Is my hero a druggie?

As most know I like my cycling and I guess it comes as no surprise to most when another cyclist fails a dope test - well today it was the turn of Chris Frome - the best cyclist in the world and a big champion of the sport being drug free!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42345354

In simple terms one of Froome's test as come back as 'outside the permitted norm' - not exactly a drug fail but which could well lead to a ban (not a major ban though).

Froome is a well known asthmatic and the test in question shows that he had twice as much of the 'normal' asthmatic drug in him.

Froome claims he only took the permitted maximum amount of the drug that day of his 'failed test' and there were no other failures for the rest of the three week race, even though he was tested every day of them.

The drug itself doesn't appear to aid performance and is even permissible up to a certain amount.

There is a line of thinking Froome may have been dehydrated and had an effected on the reading pushing him well over the limit (double in fact).

Although checking back it doesn't appear that he suffered unduly on the day BUT he had a particularly bad day the day before!

Hard for me to imagine Froome doing anything stupid - he was leading one of the biggest races of the year at the time and was obviously going to be dope checked that day (and every other day) but equally it is hard to understand why a normal and common drug should be found in his sample well above what should have been there.

The French public regularly accuse Froome of doping - but they are biased.

Saying that though they said that about Armstrong and everybody laughed at them - but the were right!

My guess is that Froome will receive a ban, be stripped of the Vuelta that he won but be back for the Tour de France.

Hope he proves his innocence but I think the French will want blood.

As I've said many times before - I love cycling, it's pure theatre - you just never know what is round the next corner in this sport!

I wouldn't have thought Salbutamol would be classed as performance enhancing, it does open up the airways enabling you to breathe better but other than that i can't see how it would raise his performances?

Norpig wrote:I wouldn't have thought Salbutamol would be classed as performance enhancing, it does open up the airways enabling you to breathe better but other than that i can't see how it would raise his performances?

Me neither. It was legally prescribed to him by a doctor. My understanding is that he tested for more than the required dosage he should have had in his system.

It's not a performance 'enhancer' but a performance 'enabler' - it doesn't make him any better at cycling but it allows him to 'breath' normally and such perform to his natural ability.

The maximum allowed in a cyclist urine is 1000 nanograms per millilitre - Froome's reading was 2000.

People have been banned for less.

The next step is Froome to do a trial under similar circumstances to see if his body can produce a similar result again - nobody as achieved that when similar trials were set up for them.

To me it seems that something has gone badly wrong at Sky, maybe they give him twice the dosages by mistake our got their timings wrong between dosages or something like that.  I don't for a second think it was a deliberate attempt to cheat.

The background to the failed test was that on the day before it Froome looked in bad trouble at the very end of the stage when having to sprint up a massive gradient at the top of a mountain - he lost a chunk of time to his rivals.

The next day on another very tough stage he was able to be back to his best and took the time he lost back.

Two very hard days back to back - maybe Froome saved a little bit for the second day and his rivals tried to bury him on the first day and had nothing in the bank for the second?

Or Froome simply had breathing troubles at the end of the first stage - and may have won if he hadn't - and the extra dosage on the second day was intended to see him through to the end without a repeat of the first?

Already some of his rivals are putting the boot in, which seems to be the traditional continental way against English speaking rivals dating back to when they first became a threat to winning back in the Greg LeMond days.

I think myself that someone fucked up on Sky, Froome was allowed a too big a dosage and the result will be a ban for the infringement (meaning he loses the Vuelta) which will end in time for the Tour de France.

The last bloke who was in the same position as Froome got a 9 month ban.

Froome's failed test was on the 7th Sept and the Tour starts on 7th July - so it fits nicely to satisfy everybody I would think.

This is complete nonsense imo. It's not enhancing his performance at all, it's allowing him to compete at the same level as everyone else. Asthma is an illness which requires medication, medication that puts him back on a level playing field with the other competitors. If you are competing in sport at such a high level, it stands to reason that you would need a bigger dosage than your average bloke sat on his arse at home watching Eastenders.

The fine line between medication and drug abuse in sports is so open to interpretation surely the only way to get a level playing field is to ban drug testing.
That way, athletes can take whatever they want to perform better - at their own risk - and it would be a truly level playing field.

It's the rules though - nobody else failed them at any other races for the last three years - and he didn't 'just' fail, he failed by 100% of the limit.

If anybody is interested - and it really is very good and easy listening - there is a BBC 30 minute podcast on all of this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05r0kvw

wanderlust wrote:The fine line between medication and drug abuse in sports is so open to interpretation surely the only way to get a level playing field is to ban drug testing.
That way, athletes can take whatever they want to perform better - at their own risk - and it would be a truly level playing field.

That's just childish, immature thinking.

There's a massive difference between performance ENHANCING drugs and performance ENABLING drugs for a start.

Also and much more importantly there is a responsibility from all sporting bodies to protect the HEALTH and SAFETY of those competing under their jurisdiction. Nobody in their right minds would allow uncontrolled drug taking under their responsibility.

They would quickly be sued out of existence if they did!

Luis Ortiz the boxer got banned for taking blood pressure meds the doc prescribed, Arseholes.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:The fine line between medication and drug abuse in sports is so open to interpretation surely the only way to get a level playing field is to ban drug testing.
That way, athletes can take whatever they want to perform better - at their own risk - and it would be a truly level playing field.

That's just childish, immature thinking.

There's a massive difference between performance ENHANCING drugs and performance ENABLING drugs for a start.

Also and much more importantly there is a responsibility from all sporting bodies to protect the HEALTH and SAFETY of those competing under their jurisdiction.  Nobody in their right minds would allow uncontrolled drug taking under their responsibility.

They would quickly be sued out of existence if they did!

The duty of care elements could easily be displaced by disclaimers to remove any possibility of legal challenge and to my mind that would make things far clearer, especially as athletes already take it upon themselves to maximise their performance through means both currently legal and illegal regardless of the rules imposed. After all where does the governing bodies' duty of care end? If a cyclist comes off his bike, crashes into a tree and dies is that the sporting bodies fault? Or if a javelin thrower skewers an 800 metre runner? No it isn't because the athletes choose to take "acceptable risks" e.g. a boxer choosing to get punched in the head  and exactly the same principle could be applied to drug taking and medication. More importantly, I strongly dislike the "nanny state" approach adopted by sporting bodies as they are unable to ascertain the tolerances of any individual which is exactly why current legislation is complex, expensive, biased and deeply flawed to the extent that it is unworkable. Seems to me that the whole business of antidrug legislation and monitoring is little more than the creation of jobs for the boys when no job is required and the individuals concerned should have the individual right to choose for themselves what they take. Unlikely to be worse for them than agreeing to get punched in the head n'est pas? Or should boxing be made into a non-contact sport too? Legislation should confine itself to agreeing a standard of rules e.g. allowable equipment, distance to be travelled etc because the minute they start to interfere with regulating body chemistry they will, and have become unstuck as it's far more complex than they understand or could possibly regulate fairly.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:The fine line between medication and drug abuse in sports is so open to interpretation surely the only way to get a level playing field is to ban drug testing.
That way, athletes can take whatever they want to perform better - at their own risk - and it would be a truly level playing field.

That's just childish, immature thinking.

There's a massive difference between performance ENHANCING drugs and performance ENABLING drugs for a start.

Also and much more importantly there is a responsibility from all sporting bodies to protect the HEALTH and SAFETY of those competing under their jurisdiction.  Nobody in their right minds would allow uncontrolled drug taking under their responsibility.

They would quickly be sued out of existence if they did!

The duty of care elements could easily be displaced by disclaimers to remove any possibility of legal challenge and to my mind that would make things far clearer, especially as athletes already take it upon themselves to maximise their performance through means both currently legal and illegal regardless of the rules imposed. After all where does the governing bodies' duty of care end? If a cyclist comes off his bike, crashes into a tree and dies is that the sporting bodies fault? Or if a javelin thrower skewers an 800 metre runner? No it isn't because the athletes choose to take "acceptable risks" e.g. a boxer choosing to get punched in the head  and exactly the same principle could be applied to drug taking and medication. More importantly, I strongly dislike the "nanny state" approach adopted by sporting bodies as they are unable to ascertain the tolerances of any individual which is exactly why current legislation is complex, expensive, biased and deeply flawed to the extent that it is unworkable. Seems to me that the whole business of antidrug legislation and monitoring is little more than the creation of jobs for the boys when no job is required and the individuals concerned should have the individual right to choose for themselves what they take. Unlikely to be worse for them than agreeing to get punched in the head n'est pas? Or should boxing be made into a non-contact sport too? Legislation should confine itself to agreeing a standard of rules e.g. allowable equipment, distance to be travelled etc because the minute they start to interfere with regulating body chemistry they will, and have become unstuck as it's far more complex than they understand or could possibly regulate fairly.

No, you're incorrect from your opening sentence.

No contract is enforceable if it goes against public policy - ie Health and Safety.

So even though the body and the athlete may agree a disclaimer the courts would not enforce it - so say an athlete dies whilst taking drugs to make him better at that sport, there is nothing stopping his next of kin suing the sports body for damages.

I guess this is the very reason why there is a limit on the drug found in Froome's urine (and similar other types of drugs).  It is well known the drug is harmless so why have a limit to how much the cyclist can take?  Presumably to cover themselves from some idiot taking say a billion times the limit just to see whether it might give them
some sort of an edge on everyone else - and potentially harming themselves in the process.