|
Dec 2017
7:21pm, 18 Dec 2017
12,252 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Threshold, limit.....if you need to explain it, there is a reason they want it explained, so must be a benefit?
|
|
Dec 2017
7:41pm, 18 Dec 2017
12,061 posts
|
Chrisull
The cavalry has arrived ;-), thank goodness I was feeling a little embattled.
|
|
Dec 2017
7:53pm, 18 Dec 2017
5,256 posts
|
sallykate
I'd understood that salbutamol is legal when inhaled (up to 1600mg per day) but not when administered by any other means - which might confer a benefit rather than a therapeutic correction of airways (this was in either INRNG or Ross Tucker but I forget which). The limit of the drug or its metabolites in urine is set at a level which would be very unlikely to be exceeded as a result of the legal inhaled use.
|
|
Dec 2017
7:57pm, 18 Dec 2017
5,257 posts
|
sallykate
FWIW I'm also hoping that he can demonstrate that it was just one of those things which can be explained by his metabolism and the circumstances on the day.
(And just realised I wrote urine when I meant blood. Oops.)
|
|
Dec 2017
8:08pm, 18 Dec 2017
32,021 posts
|
Nellers
The abnormal results are from a urine test SK.
|
|
Dec 2017
8:11pm, 18 Dec 2017
5,258 posts
|
sallykate
Ah doubly wrong then.
|
|
Dec 2017
8:37pm, 18 Dec 2017
12,062 posts
|
Chrisull
SPR - it doesn't prove doping is rampant, BUT it is symptomatic of rampant doping, which has been the rule, not the exception for the past 30+ years.
If you had symptoms, then found you had cancer, and then you went into remission and then the same symptoms re-occurred, you'd naturally suspect the cancer had returned? You might well be wrong, but it would be erring on the side of caution.
Every TDF between 1998 and 2011 the majority of the entire top 10 have failed drugs tests or admitted to doping or been a client of Dr Ferrari.
I still love cycling races though!
|
|
Dec 2017
10:18pm, 18 Dec 2017
3,566 posts
|
larkim
I've been accused of worse Gobi 
Just happy to be offering a contrary position
|
|
Dec 2017
10:44pm, 18 Dec 2017
25,409 posts
|
SPR
Chris - The culture can be acknowledged while looking at each case on merit without baseless speculation.
The Armstrong argument for this doesn't wash. When Froome goes after the one clean rider on a dirty team, attacks a rider on the road for no reason other than he implicated his dirty doctor, is generally shit to others that have evidence of wrong doing, gets a retrospective TUE for a positive test, has multiple positives for the EPO which are used to validate the test now in use... You get the picture. The evidence was there, just ignored.
|
|
Dec 2017
11:15pm, 18 Dec 2017
62,330 posts
|
Gobi
Thats not accusing you Larks :¬)
|
