former coach, Shane Sutton, that "what Brad was doing was unethical but not against the rules" by taking triamcinolone

And this is exactly what Froome is doing, Sky can justify the massive doses of salbutamol pointing to the TUE while saying it's not a PED, and gain the performance advantage of low body fat with high muscle density.
Pathetic!.

---

res, non verba

I have no idea how David B is keeping his job.

It probably helps that he effectively answers to only one sponsor. And that sponsor has had his back. So far. No board of directors, etc (as far as I'm aware).

I think it'd be much harder with some other teams that depend on a variety of sponsors or have less authoritarian-style management structure.

the Nike of the UK

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

This is just bullshit. The MPs found that Wiggins was using for performance enhancement. That is a violation right there. Getting a crooked doctor to sign off on a TUE and the UCI to rubber stamp it does not make it okay. The WADA code clearly indicates four criteria that must all be true for a TUE to be valid. Wiggins' TUEs met none of them.

The MPs and Sutton cry crocodile tears about how they are shocked about the unethical use of drugs but they are relying on UKAD to protect Wiggins.

You don't need a TUE for salbutamol any more, any rider can take up to 1600 micrograms a day. Sky can't justify a "massive dose" that exceeds this level as that would lead to a ban. It would also be extremely stupid to have deliberately taken a massive dose knowing that Froome as a race leader would be tested every day.

I still firmly believe that the intent was to take up to the permitted threshold but no more. And either they screwed up the dose and/or some freak combination of heat/fatigue/dehydration/illness led to the salbutamol not leaving the body as quickly as normal and giving an adverse finding. If it was the former they get a ban, if it was the latter then they're going to have a very hard time proving it.

Inhaled you don't need a TUE. Other forms of administering the drug you do.

Yes, but Sky didn't have a TUE for those other methods of taking it, so as I said they won't be trying to justify a massive dose, they'll be trying to explain how a permitted dose taken by inhalation could lead to an adverse finding.

The simplest explanation is that the team screwed up Froome's finish bottle. Sky has been using some sketchy stuff there. A couple of years back Froome lost his bottle and the whole team panicked. Instead of a domestique giving Froome his bottle, there was a mad scramble to go back to the team car and get another. It was so weird that several riders on other teams have talked about it.

The notion that Froome's unique physiology broke down for a couple of hours before the test, something that never happened to him before, to goose his salbutamol test results to levels unseen is laughable.

Froome's best strategy would be to say he messed up, took way too many puffs, and make a deal for a short ban. He could have done that last fall and been back for the Tour. The Vuelta is not a big loss to his palmares. Instead he's going down the Wiggins' route by claiming innocence when everyone with a clue ridicules him and his excuses.

It also helps when your only sponsor is a media giant with a prolific history of intimidating and bullying anyone who tries to stand against them. If you are sponsoring another team do you really want Sky to have an excuse to leverage their power against you? In a sport where media exposure pays Team Sky has never had an issue to reminding people who controls a vast proportion of the European media coverage.

Errr, no it's not. What you have said is 'bullshit'.

You need to separate the TUE's from using substances out of competition, that are allowed out of competition. The latter are perfectly legitimate within the sport, however the parliamentary committee has found it 'ethically wrong' - which is basically an excuse for a load of MPs to look like they are doing something useful. You may also find it ethically wrong, but it wasn't illegal or against the rules.

Does he normally drink the finish bottle after providing test samples then? You often see the riders drinking bottles straight after the finish, presumably partly to recover and partly to help them actually produce a sample. If his finish bottle is loaded with salbutamol though that would be pretty daft. Or are you suggesting his finish bottle contains something that would mask the salbutamol before he gives his sample?

Wouldn't you also expect his domestiques to be on the same programme and therefore have the same finish bottle? If Sky have figured out a way of loading Froome up with salbutamol and not testing positive (until now) you'd expect the whole team to be doing the same thing, especially since most of them won't be tested after each stage.

The Froome situation still seems very weird to me. Just such a stupid drug to get busted for when the advantage seems minimal and you know you'll get tested for it. The Wiggins case seems much more clearcut, straightforward abuse of the TUE process to cut weight before major races.

The WADA code lays out the requirements for a TUE. Wiggins' TUEs met none of the four criteria, and all four are required. Sky hired dope doctor Lienders, who is friends with the UCI's Dr. Zarzoli, and clued them into how the system really works: Zarzoli will rubber stamp any application without regard to its legitimacy. This has been a standard way to dope for decades. The UCI is corrupt, and it provides cover for doping by allowing teams to use bogus TUEs. All the teams need is a crooked doctor to sign off on the invalid TUE application.

 
The parliamentary committee 'chastised' (I like that word :-) ) Wiggins for his LEGAL out of competition use of certain substances.

This is the point I am referring to, and actually take issue with. In my opinion parliament can butt out on whether they liked, or didn't like, what Wiggins did when he was within the rules.

The dodgy TUE is a separate issue which is an acknowledged grey area and needs better rules in the future.

AFAIK, the finish bottle is one that is taken in the ending portions of the race to combat fatigue and provide a boost for the finish. This type of bottle could have caffeine/taurine, nitrates and simple sugars OR it could contain pain killers (tramadol) and salbulamol.

I have the same speculation as Arch Stanton. It seems most likely that he took a finish bottle with salbutemol that someone messed up the intented dose. Instead of 0.25g of crushed tablet they used 0.75g in the bottle. Or maybe they mix one bottle and then dilute it into two bottles for use. It just doesn't make sense from the facts we know that he tested so high on inhaler alone.

There are some keys facts still unknown:

• What is Chris's base line test for salbutemol over the years and other grand tours?
• What were Froome's salbutemol test levels during the Vuelta before and after the incident test?
• Can WADA test the sample and determine if the Salbutemol was inhaled or ingested/injected?

nope, most asthma inhalers aren't subject to TUEs, so no problem there..

https://www.usada.org/...oads/wallet-card.pdf

Permitted medications:

Asthma: cromolyn sodium (Intal), ipratropium,
montelukast (Singulair), nedocromil, theophylline,
tiotropium (Spiriva), Xolair
Certain Beta-2 Agonists (by inhalation only):
Advair, Combivent, Foradil, Perforomist ProAir,
Proventil, Ventolin, Dulera, Serevent, Symbicort,
Xopenex; Inhaled salbutamol (albuterol):
maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not
to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours;
inhaled formoterol: maximum delivered dose of
54 micrograms over 24 hours; inhaled salmeterol:
maximum 200 micrograms over 24 hours. The
presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000
ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is
presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use
of the substance and will be considered as an
Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the athlete
proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic
study, that the abnormal result was the
consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose
(by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated
above.