ride and enjoyed it far more than watching the question mark. So many honest and talented riders mixed up in the cloud.

MichaelB wrote: ...), including Sky, Brailsford, Froome, UCI, WADA, etc digging such a big hole that soon it will be a mine that will actually yield something useful.

Sometimes a mine is just a hole.

trailgumby wrote:

MichaelB wrote: ...), including Sky, Brailsford, Froome, UCI, WADA, etc digging such a big hole that soon it will be a mine that will actually yield something useful.

Sometimes a mine is just a hole.

Nah, I reckon they’ll get something (even if it’s fodder for the press) as it’s a hole that’s looking more like an open cut mine....

Good to see that cycling is catching the big fish.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/burgos- ... h-hormone/

Wiggins has once again showed his lack of class and understanding of the whole Sky affair with this astute observation

“we could have handled it better”

Apparantly there is info we don’t know (says Wiggins) that will completely change how it is viewed.

Ok... let’s have it then or is the Sky secrecy and wheeling and dealing again going to cloud the water?

Commentary in cycling tips: Froome should pull

Caley Fretz wrote: But that’s not why Froome should pull. Froome should pull because pulling is deference. Pulling is humility. Not empty words, but humble action. All of Sky’s controversies, all of its stupid and duplicitous and downright insulting reactions to those controversies, can be traced back to a lack of humility.

When the race splits up on Wednesday and it’s just the two of them against the world, Froome should put his head down and do the work. Pull for the yellow jersey. Honor it. Honor his friend, since he says they’re friends; prove that his desire for a team victory is not empty. Learn from Poulidor. Be humble. Come in second.

Several Australian cyclists issued bans. Haven't heard of any of them though. Hard to believe the pro peloton is clean when low level riders are doping.

https://www.asada.gov.au/sanctions

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/austral ... -offences/

On the Australian doping case, a theme in the cyclingtips coverage is that the rider was hospital ridden and should have (but didn’t) deregister. The suggestion is that there was no active competitive cycling / abuse.

AUbicycles wrote:On the Australian doping case, a theme in the cyclingtips coverage is that the rider was hospital ridden and should have (but didn’t) deregister. The suggestion is that there was no active competitive cycling / abuse.

Either way, there is a great deal of either “I think I can get away with it” or a great deal of lack of common sense.

I partly read the article and wasn’t really impressed either way.

As an athlete, this has to understood as preventing others cheating. There is too much of the 'reputation' aspect which is preventing riders from talking about it or sharing what they know. Even when a person is outed, they generally are still protecting others and keeping the system of cheating alive.

As an athlete who wants to compete fairly against honest competition - anti-doping and doping prevention should be embraced, encouraged and promoted so that it looks really bad for those who do it. Tainted riders are tolerated, welcomes and even celebrated but that is not the right approach... it is not shameful enough.

The shame and fault can't be downplayed because a cheating bike rider - who is a professional bike rider is stealing the livelihood from others. It is like a tradie who steals from others... why protect a person like that or a system that accepts this behaviour.

In practice - for riders in doubt - be proactive by being public. If there is doubt, get it checked out and get it on record. An extreme is to publicly document variations - for example if an athlete takes a headache tablet and feel there is no doping risk - then document and publicise it so that the world can see what is happening at the time and can see that as an athlete all information available suggests that you can proceed. If there is any doubt, this will come up before the competition or during competition and not with secret processes.

--

The Tour de France was a downer this year because of the Froome scandal... the documentation that he and the team submitted has not been publicised and Froome / Team Sky has to approve the publication. This means that officially the media and fans have to take the word of two organisations... the cash strapped WADA and the tainted UCI (who also take their differences into public) and the word of a tainted team but the 'convincing justification' remains elusive.

Viewer numbers were down so all of the professionals involved from event and team organisation to media along with the volunteers and all the honest riders are impacted. It can be as simple as a trend where an advertiser or sponsor wants higher numbers... and if the numbers are not their, they back off.


In summary - these affairs show that too little is being done to serious tackle and improve doping and there is too little interest from the riders themself. The riders need to be more verbal and more proactive to help change it so that doping is no longer accepted or tolerated. For riders and teams that hate the questions and are tired... the questions are there for a reason and it is in the best interest of each honest team and rider to push for cleaner competition.

This is gold!

trailgumby wrote:This is gold! :

But it’s all TRUE !!

My lawyer just told me to believe it and not laugh !!!