David Walsh says he has lost trust in Chris Froome due to Salbutamol case

Chris James wrote:

Paul Kimmage's column is typical:

'Given the list and nature of his ailments, it is no surprise that supplements are his friend: protein drinks and fish oils, beetroot juice and energizer greens. He has used Tramadol but only for back pain, an anti-histamine called Loratadine for an allergy to sun creams; Fluticasone, a preventative spray for asthma, and Ventolin (Salbutamol) when he's racing and about to make an effort.'

I take fluticasone as an asthma preventer too. And ventolin if necessary. That is because I am asthmatic. Kimmage seems to think that treating asthma is some sort of bizarre quackery. I would have thought that taking a preventer would be less suspcious than just using salbutamol?

Loratadine (Clarityn) is about the mildest anti-histamine going. Guess what Paul, I take the hard stuff, Piriton.

Allergies, hay fever, eczema and asthma are very commonly experienced by the same people as they are all over reactions of the immune system.

Kimmage is doesn't discriminate, common off the shelf medications are treated like EPO by him, and he even views cod liver oil and beetroot juice as suspicious.

 

You're taking it all at face value. Read between the lines.

turboprannet wrote:

Chris James wrote:

Paul Kimmage's column is typical:

'Given the list and nature of his ailments, it is no surprise that supplements are his friend: protein drinks and fish oils, beetroot juice and energizer greens. He has used Tramadol but only for back pain, an anti-histamine called Loratadine for an allergy to sun creams; Fluticasone, a preventative spray for asthma, and Ventolin (Salbutamol) when he's racing and about to make an effort.'

I take fluticasone as an asthma preventer too. And ventolin if necessary. That is because I am asthmatic. Kimmage seems to think that treating asthma is some sort of bizarre quackery. I would have thought that taking a preventer would be less suspcious than just using salbutamol?

Loratadine (Clarityn) is about the mildest anti-histamine going. Guess what Paul, I take the hard stuff, Piriton.

Allergies, hay fever, eczema and asthma are very commonly experienced by the same people as they are all over reactions of the immune system.

Kimmage is doesn't discriminate, common off the shelf medications are treated like EPO by him, and he even views cod liver oil and beetroot juice as suspicious.

 

You're taking it all at face value. Read between the lines.

Paul's been writing the same article for 20 years. Paul finds everything suspicious because he made up his mind many years ago that to be a successful cyclist involves taking drugs. His personal history obviously informs his views, but his first hand experience nowadays is about the same as the average man on the street.

WolfieSmith wrote:

It's strange that the UCI have placed a limit on a substance not on the banned list and not considered performance enhancing by them or anyone else at present. They don't limit the injestion of a proven enhancer like coffee. If my V02 max was like Froome's I'd be absorbing twice the 'legal' limit too. 

Of course they could ban Salbutamol entirely. Then we'd have potentially great athletes unable to perform at their best alongside those without asthma ( or excercise induced asthma). Meanwhile the doping circus of HGH, cortisone, and steroids continues in athletics, football, swimming and rugby un-addressed by Walsh or anyone else. Australian swimming was dealing with this very issue 4 years ago so the UCI have had time to look at the issue themselves. 

Now McQuaid is out from under his stone (blaming it all on Cookson of course) and Kimmage and McQuaid are suddenly in agreement that all the lack of evidence of cheating at Sky points to concrete cheating. Zzzzzzz.

I'm getting more bored with this story than I am of Brexit.

 

 

As mentioned earlier, or on a different thread, or the blog, but isn't Salbutamol a masking agent and possibly hiding all sorts of other naughtyness, allegedley?

don simon wrote:

As mentioned earlier, or on a different thread, or the blog, but isn't Salbutamol a masking agent and possibly hiding all sorts of other naughtyness, allegedley?

No, it has been proven not to be a masking agent quite a while ago.

Edit to add this bit from WADA's website - 

The detection in an Athlete’s Sample at all times or In-Competition, as applicable, of any quantity of the following substances subject to threshold limits: formoterol, salbutamol, cathine, ephedrine, methylephedrine and pseudoephedrine, in conjunction with a diuretic or masking agent, will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete has an approved Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for that substance in addition to the one granted for the diuretic or masking agent.

As it says the detection of Salbutamol along with a masking agent or diruetic indicates it isn't one

DaSy wrote:

don simon wrote:

As mentioned earlier, or on a different thread, or the blog, but isn't Salbutamol a masking agent and possibly hiding all sorts of other naughtyness, allegedley?

 

No, it has been proven not to be a masking agent quite a while ago.

 

Edit to add this bit from WADA's website - 

The detection in an Athlete’s Sample at all times or In-Competition, as applicable, of any quantity of the following substances subject to threshold limits: formoterol, salbutamol, cathine, ephedrine, methylephedrine and pseudoephedrine, in conjunction with a diuretic or masking agent, will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete has an approved Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for that substance in addition to the one granted for the diuretic or masking agent.

As it says the detection of Salbutamol along with a masking agent or diruetic indicates it isn't one

There you go, live and learn. Cheers.

don simon wrote:

WolfieSmith wrote:

As mentioned earlier, or on a different thread, or the blog, but isn't Salbutamol a masking agent and possibly hiding all sorts of other naughtyness, allegedley?

Apparently not.

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doe...

WolfieSmith wrote:

It's strange that the UCI have placed a limit on a substance not on the banned list and not considered performance enhancing by them or anyone else at present. They don't limit the injestion of a proven enhancer like coffee. If my V02 max was like Froome's I'd be absorbing twice the 'legal' limit too. 

Of course they could ban Salbutamol entirely. Then we'd have potentially great athletes unable to perform at their best alongside those without asthma ( or excercise induced asthma). Meanwhile the doping circus of HGH, cortisone, and steroids continues in athletics, football, swimming and rugby un-addressed by Walsh or anyone else. Australian swimming was dealing with this very issue 4 years ago so the UCI have had time to look at the issue themselves. 

Now McQuaid is out from under his stone (blaming it all on Cookson of course) and Kimmage and McQuaid are suddenly in agreement that all the lack of evidence of cheating at Sky points to concrete cheating. Zzzzzzz.

I'm getting more bored with this story than I am of Brexit.

 

 

Hilariously, Kimmage's article appears in the Irish Sunday Independent. If you use their search engine to look for the words Frankie Sheahan and ventolin, or Frankie Sheahan and salbutamol, nothing is found, despite there being dozens of articles mentioning Sheahan. For those who don't know who Frankie Sheahan is, start here - http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/15368500/sheahan-ban-reduced

WolfieSmith wrote:

It's strange that the UCI have placed a limit on a substance not on the banned list and not considered performance enhancing by them or anyone else at present. They don't limit the injestion of a proven enhancer like coffee. If my V02 max was like Froome's I'd be absorbing twice the 'legal' limit too. 

But the UCI are just invoking WADA limits, aren't they?

At that point, he was defending Froome I thought - wasnt it from the same interview when he said he trusted him?

Either way, Froome still has the opportunity to explain the test value. This isnt the same as a failed test, yet. It might well turn out to be, but the process has to run its course before we get there.

burtthebike wrote:

"The case against Chris Froome is powerful in so many ways, all it lacks is evidence."

Which pretty much sums up Walsh.  He believes the case is powerful despite the lack of evidence.  A case without evidence is not powerful, it is non-existent.  Prejudiced much?  Hard to believe that he actually said that himself and still feels so self-righteous that he can use his position to denigrate others who've done things he never could.

SteveAustin wrote:

...we all know they are all out of their tiny little minds on whatever drugs they can squirrel into their sytem...

Do you understand the difference between performance enhancing and psychoactive substances?

charliepalooza wrote:

Problem with Walsh is that he’s part of a small troupe of journalist who believe rather than telling the story, they ARE the story. Add to this Alan Green and Robert Peston on the BBC.

Walsh’s work on exposing Armstrong was in part good but his holier than thou attitude points to an ulterior motive of self aggrandisement. Maybe he just got lucky that  Armstrong was a cheat. He’d be better concentrating on the story and his writing style. 

Yeah, it's a bit like when a band does one good song but nobody really cares about anything else they did. Chumbawumba.

charliepalooza wrote:

Problem with Walsh is that he’s part of a small troupe of journalist who believe rather than telling the story, they ARE the story. Add to this Alan Green and Robert Peston on the BBC.

Walsh’s work on exposing Armstrong was in part good but his holier than thou attitude points to an ulterior motive of self aggrandisement. Maybe he just got lucky that  Armstrong was a cheat. He’d be better concentrating on the story and his writing style. 

You forgot the chief inquisitor Dan Roan, he must be on holiday, I've not seen a peep from him.

alansmurphy wrote:

That was largely armless enough, no need to get hopping mad about it...

Seriously?

john1967 wrote:

To loose trust in someone so quickly over one incident that hasnt even run its course is the kind of trust i could do with out.Im sure Froome is finding out who his true friends are very quickly.

It's not a jounalist's job to be mates with their subject matter. They're not meant to be Sky's PR team.