Cycling/ Cheating etc
-
@bones said in Cycling/ Cheating etc:
@majorrage so can't play premier rugby if you're asthmatic?
salbutamol doesn't require a TUE.
It just means that you need to take it at 'normal' levels and not massive amounts.
I think what @dogmeat is getting at is that if you need to take a banned substance in order to compete because of illness then you shouldn't be competing at all.
Plenty of rugby players don't play when the have a bad cold rather than dosing up on codeine and pseodoephidrene.
-
I'm an asthmatic and all I can say is that if you need to use up an inhaler in just one week then no farking way you'll be able to cycle up a hill let alone compete in the Tour de France.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Cycling/ Cheating etc:
I'm an asthmatic and all I can say is that if you need to use up an inhaler in just one week then no farking way you'll be able to cycle up a hill let alone compete in the TSF.
Need really really good drugs for that.
-
@booboo said in Cycling/ Cheating etc:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Cycling/ Cheating etc:
I'm an asthmatic and all I can say is that if you need to use up an inhaler in just one week then no farking way you'll be able to cycle up a hill let alone compete in the TSF.
Need really really good drugs for that.
Especially in the politics forum
-
@booboo said in Cycling/ Cheating etc:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Cycling/ Cheating etc:
I'm an asthmatic and all I can say is that if you need to use up an inhaler in just one week then no farking way you'll be able to cycle up a hill let alone compete in the TSF.
Need really really good drugs for that.
Bloody autocorrect.
Wheeze (takes 200 shots of ventolin).
-
@majorrage said in Cycling/ Cheating etc:
I have a very simplified view on TUE's.
They are bullshit and competitors shouldn't be allowed to compete on them.
If you are sick, and require medication, then you aren't going to be fit or strong enough to win the Tour De France - so why should you then be able to take a banned substance to make yourself not sick? Being sick / getting injured is part of life / sport.
In my world, lets just say for whatever reason you need to take a banned substance to help with health. At that point you then declare it to the governing agency, who tell you h ow long your mandatory stand-down from the sport is.
Fuck me there's a lot of vitriol being spewed around this.
Tom Fordyce balances things out here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42350159 -
Nah, that's bullshit Scribe.
Exactly, exactly the same bullshit was written to exonerate Lance Amstrong.
He's been caught. People don't want to believe he's been caught.
-
For the record there are two issues here.
Asthma is not cured by excessive Salbutomol. So taking more doesn't improve breathing.
But that assumes he's taking it for asthma. He wasn't. He not asthmatic. He was taking it for the other benefits, notably aggression.
Floyd Landis took steroids in the stage he won late to win the TDF. He didn't take them to build muscle mass, since it was too late for that. He took them for aggression.
Saying that it doesn't improve breathing is to miss the point of the other benefits.
-
@chester-draws as I said, a lot of vitriol being spewed.
He is asthmatic.
Salbutamol does temporarily open the inflamed and constricted airways to their normal levels, which by implication allows a person to breathe normally.
That fact that his levels were double doesn't necessarily mean that he took more than the allowed dose. The point he must prove has already had a precedent set - the rider got off ( although conversely Ulissi couldn't prove it and got banned).
I would much rather wait for the process to run fully rather than hanging him in the court of social media.
Given Froome's standing there is a huge amount riding on this for the UCI and cycling in general. It seems to me that the UCI and doping authorities are moving warily as despite what many people choose to believe in isolation, this is not a simple case.
-
Can you say cognitive dissonance?
The thing is with these tests is that the thresholds are set at a very high level, so it's not like a zero or low tolerance approach like Froome wants everyone to believe.
By my calculations to get the reading he go he would have been going at ~35 standard puffs of Ventolin a day - which I don't think you could possibly do without thinking - jeez we might be getting close to the limit here.
He's a cheat. He's just cheating with a socially acceptable substance. He is like the prescription drug addict who for years has sneered at those on street drugs.
-
I hung out in Cycling forums a few years back. It was impressive then how people could have all the facts and still say Lance Armstrong was clean. All the tests covered up, all the ex-riders like Swart saying he was dirty, all the hanging out with dirty doctors, yet many just didn't want to face it.
He might get away with it -- after all so did Armstrong -- but Froome isn't properly clean. Not a cheat in the Armstrong mode, but dirty like Sharapova.
Suspicious packages, hanging out with known dirty doctors, and failing tests. Is there more evidence you want that Sky isn't clean?
-
Did Lance actually ever fail a drug test?
-
Yes, a quite a few. They were hastily covered up. Corticosteroids in 1999 TDF, for one. "Saddle sores" was the excuse.
It was common knowledge in Cycling forums, and now some of them have been acknowledged formally.
-
@chester-draws
I'm well aware it was an open secret. I just wondered if he ever blew positive. -
A few times, although avoiding the tests was his main MO, especially later on. He was taking too much to merely mask it.
-
It amazes me how many athsmatics have been able to dominate one of the most gruelling sports in the world. Fair play.
Sweeping generaisation - they are all at it. We know it, they know it, and they are guilty until proven guilty.
-
One of my best mates is an asthmatic, and he was always the fittest fecker of us all, hated using his inhaler and tried to use it as little as possible, he could hold his breath for an age swimming underwater too.
He always pushed himself to be as good as he could without it's use.
-
I may have asked this before, but why is Armstrong so universally loathed amongst cycling fans when pretty much all the big names in the sport have been cheats? I can understand that he was a big name and hid it for years, but when they show infographics of some years where basically all the top 5 when he won have at different times been caught cheating isn't it time to just say he's not the bad apple, he's just the biggest name of all the apples and be done with it.
I don't get the sport, I don't have a problem with people loving it but it just seems a bit broken to me. Is there a cyclist out there who hasn't been looked at suspiciously in their career?
