The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Salbutamol really is just the blue reliever inhaler. If you have asthma then it's part of your life, there's nothing to see there.

That would be the one (Beclomethasone is the brown equivalent), however it can be administered via injection which offers fast relief.

Sounds bonkers, but it can actually be abused in doping terms.

I suppose do but I used it for so long and I know that an injection really isn't practical.

I found a near-cure not in Beclomethasone but in - wait for it - budesonide / formoterol fumarate dihydrate, which I bet would see me banned for life as there's a steroid in there.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Salbutamol really is just the blue reliever inhaler. If you have asthma then it's part of your life, there's nothing to see there.

That would be the one (Beclomethasone is the brown equivalent), however it can be administered via injection which offers fast relief.

Sounds bonkers, but it can actually be abused in doping terms.

I suppose do but I used it for so long and I know that an injection really isn't practical.

I found a near-cure not in Beclomethasone but in - wait for it - budesonide / formoterol fumarate dihydrate, which I bet would see me banned for life as there's a steroid in there.

Might not be practical, but highly effective though.

Crikey good old Budesonide. I think just about every respiratory medicine has a steroid. Fluticonazole (red one) and my favourite that has the most bonkers name Ipratropium Bromide! What a mouthful that one was.

Just for you Ten

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/ibuprofen-muscle-growth-regular-use-study-drugs-pills-a7919441.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/41723971

This is truly the epitome of desperation.

Try and go after the current dopers!!

Joke of the decade this.

Nice find, I just stashed a years supply on half price Aspirin!!!

hehe cheating is everywhere! It's in human nature:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/disability-sport/41851149

Tenez wrote:hehe cheating is everywhere! It's in human nature:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/disability-sport/41851149

And everyone thought WADA had it tough

A former French MP sue by the Nadal camp for having suggested he was doping lost her case for diffamation and must pay €10k in compensation.

https://fr.yahoo.com/sports/news/tennis-justice-roselyne-bachelot-condamn%C3%A9e-125900067.html

I am 100% convinced Nadal is clean! cough....cough..

For my part I am not 100% convinced that any one is clean - I'm pretty sure that it's not possible to devise a drug-testing system that's fool proof, and even if it were no sport has yet done that.  I would also argue that, given the way in which TUE's are used, "clean" is increasingly a technical term which many fans would think is more concerned with form than what they would regard as the true 'substance' of sportsmanship that one hopes dope testing is aimed at.  Wiggins's TUE's do not make him a doper and anyone who says so is foolish and cynical, but I know I speak for many when I say that finding out about the TUE's was disappointing and lowered my estimation of him and his achievements, even though it was clearly within the rules.

The ultimate answer is that we cannot know about anyone for sure.  Too many individuals' earnest protestations have been shown to be untrue, so we have to judge people on the merits - wariness and scepticism are OK in that balance, I'd argue that cynicism is not - you might as well give up following sport.  And the 'merits' weighed up in the balance for any individual's case must include not having failed a drug test (I do remember Lance Armstrong, but there were enough factors which pointed the other way in his case to make the fair-minded suspicious at the very least).

On the above basis I strongly welcome Nadal's win - in my view there is no excuse for stupid remarks like the French MP's; you can't go around making clear positive assertions of cheating without any evidence, especially if you are an MP.  What the MP did is an entirely different thing from expressing doubts and carefully pointing out the basis for your doubts.

I did like UKDA kindly sweeping the Wiggins fiasco under the carpet and declaring no further investigation is required!

Who was ever in doubt about Froome?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42335916

I am sorry to say gents but there are a growing list of suspicious top GB athletes. Maybe GB should be banned from the Olympics with the Russians.

FOr me it is funny how the BBC don;t go for the conventional headline of "Froome fails drug test", rather it is "UCI right to question adverse test result".

Exactly what is the performance enhancement advantage of Salbutomol (other than allowing you to breathe)?

Can't answer that one but the UCI banned Petacchi (1 year) for having nearly half as much Salbutamol as Froome did. 
That is telling.

bogbrush wrote:Exactly what is the performance enhancement advantage of Salbutomol (other than allowing you to breathe)?

What do you mean? Cycling is all about breathing! EPO is exactly about making breathing more efficient.

luvsports! wrote:FOr me it is funny how the BBC don;t go for the conventional headline of "Froome fails drug test", rather it is "UCI right to question adverse test result".

I was going to write about it. I don;t think it is the BBC trying to save Froome as much as being scared of being sued for telling more than they can today.

They is so much financial implication nowadays that journalists have to "open" words in order not to have the big sponsors on their back.

bogbrush wrote:Exactly what is the performance enhancement advantage of Salbutomol (other than allowing you to breathe)?

I am assuming he exceeded prescribing guidelines. Depends also form of dose. He'd have to max out a ton of inhalers to get anywhere near what I would call performance enhancing levels!

Amazing how Froome is being put out and yet Wiggins walks away unscathed.

I don’t kniw why all you evolutionists have a problem with doping and this sudden moral urge to react.

It’s survival of the fittest, innit?

But it is certainly obvious how big names are treated differently than smaller ones. Any other racer would already have been labelled a doper by the media.

It is, but again, fits the evolutionist motto to a tee - might is right.

Strongest biggest mightiest dictate the rule.

I don't understand how a substance like Salbutamol can make it to the authorised list to start with. Even 1000ng/ml should not be allowed. Since when asthmatics should gain an advantage? Isn't sport about having the healthiest youth competing?

noleisthebest wrote:I don’t kniw why all you evolutionists have a problem with doping and this sudden moral urge to react.

It’s survival of the fittest, innit?

You call Nadal a drugs cheat, why change your stance on this?

noleisthebest wrote:It is, but again, fits the evolutionist motto to a tee - might is right.

Strongest biggest mightiest dictate the rule.

That's certainly a rule of nature, not us evolutionists. The gazelle hasn't got a say about it when in the lion's claws.

Whether to believe that is the only rule of nature is the point of argument. But let's keep this thread to the interesting case of Froome and dop.."abnormal test" sorry.

luvsports! wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I don’t kniw why all you evolutionists have a problem with doping and this sudden moral urge to react.

It’s survival of the fittest, innit?

You call Nadal a drugs cheat, why change your stance on this?

I still do.

But I am a creationist that believes in moral code, not an evolutionists who thinks ther is no moral, just atoms and accidents in which strongest survive.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:It is, but again, fits the evolutionist motto to a tee - might is right.

Strongest biggest mightiest dictate the rule.

That's certainly a rule of nature, not us evolutionists. The gazelle hasn't got a say about it when in the lion's claws.

Whether to believe that is the only rule of nature is the point of argument. But let's keep this thread to the interesting case of Froome and dop.."abnormal test" sorry.

Fine.
Your forum, your rules.

Tenez wrote:I don't understand how a substance like Salbutamol can make it to the authorised list to start with. Even 1000ng/ml should not be allowed. Since when asthmatics should gain an advantage? Isn't sport about having the healthiest youth competing?

That would probably eliminate 95% of the sporting world!

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I don't understand how a substance like Salbutamol can make it to the authorised list to start with. Even 1000ng/ml should not be allowed. Since when asthmatics should gain an advantage? Isn't sport about having the healthiest youth competing?

That would probably eliminate 95% of the sporting world!

You mean the current top sporting world. We would simply have new, healthier champions instead!

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I don't understand how a substance like Salbutamol can make it to the authorised list to start with. Even 1000ng/ml should not be allowed. Since when asthmatics should gain an advantage? Isn't sport about having the healthiest youth competing?

That would probably eliminate 95% of the sporting world!

You mean the current top sporting world. We would simply have new, healthier champions instead!

What's the point of having a bunch of asthmatic champions you and I could beat if they were not on drugs?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:I don't understand how a substance like Salbutamol can make it to the authorised list to start with. Even 1000ng/ml should not be allowed. Since when asthmatics should gain an advantage? Isn't sport about having the healthiest youth competing?

That would probably eliminate 95% of the sporting world!

You mean the current top sporting world. We would simply have new, healthier champions instead!

Well yes the top sporting world. I can't share your stance on the Salbutamol levels as I assume the thresholds are set against the affects it has on an athlete with no existing respiratory condition. Very difficult to set for an athlete with a respiratory condition. Unless there are 2 thresholds.

In terms of your over-arching stance, I agree on the principle it would lead to healthier and dare I say it cleaner champions, though the equality brigade would have a fit. I simply say start another form of sports for those with conditions that require 'medication' and could be the equivalent to the Paralympics.

Least it wasn't a "suspect package" he was hiding.

Didn't Jimmy Connors use an inhaler? Do we strike all his records?

Do we strike out Federers records because he's had medical treatment for his back? I mean, in a purist position we can't have all these weak back guys gaining records off the truly naturally healthy can we?

There was me thinking this was all about taking stuff that raised the body to levels it could not attain through it's own "natural" capacity when it turns out it's about any medical treatment.

bogbrush wrote:Didn't Jimmy Connors use an inhaler? Do we strike all his records?

Do we strike out Federers records because he's had medical treatment for his back? I mean, in a purist position we can't have all these weak back guys gaining records off the truly naturally healthy can we?

There was me thinking this was all about taking stuff that raised the body to levels it could not attain through it's own "natural" capacity when it turns out it's about any medical treatment.

Stick it to those pesky diabetics!

legendkillar wrote:

In terms of your over-arching stance, I agree on the principle it would lead to healthier and dare I say it cleaner champions, though the equality brigade would have a fit. I simply say start another form of sports for those with conditions that require 'medication' and could be the equivalent to the Paralympics.

Least it wasn't a "suspect package" he was hiding.

We clearly know that Djoko (and Nadal) could not have played that AO 12 final without that inhaler. It is a performance enhancer which simply has made it through the "legal" list. To me it is worst that a suspect package cause it makes doping a legal business.

bogbrush wrote:Didn't Jimmy Connors use an inhaler? Do we strike all his records?

Do we strike out Federers records because he's had medical treatment for his back? I mean, in a purist position we can't have all these weak back guys gaining records off the truly naturally healthy can we?

There was me thinking this was all about taking stuff that raised the body to levels it could not attain through it's own "natural" capacity when it turns out it's about any medical treatment.

I would strike all Connors records even if he had not used an inhaler. Most of his tournaments wins were with a depleted field, was a cheat on court and intimidating players in the lockers and needed to the support of the crowd to win tight wins. I don't rate Connors.

If/when Federer has a bad back he loses, doesn't he. Why would someone with asthma be allowed to win? I don;t quite follow the comparison. If Asthma could be cured and the athlete be free of drug fine by me. Some back problems can't be cured and very talented players had to retire (Mecir, Rios to name a few).

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

In terms of your over-arching stance, I agree on the principle it would lead to healthier and dare I say it cleaner champions, though the equality brigade would have a fit. I simply say start another form of sports for those with conditions that require 'medication' and could be the equivalent to the Paralympics.

Least it wasn't a "suspect package" he was hiding.

We clearly know that Djoko (and Nadal) could not have played that AO 12 final without that inhaler. It is a performance enhancer which simply has made it through the "legal" list. To me it is worst that a suspect package cause it makes doping a legal business.

I wasn't aware they were using Salbutamol??

Djokovic for example had issues with allergies as well as nasal issues. Too my knowledge surgery and a change of diet help alleviate those issues. Anything outside of that raises eyebrows.

Froome is an asthmatic (or so I believe) and hence uses an inhaler to help treat his condition. I find it harsh to bash him completely and call him a cheat or what have you.

The protocols and guidelines are like toe dipping essentially. Athletes and doctors try to get below the minimal levels. Hard to quantify what that would reflect in performance. It doesn't make WADA's job easier for sure.

Perfect world scenario, ban substances completely no matter the trace and ban athletes that show them in their systems. Harsh, but eliminates doubt to the highest degree. Why stop there though? Painkillers, plasters, bandages, supports, braces.

Purity in sport is impossible.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Didn't Jimmy Connors use an inhaler? Do we strike all his records?

Do we strike out Federers records because he's had medical treatment for his back? I mean, in a purist position we can't have all these weak back guys gaining records off the truly naturally healthy can we?

There was me thinking this was all about taking stuff that raised the body to levels it could not attain through it's own "natural" capacity when it turns out it's about any medical treatment.

I would strike all Connors records even if he had not used an inhaler. Most of his tournaments wins were with a depleted field, was a cheat on court and intimidating players in the lockers and needed to the support of the crowd to win tight wins. I don't rate Connors.

If/when Federer has a bad back he loses, doesn't he. Why would someone with asthma be allowed to win?  I don;t quite follow the comparison. If Asthma could be cured and the athlete be free of drug fine by me. Some back problems can't be cured and very talented players had to retire (Mecir, Rios to name a few).

Oh so we strike wins depending on quality of opposition now. I guess performance enhancing competition (PECs) are now a factor?

Isn't it fair to assume Federer has received treatment for his back. Perhaps the odd painkilling injection when it really matters? Are painkillers not allowed now? And a medically cured asthma is fine but a treated one is not? Why the distinction? 

This is starting to feel like the devaluation of real PED taking, the same way that claiming a hand on the knee or a saucy suggestion is some kind of sex attack devalues forced penetration (what we used to reserve the term "rape" for).

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

In terms of your over-arching stance, I agree on the principle it would lead to healthier and dare I say it cleaner champions, though the equality brigade would have a fit. I simply say start another form of sports for those with conditions that require 'medication' and could be the equivalent to the Paralympics.

Least it wasn't a "suspect package" he was hiding.

We clearly know that Djoko (and Nadal) could not have played that AO 12 final without that inhaler. It is a performance enhancer which simply has made it through the "legal" list. To me it is worst that a suspect package cause it makes doping a legal business.

I wasn't aware they were using Salbutamol??

Djokovic was filmed sniffing it under his towel during that match.

Djokovic for example had issues with allergies as well as nasal issues. Too my knowledge surgery and a change of diet help alleviate those issues. Anything outside of that raises eyebrows.

Yes, that is what they all say...but strangely enough all those super athletes who rely on stamina are asthmatic, Doesn't make sense to me. This drug simply increases the blood flow to the lungs, which increases transport of oxygen. Exactly what EPO does xcpet that EPO does it through increasing number of red cells carrying oxygen. And most likely all those athletes are also on the threshold of red cells ratio. It's all part of the game and it is about time we stop fooling ourselves with "asthmatic champions". I will never be impressed by an asthmatic champion, who should be?  

Froome is an asthmatic (or so I believe) and hence uses an inhaler to help treat his condition. I find it harsh to bash him completely and call him a cheat or what have you.

Life is harsh, but not as harsh for those who would be champions without drugs! They are the real losers in this...and us of course, who like me can;t bother about cycling cause they are all cheats.

The protocols and guidelines are like toe dipping essentially. Athletes and doctors try to get below the minimal levels. Hard to quantify what that would reflect in performance. It doesn't make WADA's job easier for sure.

They are all making money out of this so why changing it? You have the proof how cautious they are when treating this latest case...cause they do not wish to kill the golden goose yet, anyone else would have been thrown to the vultures. And I am sure one day the truth will come out about Froome as well.

Perfect world scenario, ban substances completely no matter the trace and ban athletes that show them in their systems. Harsh, but eliminates doubt to the highest degree. Why stop there though? Painkillers, plasters, bandages, supports, braces.

I am in favour of that (restricted to drugs only of course). We would simply have a different type of game but the best athletes (and most likely the most talented0 will shine through...but they won't be killing themselves in the process.

Purity in sport is impossible

In sport like in life but it simply needs more regulation, no different than trying to contain the tax evaders. Just because it is sport, it should not be taken lightly, especially now that it is a "profession".

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Didn't Jimmy Connors use an inhaler? Do we strike all his records?

Do we strike out Federers records because he's had medical treatment for his back? I mean, in a purist position we can't have all these weak back guys gaining records off the truly naturally healthy can we?

There was me thinking this was all about taking stuff that raised the body to levels it could not attain through it's own "natural" capacity when it turns out it's about any medical treatment.

I would strike all Connors records even if he had not used an inhaler. Most of his tournaments wins were with a depleted field, was a cheat on court and intimidating players in the lockers and needed to the support of the crowd to win tight wins. I don't rate Connors.

If/when Federer has a bad back he loses, doesn't he. Why would someone with asthma be allowed to win?  I don;t quite follow the comparison. If Asthma could be cured and the athlete be free of drug fine by me. Some back problems can't be cured and very talented players had to retire (Mecir, Rios to name a few).

Oh so we strike wins depending on quality of opposition now. I guess performance enhancing competition (PECs) are now a factor?

I was referring to the fact that out of the 120 or so tournaments Connors won a good chunk of those were more exhos where he only entered in the semi, without having to play the first rounds like everybody else. Or some even had on;y 16 players entry only .

Isn't it fair to assume Federer has received treatment for his back. Perhaps the odd painkilling injection when it really matters? Are painkillers not allowed now? And a medically cured asthma is fine but a treated one is not? Why the distinction? 

I have made the point of that. It is quite easy to understand. Cured means you are clean of drugs when competing as opposed to being drugged while competing. What's so difficult to grasp? A painkiller is a pain killer, it does not increase your muscle mass or the ratio of oxygen to your lungs and muscles. It just suppresses pain, it does not make you jump higher, run longer. But even though I woudl not mind painkillers being banned from sport. If it is fair for all. fine.

This is starting to feel like the devaluation of real PED taking, the same way that claiming a hand on the knee or a saucy suggestion is some kind of sex attack devalues forced penetration (what we used to reserve the term "rape" for).

Non-sense. You clearly do not know how salbutamol acts. It is a clear PED. That is why it is on the list in the place. They are just trying to contain the doping effect by not allowing too much of it, which is exactly what Froome did.

It is at least as much of a PED as Meldonium..but for some reasons one makes the list the other can be allowed to a degree.

Can you explain, other than allowing asthmatics to breathe, what performance it enhances, and how. If it’s “clear” this should be straightforward.

First the stats. WADA added it on the prohibited list cause more and more athletes started to consume it. I am sure you do remember, Djoko hiding under his towel and sniffing it in that 5th set?  What kind of asthma signs did he show in that match while running miles for 4 sets?

Salbutamol is a vasodilator which means it increases the size of your blood vessels to bring more oxygen but also nutrients to your muscles, hence a clear PED by definition.

Oxygen is energy for muscles. This is why Nadal and Djoko took so much time between points. Mixed with EPO derivatives or egg chamber use one really increases his support in oxygen allowing athletes to run like crazy or climb mountains at a pace they could not otherwise.

There is a difference between touching someone knee and raping a 14yo a la Polanski. Salbutamol is closer to the latter offence wise.

I can only assume some of Slab is allowed as sport did not wish to stop the career of real asthmatics but you know better than me how the mind works. As soon as there is a crack it will be exploited.

The amount of athmatics now in sport is absurdly high.

My point is having asthma is like having any other disadvantage and I am not sure why it should be helped in competition sport.

Why not allow steroids to those born with a smaller built? EPO is also used in medicine to help those with blood deficiencies.

Where to stop?

You can see the clever and cunning way of journalists (here the Beeb) to diminish the effect of a vasodilator. What they do in politics, they do in sport as well:

Beeb wrote:The inhaled form is literally kids' stuff, the entry-level asthma medication routinely prescribed by GPs (that gives the tone to re-assure all his fans). It is a performance enabler rather than a performance enhancer (playing with semantic). It relieves constriction in the airways but does not make them bigger (but cannot brush away the technical facts. It makes them bigger than they would otherwise!).

Repeated studies have shown negligible benefit to athletes without asthma. (first what is negligeable in competitive sport? Is taking an extra 5s time between points "negligeable"? Is a ball going wide by 1 mil negligeable? Other studies have showed it does give a advantage to non asthmatic athletes)  It does not give you some sort of super-lungs nor allow you to take in more oxygen than otherwise (this is plain wrong and in complete contradiction with what a vasodilator does....so why would all athletes rush to take some then?).

If ingested orally over a significant period of time, rather than through an inhaler as used by Froome, there is limited evidence of a small anabolic benefit, of the type that might help slightly in a brief sprint. (Yep also mentioned in wiki, now again, what is "limited" if not the opposite of "unlimited"?) But taken in those amounts would also bring palpitations. In terms of helping in a three-week Grand Tour it would be like taking a double espresso to a gun-fight. (again, trying to ridicule the benefits but fails to explain why more and more athletes are claiming to be asthmatic)

And the masses of fan will once again read what they want to read. They don;t know Froome from Adam and Eve but somehow connect with him and ready to embrace whatever he says cause they sold him as a genuine nice sport hero.

This is why we cannot have a democracy and the only one we can recognise as real democracy would be random election. Not an easy one I admit, maybe utopic (especially considering how gullible are people), but the only one viable in the long run.

And the most clever of all is that the title is there to attract all the sceptics and convert then into docile sheep.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/asthma-elite-athletes-study-swimmers-cyclist-eid

Here's an Olympic 2012 factoid : there are about 700 athletes in London with confirmed asthma diagnoses, and (if trends from past Olympics continue) those athletes will be roughly twice as likely to win a medal as their non-asthmatic peers.

Maybe we have now one explanation of how GB manages to beat the Russians and get close to the Chinese at the Olympcs.
What I call a state doping program.

Then GB beat China in 2016! 

Tenez wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/asthma-elite-athletes-study-swimmers-cyclist-eid

Here's an Olympic 2012 factoid : there are about 700 athletes in London with confirmed asthma diagnoses, and (if trends from past Olympics continue) those athletes will be roughly twice as likely to win a medal as their non-asthmatic peers.

Maybe we have now one explanation of how GB manages to beat the Russians and get close to the Chinese at the Olympcs.
What I call a state doping program.

Amazing stat.

And what a joke and mockery of the spirit of sport.

Yeah, we note the absence of commenting from all those who threw the stone at Sharapova back then.

Top athletes are more likely to have asthma than the general population because of the large volumes of air they breathe in when exercising at high intensity over long periods of time.

"My hope is that this doesn't prevent asthmatic athletes from using their inhalers in emergency situations for fear of being judged," Froome posted on Twitter.

"It is not something to be ashamed of."
============================
Interesting points here. Sport and anti-doping agencies recognise that those with natural ability to run without drug should not have an advantage and therefore allow those with a handicap to take drugs to compete with the natural athletes.

This by definition kills the very purpose of sport. I thought Sport was about selecting the healthiest and talented athletes.

But of course, I do not believe those guys have real asthma. as it says here, they only "find out about it" when under extreme conditions. Which means those who can;t keep up with the natural best athletes suddenly have asthma so they can get that extra help. Very cunning if you ask me!

And last but not least, Foome playing the victim/whinging card! Poor Froome...an asthmatic sufferer...with 4 TdF!!!! What a joke.

Tenez wrote:Yeah, we note the absence of commenting from all those who threw the stone at Sharapova back then.

I had the same thought yesterday. Everyone’s gone quiet all of a sudden.

But in a way it’s good.
People are thinking and realising sport is unfortunately just another business and as such prone to corruption.
Shame Vee is not around any more.

Mind you with him, I was never sure whether he was so anti-Sharapova because he was so pro-Serena.

I noticed Serena fans have this really vicious streak for Sharapova which is funny knowing their H2H.

Tenez wrote:You can see the clever and cunning way of journalists (here the Beeb) to diminish the effect of a vasodilator. What they do in politics, they do in sport as well:

Beeb wrote:The inhaled form is literally kids' stuff, the entry-level asthma medication routinely prescribed by GPs (that gives the tone to re-assure all his fans). It is a performance enabler rather than a performance enhancer (playing with semantic). It relieves constriction in the airways but does not make them bigger (but cannot brush away the technical facts. It makes them bigger than they would otherwise!).

Repeated studies have shown negligible benefit to athletes without asthma. (first what is negligeable in competitive sport? Is taking an extra 5s time between points "negligeable"? Is a ball going wide by 1 mil negligeable? Other studies have showed it does give a advantage to non asthmatic athletes)  It does not give you some sort of super-lungs nor allow you to take in more oxygen than otherwise (this is plain wrong and in complete contradiction with what a vasodilator does....so why would all athletes rush to take some then?).

If ingested orally over a significant period of time, rather than through an inhaler as used by Froome, there is limited evidence of a small anabolic benefit, of the type that might help slightly in a brief sprint. (Yep also mentioned in wiki, now again, what is "limited" if not the opposite of "unlimited"?) But taken in those amounts would also bring palpitations. In terms of helping in a three-week Grand Tour it would be like taking a double espresso to a gun-fight. (again, trying to ridicule the benefits but fails to explain why more and more athletes are claiming to be asthmatic)

And the masses of fan will once again read what they want to read. They don;t know Froome from Adam and Eve but somehow connect with him and ready to embrace whatever he says cause they sold him as a genuine nice sport hero.

This is why we cannot have a democracy and the only one we can recognise as real democracy would be random election. Not an easy one I admit, maybe utopic (especially considering how gullible are people), but the only one viable in the long run.

And the most clever of all is that the title is there to attract all the sceptics and convert then into docile sheep.

The key point in that article, is "limited evidence" in relation to Salbutamol being taken orally via an inhaler to have anywhere near the levels of performance enhancing properties to high levels.

The only facts I can see with the Froome case is he failed a test. I have no knowledge what form he took it in or the normal dose he takes (if he is indeed a genuine asthmatic).

If more doctors now are diagnosing asthmatics (in sport) it needs to seriously be reviewed.

I can't Froome coming back from this even if it is a genuine mistake.

Tenez wrote:Top athletes are more likely to have asthma than the general population because of the large volumes of air they breathe in when exercising at high intensity over long periods of time.

"My hope is that this doesn't prevent asthmatic athletes from using their inhalers in emergency situations for fear of being judged," Froome posted on Twitter.

"It is not something to be ashamed of."
============================
Interesting points here. Sport and anti-doping agencies recognise that those with natural ability to run without drug should not have an advantage and therefore allow those with a handicap to take drugs to compete with the natural athletes.

This by definition kills the very purpose of sport. I thought Sport was about selecting the healthiest and talented athletes.

But of course, I do not believe those guys have real asthma. as it says here, they only "find out about it" when under extreme conditions. Which means those who can;t keep up with the natural best athletes suddenly have asthma so they can get that extra help. Very cunning if you ask me!

And last but not least, Foome playing the victim/whinging card! Poor Froome...an asthmatic sufferer...with 4 TdF!!!! What a joke.

Depends if this is the same medical model approach psychiatrists take with prescribing anyone in mental or emotional stress with drugs that sporting doctors are taking with asthma.

I share the same principle that if he doesn't take Salbutamol outside of competition, it makes the whole situation a fiasco.