Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[Buddfox]

Problem is, even it’s a cock-up, in 2017 that will get you banned. If that does happen, it’s yet more warning to teams to be mighty careful with the legit meds.

 

[mjr]

And so he jeopardises a golden boy reputation, a great career, not to mention £4 million a year salary (and got knows what in endorsements) to avoid being seen using an inhaler of the sort GPs routinely prescribe to asthmatics? When the world already knows he's an asthmatic? This makes sense to you?

As someone who's been stared at for using an inhaler in the past and someone who remembers past scepticism of Froome partly for using an inhaler, yes, it makes sense to me. Froome says he's not ashamed of being asthmatic but I bet Team Sky's media managers didn't love fielding the questions about him being seen using the inhaler. Maybe whoever the media and sporting sides both report to (DaveB?) asked if there was anything they could do to make it less visible.

ETA: http://www.velonews.com/2014/06/new...him-to-use-inhaler-to-treat-his-asthma_331334 references the 2014 Dauphiné media storm after he was shown on TV using it while the Sky train were on the front.

Froome interview being broadcast on BBC News today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42345354

BBC BeSpoke podcast about it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05r0kvw

 

[NickNick]

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.

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?

Whilst it isn't much of a PED and wouldn't be worth risking a high dose of for those purposes, it has been reported to be usable as a masking agent. If this wasn't just an innocent mistake, that could explain things.

 

[hoopdriver]

Nope. The masking agent rumour is a furphy. Not true. It ain't.

 

[NickNick]

What are the chances of Froome and Sky Management deciding to take a chance and dose up on salbutamol? Virtually nil

What are the chances of Sky Management screwing up somewhere in the management of the dosages (particularly as this drug can be administered as a pill and via a ventilator)? Not virtually nil

What are the chances of Froome having some strange physiological quirk that produces a very adverse finding via standard dosages that Sky were not aware of with all their testing? Hmmm.......dunno, but feels very small

As you said, Occam's Razor

You need a TUE for the pill form, Occam's Razor isn't particularly helpful in analysing anything to do with the real world imo.

 

[hoopdriver]

You need a TUE for the pill form, Occam's Razor isn't particularly helpful in analysing anything to do with the real world imo.

Spoken like a true conspiracist - forget the simple explanation, go for something exotic...

 

[NickNick]

Spoken like a true conspiracist - forget the simple explanation, go for something exotic...

If you say so. Personally think both conspiracy theories and occam's razor are generally a complete waste of time. The real world isn't back&white, its highly nuanced.

 

[hoopdriver]

Of course it’s nuanced. But when one comes down to brass tacks, it is usually the simplest, least dramatic and most boring explanation or solution that proves to be the correct one.

 

[nickyboy]

If you say so. Personally think both conspiracy theories and occam's razor are generally a complete waste of time. The real world isn't back&white, its highly nuanced.

Of course it's nuanced. But there aren't that many possible explanations are there?

1) Screw up in the testing system gives false result
2) Screw up in the administering system results in overadministering
3) Some weird physiological quirk, not spotted by Sky
4) Sky taking massive gamble in overadministering
5) Conspiracy to get Froome out of cycling

You can assign probabilities to these. Of course it can be a combination of the above. Most failed tests seem to be (2) or (4), but intentional overadministering when you know he's going to be tested sounds very unlikely. So, for now, I'm going with (2)

 

[Crackle]

Of course it's nuanced. But there aren't that many possible explanations are there?

1) Screw up in the testing system gives false result
2) Screw up in the administering system results in overadministering
3) Some weird physiological quirk, not spotted by Sky
4) Sky taking massive gamble in overadministering
5) Conspiracy to get Froome out of cycling

You can assign probabilities to these. Of course it can be a combination of the above. Most failed tests seem to be (2) or (4), but intentional overadministering when you know he's going to be tested sounds very unlikely. So, for now, I'm going with (2)

Astonishingly, you've missed out deliberate cheating by rider! which is slightly different to 4.

 

[nickyboy]

Astonishingly, you've missed out deliberate cheating by rider! which is slightly different to 4.

I kinda assumed that he couldn't overadminister without the Sky entourage as it has a v short half life. But yes, you're right. Add that to the list.

I still fancy (2) though

 

[smutchin]

I'm simply saying there is nothing about Froome that would suggest of that sort of reckless compulsion

Close personal friend of yours, is he?

 

[hoopdriver]

Close personal friend of yours, is he?

No. Neither is Donald Trump. Yet I don’t need to be his golfing buddy to see that the American President is a compulsive clown of the first order.

Froome is clearly not reckless or compulsive. On the contrary he comes across as quite calculating, cool, shrewd.

 

[Doseone]

Lukas Knofler has done a REALLY good thread on Twitter about this - evidence backed research about the UCI's position on this in relation to Salbutamol offences. It's not an easy read and is quite complex, but worth sticking with it.

He has written 36 tweets on it, you need to scroll down to the first one.

https://twitter.com/lukascph?lang=en

 

[hoopdriver]

I tend to agree.

Probably .... He took over the therapeutic dose, he's bang to rights, give him a ban, forget the pharmacokinetic defence as it won't work. Use the cockup explanation as mitigation, so only a small ban.


Put me in charge, it will save a lot of time.

Done. You’re in charge!