4-time Tour de France Winner Chris Froome Fails Drug Test

[Dakine]

And we haven't even talked about all the strange molecules available on the dark net from god knows where that haven't even been named and are not analyzed.
Some are delicious, some are lethal and as LKLA says...these guys are willing to risk it all for a win.
Tor is not your friend but it sure can be interesting.

 

[LKLA]

The fact is that their usage was legal and approved. Froome's level of his legal medicine was beyond approved levels but his case is not settled. Other riders have gotten minor to no bans for the same situation. I'll let the people intimately familiar with the case decide.
Froome's level was much higher than the allowed level. End of story. Guilty. He is responsible for what goes in his body. If you don't understand that then I am sorry. We are talking about very experienced professionals making millions of dollars being watched over by a team of people on everything they do through out the day. Athletes often loose or get disqualified for much, much less and for things that are out of their control.

Wiggins use may have been unethical but he had a legitimate TUE. Don't approve future TUEs but his past use was within the rules.
Wiggins tested positive for a banned substance. End of story. Not sure what is so hard to understand here. It does matter if it was cocaine, caffeine or testosterone. It was banned. Are we now going to argue how cocaine has medicinal properties so it's ok for athlete to us, or how athletes should be able to use marijuana or morphine since they have legit medicinal uses?

These are good common (in Froome's case) medicines. Useful for the health of the athletes.
At this point you should stop wasting your time and everyone else's time on this thread because this is NOT about the usefulness of the medicines in a clinical situation. Not sure how many times this must be stated. The intent and spirit of this thread is about the improper use drugs by athletes, Froome and Wiggins in particular. It is about doping in cycling in particular, not about doping in water skiing. It is about men who are in extremely good health and in their 30s, not about folks with life long ailments in their 60s.

If you want to engage in constructive conversation by all means do so. If you have facts and experience to back up your statements by all means do so. Otherwise your rhetoric is getting to the point of being insulting.

 

[Dakine]

Like LKLA said.
Save the juice for us old folks that need it.

 

[Eleeski]

While I am a cycling spectator, I also am in the WADA system. So I understand firsthand the balance between clinical need and a desire to compete. Sorry if the real life experience is insulting to you.

Wiggins had an allergy attack. A TUE was granted. Doctors may disagree on whether the drug was best but the relevant UCI doctors approved it. His use was approved and legal. "End of story."

Froome has asthma. Drugs are appropriate. "End of story." Until his urine sample was too high. The relevant doctors and officials are reviewing that and will make a judgement. Not spectators. Not other athletes. After their judgement we will have the end of this part of Froome's story.

These drugs aren't cocaine, amphetamines, heroin or anabolic steroids (all proven PEDs and no TUEs approved - and all very dangerous to the athlete). These are needed medicines with minor helpful side effects at little risk to the athlete. Nobody will die from these. Why the indignation?

@Primoz noted that the medical savvy of a team Sky confers an advantage. Absolutely agree - it was really hard to go through the TUE process with my civilian doctors. And there was no cherry picking of medicines like what Sky did. But we need TUEs for the health of athletes. And even 30 year olds who are pushing that hard will not always (never?) be healthy.

Like LKLA said.
Save the juice for us old folks that need it.

I made the Open division in my 50s. I am the current over 35 division National champion in my 60s. I'm a contender in my World age division. I have been and likely will be tested. I need the juice. Policies on medicines are relevant to me.

If Froome had a team of bike designers that gave him a 1% advantage, is that cheating? If Froome had a team of physical therapists that trained him to an extra 20 watts, would that be cheating? Are doctors that use medicines (sometimes with TUEs) to keep him in the best possible health that different? As long as the athlete is healthy, I don't get the problem.

Eric

 

[Primoz]

Froome has asthma. Drugs are appropriate. "End of story." Until his urine sample was too high. The relevant doctors and officials are reviewing that and will make a judgement. Not spectators. Not other athletes. After their judgement we will have the end of this part of Froome's story.

That's one thing that's not exactly like this. Normal way is, you test positive, you are out of competition. In case if you prove test was wrong, or whatever other reason it was, you are again allowed to race. In Froome's case it's exactly the opposite what every other athlete received once tested positive (or in case of Russians even when NOT testing positive). Froome tested positive (I really don't care about reasons, he tested positive, period!), yet he's still allowed to race. He still has contract with Sky (there are rules and "rules" Protour teams need to cancel contract once positive test is there), and all is like nothing ever happened.
While it might be once you kill someone that you are innocent until proven guilty, with doping you are guilty by default once you test positive, and then it's up to you to prove you are innocent. And until you do, if you do, you are not allowed to race. Unless you team is Sky and your name is Froome.

 

[Dakine]

Well, at least we seem to have gotten past the contention that juice doesn't work.
All kinds of juice known and unknown.
Analytical chemists are always playing catch up to creative synthetic chemists in this game.
Which brings me back to Lance's point.
"Something is Rotten in the State of Cycling" Apologies to Shakespeare.
Powerlifting gave up on trying to run clean contests.
Now it's an all doping league and the results are astonishing and grotesque.

 

[Tom K.]

...with doping you are guilty by default once you test positive, and then it's up to you to prove you are innocent. And until you do, if you do, you are not allowed to race. Unless you team is Sky and your name is Froome.

QFT

 

[LKLA]

While I am a cycling spectator, I also am in the WADA system. So I understand firsthand the balance between clinical need and a desire to compete. Sorry if the real life experience is insulting to you.
So you must know then that you will be held accountable for violating any WADA or sport governing body rule, as stupid as that rule may seem to you. Hence, since both Froome and Wiggins violated rules, they are guilty.

Wiggins had an allergy attack. A TUE was granted. Doctors may disagree on whether the drug was best but the relevant UCI doctors approved it. His use was approved and legal. "End of story."
Exactly, it's pretty darn clear that Sky abused the TUE system! You can't keep hiding behind a TUE (by the way he was granted THREE TUEs). Evidence from a well-placed and respected sources describe how the drug was used to make athletes leaner and more powerful, including Wiggins.

Froome has asthma. Drugs are appropriate. "End of story." Until his urine sample was too high. The relevant doctors and officials are reviewing that and will make a judgement. Not spectators. Not other athletes. After their judgement we will have the end of this part of Froome's story.
Drugs are appropriate for asthma. Just not the drug he took and at the level he tested. End of story. Really surprising that you do not comprehend this. Makes one wonder of you are abusing the system yourself and not following the rules because it is clear as can be - an athlete is responsible!

These drugs aren't cocaine, amphetamines, heroin or anabolic steroids (all proven PEDs and no TUEs approved - and all very dangerous to the athlete). These are needed medicines with minor helpful side effects at little risk to the athlete. Nobody will die from these. Why the indignation?
You can absolutely die from taking these drugs as has been pointed before on this thread and many of these drugs are much more appropriate for increasing performance / aiding in recovery / curing injuries than say heroin or cocaine. Let's not be painful miopic here.

 

[Eleeski]

I'm being picked apart pretty passionately. Why?

And I stand by the accuracy of my statements.

The UCI policies with respect to Froome's salbutamol DO allow him to race until the case is resolved. Sky and Froome may be slimy by not voluntarily stopping him racing but it's very clear in the rules that he is allowed to race during the investigation.

Regarding TUEs, from the WADA site: "It should be noted that, for athletes who have a legitimate medical reason for using a prohibited substance or method that is on the List, they may be accommodated if they meet the criteria outlined in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE). The TUE process has overwhelming acceptance from athletes, physicians and anti-doping stakeholders worldwide." WADA's rule, not my opinion.

At least with a TUE a doctor is prescribing and monitoring the health of the athlete. I can find no deaths due to TUE competitive use.

Drug restrictions started to protect the athletes from the known and serious health effects from drug use. Why am I wrong when I say the overriding focus should be on the health of the athlete?!

Eric

 

[Dakine]

It is not personal, it's because you can't see the forest for the trees.
I, along with others, believe that WADA is hopelessly lost and can't keep up with the myriad of new ways to cheat.
The things they do detect and the rules they don't enforce are a cover to make pro cycling palatable to sponsors.
Doping has been a constant feature of pro cycling ever since Eddie Mercxx and it always will be.
This Sky, Froome , Wiggins thing is a sham, as you say, that covers deep rot.

 

[Eleeski]

As long as WADA protects the health of the athletes, it is doing its job well enough for me. That's all I need to see.

Eric
.

 

[peterm]

The testing done today provides some protection for the health of athletes, but only some in that it prevents the obvious crazy stuff. I'm guessing the types of doping programs many of these athletes are on probably doesn't correspond closely to the way the drugs have been tested in clinical trials, meaning the long term effects would be very much open to question. Just because there are doctors involved doesn't mean it's safe.

The whole doping in cycling thing doesn't bother me too much. I gave up on watching pro cycling when Sky came along and it was clear to me that something was seriously off.

 

[Eleeski]

Race cars develop technology and experience that filters down to the cars we drive.

Athletes are an extreme testing ground for physiological response. Perhaps it's useful to have this information. The benefits are likely to be magnified. Certainly just letting the rigors of racing go unaided is not good for an athlete's health.

At least Viagra is not on the list.

Eric

 

[Primoz]

Race cars develop technology and experience that filters down to the cars we drive.
Athletes are an extreme testing ground for physiological response. Perhaps it's useful to have this information.

I really wouldn't go that far to compare this things Half of doping products are enhanced existing medicines, the other half are drugs that failed certification processes or tests didn't go as planned, and will therefore never reach production and intended use. I would hardly dare to say, that using this sort of stuff is good information. Testing for this stuff on the other hand has absolutely zero use in real world out of anti-doping territory. So analogy with race cars is, at least in my mind, absolutely not appropriate.

 

[Eleeski]

I really wouldn't go that far to compare this things Half of doping products are enhanced existing medicines, the other half are drugs that failed certification processes or tests didn't go as planned, and will therefore never reach production and intended use. I would hardly dare to say, that using this sort of stuff is good information. Testing for this stuff on the other hand has absolutely zero use in real world out of anti-doping territory. So analogy with race cars is, at least in my mind, absolutely not appropriate.

I agree 100% that the clandestine drugs that are used to circumvent the rules are not good. Unapproved drugs are not likely to enhance the health of the athletes. I wasn't thinking about that with my race car comment. Apologies for that aspect of my comment.

I was actually thinking that the allergy medicine used by Wiggins (a reasonably mainstream approved drug) might be useful for a slightly overweight allergy sufferer. The claim by some who disapprove of Wiggins' choice of medicine is that he really wanted the weight loss side effect. At least the doctor considering a civilian prescription for allergies will know that the side effects won't hurt the patient so much that they can't have productive lives after the medicine (like winning the Tour de France).

Also, it has to be reassuring to the parents of the 10 year old kid puffing his salbutamol inhaler to see Froome's successes.

I presented Lance's testicular cancer as a fail of doping to my kids. But it was a really good lesson to keep my boys from considering testosterone to help their athletics.

Still, the race car analogy was a bad one. Sorry...

Eric

 

[cantunamunch]

So... anyone watching stage 3?

In light of Dumoulin's rather obvious snot suffering I am having some difficulty seeing the current system as optimised for athletes' wellbeing.

 

[Primoz]

I presented Lance's testicular cancer as a fail of doping to my kids. But it was a really good lesson to keep my boys from considering testosterone to help their athletics.

Maybe you should also present Froome's asthma as fail of doping, as well as Wiggins extreme allergies to Grand tours. Just saying

 

[graham418]

The things they do detect and the rules they don't enforce are a cover to make pro cycling palatable to sponsors.
Doping has been a constant feature of pro cycling ever since Eddie Mercxx and it always will be.

Long before Eddy Mercxx doping has been a constant in the Tour. Read this entry in Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

 

[Yo Momma]

Stupid question here but is Panax Ginseng considered a banned substance? No skin in the game other than being a simple fan that occasionally uses herbal tinctures. Just curious.....

 

[scott43]

No clue..where's that WADA list?!?!