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

[LKLA]

Froome got a TUE for prednisone before a race. He's been accused of cheating (legally so he keeps his results) for that. I got a TUE for the same drug and competed. But I certainly don't feel like I was cheating and my performance was certainly not enhanced.
Froome's asthma flared up at the Vuelta, hence the change in dosage of salbutamol to a much higher level. There was also the chest infection for which he took prednisone a few years back that you reference. Reality is that most people don’t dominate the most challenging endurance events in the world when they are not in optimal health, yet Froome does it when it seems like his health is at its worst.

I'm not a doctor so the risks, efficacy and side effects of specific drugs in specific individuals is not my decision to make. The TUEs were allowed.
I disagree that it does not enhance performance but that is irrelevant. There are many drugs on the banned list without solid evidence of acute benefit, but the law is the law, regardless. Someone would be not innocent just because their attempt to cheat doesn’t actually work!

Salbutamol is not a prohibited drug. Public opinion might affect Froome's case more than physiological effects.
Salbutamol itself is not, but the exceeding certain clearly stated and widely known limits is! Froome's urine contains levels exceed the threshold by 100%. 2000 ng/ml vs 1000 ng/ml. That’s a big miss! So with “the greatest care”, Froome and a doctor, working together, with years of experience using this very same drug in stage races, managed to miss the mark by 100%?!

Sky is slimy for professing to be the cleanest yet still offending the fans. But they have not been convicted of violations (my understanding is that the official investigation is concluded). Real evidence of real wrongdoing is still needed for conviction - I hope.
Why are there not many more cases like Froome's then given what we know about how prevalent asthma diagnoses are in cycling and other endurance sports - you’d expect a whole lot more cases like this where the athlete exceeds the limit. That’s if you subscribe to the theory that it’s easy to “trigger” the test by exceeding the 1000 ng/ml limit. And then Wiggins, who was so stricken that he needed emergency meds flown in via Jiffy Bag, and he went on to win the Tour de France?

Taking away medically relevant drugs when supervised and revealed does not appear to enhance the health of athletes.
Agree, as I think everyone does. Not sure that has ever been disputed or questioned here.

I feel my personal medical care was adversely affected by WADA drug policies.
Not familiar with your specific situation but that seems very unfortunate. Sorry to hear that.

How level must the playing field be? And are drugs the only thing that makes a difference?
Athletes, including cyclists, have been banned for exceeding the threshold in the past. Often with reduced bans, but there’s precedent. The upper limit exists for a reason. If if the effect on acute performance is debatable, there’s that masking agent issue. So it’s an adverse finding, no question.

 

[Eleeski]

Lots of interesting stuff there.

I've taken prednisone. It is not a performance enhancer, it is a performance enabler. It allowed me to get back into the game. If I was better, I won. If not, I didn't. Maybe Froome was just a stronger racer. The drug allowed him to show up and race. That's not cheating to me.

TUEs keep the athletes healthy. I don't care if there is some advantage. Wait, I want the advantage of being healthy! How is that cheating?

Caffeine has limits in competition. Nobody will call you a drug cheat for an extra cup of coffee. How Froome explains his urine might cause some results to be adjusted (maybe he should lose the Vuelta) but it's not despicable.

I've had great results when injured or sick. I've struggled when everything is right. Watching bike racing, there's a lot of strategy. Preserve energy until the timing is right then go. Not a 1% physical difference but a mental game. Yeah, the savvy rider can win when things aren't perfect.

If we agree that needed medicines are OK, why is it good when certain medicines are no longer allowed? In the case of prednisone, if you sign on to a (not official) agreement, you can't compete with prednisone. Chris Horner had to drop out from a race because he was being treated with prednisone and had signed on. One of his last races - bummer. For him and for us as spectators.

I qualified into the elite ranks in my sport (trick waterskiing) very old. Injures and health problems are more of a factor as we age. The rules for a 20 year old aren't always appropriate for an old fart. So my view is skewed. I'm always at a physical disadvantage! But I'm smarter and more experienced (I avoided enough of the bad drugs when I was younger).

Not every adverse finding results in a ban. Bans aren't uniform. Froome has not been found guilty of cheating yet.

What is with the scrutiny on drugs? The issues are with legal medicines used with TUEs. Wiggins: "I'd have more rights if I'd murdered someone" from cycling news. Witchhunt indeed.

Eric

 

[Primoz]

@Eleeski let's get few things straight, and not looking directly from your personal point of view. There's enough researches lately showing asthma medications in big enough dosage have performance enhancing effect. Those researches are not based on "I feel I didn't have any better performance due this" but are based on real tests with real measurements and numbers leaving personal feeling aside.
Next, Froome didn't take one or two puffs too much, but he went over already pretty damn high limit for twice. In history of positive tests for this, there's noone with numbers this high, and as I wrote before in top level endurance sport, there's less then 10 cases with athletes testing positive for this substance. This proves limits are set more then high enough that there's not even accidental positive tests, so if you go twice over the limit, you don't go there for being sick or for doing it accidentally, but for doing it on purpose with a very good reason, which is not "staying healthy" but gaining performance advantage. Period.
Another thing is Wiggins TUE, but I already wrote enough about this, to get pretty good perspective on his "sickness".
There's another thing with TUE.... if you are so sick you need medicines, you have nothing to do racing. You stay at home get better, and when you are ok, you come back racing. As I wrote, if you are not 100% you have zero chances on winning. And please let's not go into "I did good when sick or injured". We are not talking about recreational village race. We are talking about winning Olympics, World Championships, or most important cycling race in history of cycling. Races, where only best of the best are there. And there, you do NOT have a chance if you are not 100%. So unless it's for cheating, there's no need for TUE, as you simply have nothing to do there if you really need TUE. TUE's are good for out of competition, as you still get tested, even if you are not racing and are injured/sick, but for racing, it's useless. And with Wiggins, he officially wouldn't need TUE for triamcinolone if he would take it for what it was suppose to be taken, especially as it was out of competition (you don't need TUE for out of competition use of triamcinolone, weird but that's the rule), but without being really naive, you can see real plan behind this very easy. Getting triamcinolone week or two before main event of the year, it means you will keep effects of this during the event, so that's reason you need TUE for. But again, they use intramuscular injections of triamcinolone only for people who are about to die. It's not a joke but serious thing. If you feel bad, you wil NOT get triamcinolone injection. You get it when you are about to die to save your life. And obviously Wiggins was on his way to die 3 times, always just week before the main event of his racing season. And surprisingly all 3 times he recovered really well in that week, coming from about to die patient to Tour de France winner. Strange right?

 

[givethepigeye]

Not a shocker. Anybody I know, close to the sport, has given me the indication that Sky has been "dirty" all along. Too many situations to explain any other way. Maybe they should let the sport use anything they want, and stop the whole thing....users being a step ahead of the testers. Not like this is exactly "new".....just the "enhancers" of the day.....
Noose is getting tighter......agree.

^This - been saying it for years - do what you want. Easier and less money fighting it. I don't race, but regularly go on training rides with those that do. The obscure, random rituals and stuff that that is "the latest" thing, supplement, whatever - just make it all OK. That and shorten the stages to 100-150km and 4,000 feet of climbing - throw a couple flat stages in, because sprinters.

 

[LKLA]

Lots of interesting stuff there.

I've taken prednisone. It is not a performance enhancer, it is a performance enabler. It allowed me to get back into the game. If I was better, I won. If not, I didn't. Maybe Froome was just a stronger racer. The drug allowed him to show up and race. That's not cheating to me.
Prednisone is a bit more complicated as it has been proven to both enchance performance as well as potentially be very dangerous if used in long distance events. While it does a great job of tamping down a cough, it also inhibits the body’s ability to regulate hydration, blood pressure, protein use, blood sugar and muscle breakdown during exercise. Taking prednisone during a race, especially a long-distance race, could lead to serious—even life-threatening—medical problems. So there are TWO reasons for banning it, particularly in a grueling and long distance sport like cycling. Predisone is nothing new though and every pro athlete should know that it is banned: US marathon runner Rupp was instructed by his coach to use Testosterone and Prednisone - French swimmer Lise Grenier was handed a 1 month suspension after a positive test for prednisone - Rugby player Filippo Giusti of Italy was suspended in 2012 for taking prednisone. The president is there! Athletes are responsible for what they put in their body. Period. If its banned and its in their body they should expect fair treatment.

TUEs keep the athletes healthy. I don't care if there is some advantage. Wait, I want the advantage of being healthy! How is that cheating?
Seems like you are just trying via an illogical and irrational way to rationalize something that can not be rationalized.

Caffeine has limits in competition. Nobody will call you a drug cheat for an extra cup of coffee. How Froome explains his urine might cause some results to be adjusted (maybe he should lose the Vuelta) but it's not despicable.
An extra cup of coffee does not hit anywhere near the caffeine limit! It would have to be an extra cup of coffee after a handful of caffeine pills. Froome explains his results the same way Hamilton explained his blood doping (vanishing twin). There are explanations to everything in life, from the most truthful to the most absurd. It would be foolish to expect someone, more so a person in the position of Wiggins or Froome, to simply admit to wrongdoing.

I've had great results when injured or sick. I've struggled when everything is right. Watching bike racing, there's a lot of strategy. Preserve energy until the timing is right then go. Not a 1% physical difference but a mental game. Yeah, the savvy rider can win when things aren't perfect.
As others have said, EVERYTHING needs to work in your favor in a situation like the Tour or La Vuelta or the Olympics. At that level even a 0.01% advantage makes all the difference. There is just no way anyone who is even close to being in a situation like that of Wiggins or Froome could even finish the event, least of all win it or even compete. If you believe otherwise then you believe in Santa Clause and smurfs.

If we agree that needed medicines are OK, why is it good when certain medicines are no longer allowed? In the case of prednisone, if you sign on to a (not official) agreement, you can't compete with prednisone. Chris Horner had to drop out from a race because he was being treated with prednisone and had signed on. One of his last races - bummer. For him and for us as spectators.
The list of banned medications is clear. The drugs are put on that list to EITHER prevent performance enhancement or prevent dangerous and unhealthy situations for the athletes. In the case of prednisone it is done to prevent both. Wiggins as aware of the list. Froome was also aware of the list, and the team doctors surely were extremely familiar and aware of what was on the list.

I qualified into the elite ranks in my sport (trick waterskiing) very old. Injures and health problems are more of a factor as we age. The rules for a 20 year old aren't always appropriate for an old fart. So my view is skewed. I'm always at a physical disadvantage! But I'm smarter and more experienced (I avoided enough of the bad drugs when I was younger).
Agree, but you rarely see anyone over 40 competing in professional cycling races (Jens Voigt and Chris Horner come to mind). These are 99% folks in their mid/late 20s and 30s. The needs of a three year old or 65 year old are not really relevant here.

Not every adverse finding results in a ban. Bans aren't uniform. Froome has not been found guilty of cheating yet.
Agree. But, we are in the very early stages of the investigation into the SKY Team. Look how long it has taken to find finality in past cycling investigations - a looooong time. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

What is with the scrutiny on drugs? The issues are with legal medicines used with TUEs. Wiggins: "I'd have more rights if I'd murdered someone" from cycling news. Witchhunt indeed.
Tramadol, triamcinolone, prednisone, salbutamol, testosterone patches...to name but a few drugs that SKY has been caught using. Quick question, why did the team doctor lie about what is in the package delivered to Wiggins all the way from the UK that contained Triamcinolone Acetonid? He stated it contained Fluimucil, which can be bought at any pharmacy just about anywhere. Like Floyd Landis said today (and he would know): "The little pieces add up and no one with more than two brain cells would add it all up and conclude that it was all just coincidental."

 

[Eleeski]

Froome is over the limit. He could be over a limit for caffeine and be in the same situation. But not in the court of public opinion.

Regarding the research on corticosteroids, if it's so conclusive why does WADA allow them at all? And why aren't the kids using it turning into monsters? Maybe they are good medicines with small effects.

I hope I can still get something for those mosquito bites after WADA bans all corticosteroids all the time.

Another research issue, corticosteroids don't give immediate results (outside of curing a medical condition). It takes a lot longer to have a result than a dose the day of that race.

Which makes the Froome case interesting. What benefit would he get from an overdose of salbutamol on that one stage? When he knew he would be tested? High doses in training before make sense if you are abusing salbutamol (where others have been caught). Froome's case doesn't make sense. A rush to judgement is not called for.

Regarding TUEs, if a medicine brings you back to competitive health, great! Discrimination against asthmatics or anyone needing medicine is wrong.

Prednisone is a life and lifestyle saving drug. It's use with a valid TUE is important for the health of athletes. To withhold a valuable medicine because it can be abused is terrifying.

I'm allergic to the picklewort pollen at our lake. It's seasonal and locally confined. I'm miserably sick when it hits. Get away from the pollen and I'm 100% immediately. It is possible for miraculous outcomes from the right medicine - especially when dealing with allergies and asthma.

I agree with you that sometimes the health of the athlete is put at risk if competing on a TUE. There is a balance between getting an athlete healthy and propping up someone who is too sick. But that's the doctor's call. I'm more scared of blanket prohibitions than unethical doctors.

Sky appears to be pushing the limits. Perhaps part of their success. Bad for PR but not illegal. Note that Froome's case is not settled yet and by the rules he is allowed to keep racing. The worst fallout from Sky will be more restrictions on useful medicines.

Worrying about a .01% difference is far more naive than dismissing it. Tactics, training, equipment, race day variables and so many other factors determine a winner. To think that humans are within a couple percent of each other other is beyond naive. I'm not within a couple percent of myself from day to day.

Anything can be abused. Abuse rarely results in an advantage. But the imagined advantages...

Everybody looks for an excuse for why they didn't win. Accusing the winner of cheating is a common response.

These are long ramblings - because it is a complex issue.

Eric

Lance still is the best cyclist ever - regardless.

 

[LKLA]

I give up - Best of luck to you @Eleeski !

 

[Primoz]

Regarding the research on corticosteroids, if it's so conclusive why does WADA allow them at all? And why aren't the kids using it turning into monsters? Maybe they are good medicines with small effects.

I believe they are great medicine. Also EPO is super good medicine and it saved many people's life. But I don't think it's all cool to take it to improve your sport performance

Regarding TUEs, if a medicine brings you back to competitive health, great! Discrimination against asthmatics or anyone needing medicine is wrong.

I'm sorry you have asthma and you are feeling personally attacked with this, but if we go strictly this way, we can also say it's discrimination against small people who have no chance to be top NBA stars, so it's all cool to use some growth hormone to get over their limits and will be allowed to play on center position in LA Lakers

 

[Eleeski]

I feel personally attacked (not by you or anyone here - all have been quite civil) but because my performance was unusual due to my age and whispered about. I was the first one called for "random" testing at the first World tournament I went to. But I passed and have been quite open about what I personally use. Not many TUEs in waterskiing and it's a small world so my personal complaints have faded.

I don't have asthma, I have arthritis. From a young age. Drugs are important to me. Naproxen rocks, is legal and absolutely performance enhancing for me. I don't think I'm cheating.

I hope the threat of drug testing kept my son cleaner (pot is banned - good). I used Lance's testicular cancer as a lesson against testosterone. So I do believe in anti doping.

But my concern is strictly for the health of the athlete.

Sometimes the rules work against the health of the athlete. For me, a too short course of prednisone (competition conflicts) when I got shingles (get the vaccine!) ruined an injured hip. WADA assisted suffering.

Really, I could care less about a "level playing field". Too much effort goes into minor effects from drugs. And way too much press.

Eric

It takes a lot more than HGH to make an NBA star. But the Lakers need a couple good players now...

 

[scott43]

An interesting interview conclusion at the end..basically, Brailsford says "We don't want anyone associated with doping." Reporter: "Well you've hired people associated with doping." Brailsford: "Well do you know how hard it is to find people not associated with doping?? We couldn't win if we didn't hire people associated with doping." That's what you call your proverbial slippery slope...

http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/news/commentary-eight-years-spent-covering-team-sky_458885

 

[Dakine]

Lance said it all when he said that if the sport is so clean how come people are beating his records?

 

[Eleeski]

Lance said it all when he said that if the sport is so clean how come people are beating his records?

Because the drugs didn't really make that much difference? Belief in the drugs might be more important than any physiological advantage. (At the levels to avoid testing positive.

Drugs are not the only factor in competition. But it makes an interesting story.

Eric

 

[Dakine]

"Because the drugs didn't really make that much difference"

I can tell you have never spent much time around juicers in a powerlifting gym.
Anabolic steroids work miracles...right until they don't.

 

[LKLA]

Because the drugs didn't really make that much difference? Belief in the drugs might be more important than any physiological advantage. (At the levels to avoid testing positive.

Drugs are not the only factor in competition. But it makes an interesting story.

Eric

I was born and grew up in Spain and France surrounded by a cycling mad culture. Family and friends were pro and semi-pro cyclists. I myself was part of youth cycling team for 4 years as a kid. I have attended dozens of races, including five Tours and have closely followed the sport for almost 40 years. I may not know much about rugby or hockey OR SKIING, but I know a thing or two about cycling. I am not sure what experience you base your comments on cycling on but with all due respect they are - how can I say this - ill informed.

Drugs make all the difference in the sport. All these guys use the latest equipment and rely on the smartest tacticians.They all use the best and latest training regiments. All of them are willing to suffer to the death. The difference in cycling has sadly come down to who has the better drugs - who does or does not get caught. Sad, but true.

Froome and Wiggins are guilty as sin, as are many others who have so far avoided getting caught and others who have been caught like Lance and Tyler and Floyd and Ivan Basso and Pantani and Ulrich and...But two wrongs do not a right make.

That has absolutely nothing to do with your situation as a 60+ year old water skier. It also has nothing to do with the applicability of many of these medicines are of great benefit to people like yourself

 

[Eleeski]

"spent much time around juicers in a powerlifting gym

Isn't that a quote from the movie Airplane?

I'm not questioning the effectiveness of steroids. Those are tested for and should be kept out of competition. As should stimulants and serious painkillers. Testing seems to work pretty well for that.

The drugs being discussed are corticosteroids which have a much lower PED benefit but are very useful medicines. Legally used (unethically?) with a TUE or in Froome's case such a common medicine that a TUE was not needed (his explanation of being over the limit will be interesting). The benefits from these drugs may be too small to notice.

Mosquito bites and hemorrhoids (and the resulting cortisone use) won't make me a power lifter.

Eric

 

[Dakine]

Eleeski...you really think Lance didn't use anabolics?
He doped to perfection and guys are beating his records.
It is too soon for evolution so I think that serious doping is still going on.
Some of the drugs like Meldonium don't make much sense either but records keep falling.
Corticosteroids help healing a lot and that is a performance advantage because you can train harder.
Russia beat the tests for years and Sky likely does too.

 

[Eleeski]

@LKLA Your experience is quite different from mine. My low level pro cyclist friend (who beat Lance in a race - tactics!) Chris Hipp, was too reluctant to take any drugs. He claimed drugs as he saw them used didn't give a real advantage. He talked a lot with my physician father about drugs - for the medical condition that eventually killed him. (The blood thinners he needed weren't compatible with racing - he should have quit racing).

I had some other cyclist friends who were ridiculous druggies. Not very good cyclists.

My sport, waterskiing, gets little advantage from drugs. Still lots of innuendo. The only positive test costing a medal was for pot. So my experience is different.

@Dakine I told my sons that Lance got testicular cancer from testosterone supplements. But in the peak of his career, I don't think that was his doping choice. Too easy to detect. He was much more subtle.

Recovery from injury is a good thing for the athlete's health. If corticosteroids help that, I'm OK with that.

I kind of think that Lance's autologous blood doping is good for the long term health of the riders and should be allowed (encouraged?).

It seems unpopular but I only care about drugs if they adversely affect the health of the athlete.

Eric

 

[cantunamunch]

Lance said it all when he said that if the sport is so clean how come people are beating his records?

"Better bikes and better training"

 

[LKLA]

@LKLA Your experience is quite different from mine. My low level pro cyclist friend (who beat Lance in a race - tactics!) Chris Hipp, was too reluctant to take any drugs. He claimed drugs as he saw them used didn't give a real advantage. He talked a lot with my physician father about drugs - for the medical condition that eventually killed him. (The blood thinners he needed weren't compatible with racing - he should have quit racing).

I had some other cyclist friends who were ridiculous druggies. Not very good cyclists.

My sport, waterskiing, gets little advantage from drugs. Still lots of innuendo. The only positive test costing a medal was for pot. So my experience is different.

@Dakine I told my sons that Lance got testicular cancer from testosterone supplements. But in the peak of his career, I don't think that was his doping choice. Too easy to detect. He was much more subtle.

Recovery from injury is a good thing for the athlete's health. If corticosteroids help that, I'm OK with that.

I kind of think that Lance's autologous blood doping is good for the long term health of the riders and should be allowed (encouraged?).

It seems unpopular but I only care about drugs if they adversely affect the health of the athlete.

Eric

Agree - my experience is vastly “more experienced” than yours! I am sure very much the inverse would be the case if we were to discuss water skiing. That is why I don't comment on water skiing threads and why the focus from all the posters here is on cycling.

I think all of us would love for cycling to be a clean sport. I don't think anyone is pushing a vendetta against cycling or any one cyclist.

The demands of the sport are too great and the money at stake too large to ignore the urge to cheat. The discovery of new drugs that can help performance/recovery/pain management/masking has been prolific and that has only added wood to the fire.

Regardless, both Froome and Wiggins had substances that were on the banned list. End of story. And if that is not enough for you they had crazy levels of it and equally crazy excuses for why that was the case. Those are facts, not opinions.

 

[Eleeski]

Regardless, both Froome and Wiggins had substances that were on the banned list. End of story. And if that is not enough for you they had crazy levels of it and equally crazy excuses for why that was the case. Those are facts, not opinions.

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.

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.

These are good common (in Froome's case) medicines. Useful for the health of the athletes.

Eric