Professional Cycling · Public discussion

Three Non-negatives from the Giro

Started by El Loto · · Last activity · 33 posts · 2,585 views

← Back to Professional Cycling

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postThree Non-negatives from the GiroEl Loto · 13 Jun 2007 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 2 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #33Wayne666 · 15 Jun 2007

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Professional Cycling
Published
13 June 2007
Last activity
15 June 2007
Original author
El Loto
Posts
33
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,585
Views / 30 days
0
Topics
Asthma and cyclingGiro d’ItaliaSaddle soresTour de FranceLance Armstrong

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 33
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    El Loto
    Archived post
    #1

    From cyclingnews.com

    Quoted post said:

    Three Giro non-negatives reported
    One Spaniard and two Italians in question

    Three riders' anti-doping controls during the Giro d'Italia have resulted in 'non-negative' according to La Gazzetta dello Sport. The Italian Grand Tour was one of the most open races in years, blighted briefly by Aketza Peña's nandrolone result and, now, the news of these three cyclists, of which one is Spanish and two are Italian. Counter-analysis is pending and the UCI has yet to confirm the findings.

    The top-classification men seem to be out of the suspicion spotlight due to the (unauthorized) CONI controls carried out on May 31, after the stage to Monte Zoncolan.

    In the case of the Spaniard, the 'non-negative' is a result of an elevated testosterone level. The Italian Federal Sports Medicine anti-doping laboratory (FMSI) in Rome has sent samples to Barcelona for further verification, pending confirmation from the UCI. The tests would seek to prove, like in the case of Floyd Landis, whether there is evidence of synthetic testosterone.

    The two Italians' results stemmed from the presence of Salbutamol. The substance usually found in drugs used to control asthma but in the case of the two Italians, the dose was over the 1000 nanograms per millilitre limit.

    The Italians could in fact have a special dispensation from their doctors for the use of excess Salbutamol but for one of the two La Gazzetta dello Sport reported that the level is high enough not to support a therapeutic use. Controversially, medical certifications permit the use of Salbutamol above the 1000 limit with no upper end. The outcome for the two Italians could be similar to Igor González de Galdeano's case in the 2002 Tour de France. The Basque registered a reading of 1360 nanograms but the UCI did not count this as a 'positive' and it allowed him to continue racing.

    Cyclingnews will report on the case as it unfolds.

    Report
  2. Serafino
    Archived post
    #2

    The asthma medication is a tricky one IMO. At times, the required dose may not work (especially Salbutamol) so I can see the need for a dispensation allowing in excess of a given figure with no "unreasonable" maximum dosage.

    Report
  3. Frigo's Luggage
    Archived post
    #3

    The problem with the asthma stuff is that all of these guys have an asthma diagnosis from a doctor. People with asthma are apparently great bike riders. I was trying to find information on the Giro raids a bunch of years back when a huge percentage of the peloton had doctor notes for asthma drugs. I couldn't find it. Can anybody give me a link to it?

    Serafino said:

    The asthma medication is a tricky one IMO. At times, the required dose may not work (especially Salbutamol) so I can see the need for a dispensation allowing in excess of a given figure with no "unreasonable" maximum dosage.

    Report
  4. Eldrack
    Archived post
    #4

    Well, at least WADA etc haven't played their normal game of 'leaking' the names of the riders. You never know, due process might actually be followed in this one. Which probably means they aren't very high profile riders.

    Report
  5. Wayne666
    Archived post
    #5
    Eldrack said:

    Well, at least WADA etc haven't played their normal game of 'leaking' the names of the riders.


    When has WADA leaked rider's names? I thought the leaks were typically from the LNDD lab in France to the L'Equipe reporter, and since the lab tests anonymous coded samples it has been general information not specific riders.

    Report
  6. House
    Archived post
    #6

    Two comments:

    1) It doesn't matter if your first use of the "puffer" does not help, the UCI has a limit on the amount and if you test positive for more it is considered a non-negative.

    2) While I do not believe that all of those cyclists have asthma, I must point out that excercise induced asthma is fairly common in our world.

    Report
  7. Serafino
    Archived post
    #7
    House said:

    Two comments:

    1) It doesn't matter if your first use of the "puffer" does not help, the UCI has a limit on the amount and if you test positive for more it is considered a non-negative.

    2) While I do not believe that all of those cyclists have asthma, I must point out that excercise induced asthma is fairly common in our world.

    I developed asthma due to a still undiagnosed alergy or trigger in my early 30's. Got off a flight from Europe, arriving in N.A. and presto a problem. Let me tell you, when its bad its bad. It was managed, although it almost killed me ten years ago, and it largely went away until a particularly smoggy summer of hard riding two years ago.

    So excercise induced asthma is a factor, as is asthma caused by polution, allergies, etc. Its far more common than a generation ago. In N.A. something like 35-40% of school children have some degree of asthma. This was unheard of years ago.

    If they really have asthma, they have to make accomodations for their dosage. Not being able to breathe is no fun. I can't see how it would be difficult to diagnose either. You either have it or you don't. WADA, UCI, etc., could easily verify the extent of an athlete's asthma.

    On certain days, one or two puffs certainly won't do it for you. Especially if you are competiting at their level. Its about getting back your ability to breathe, not about using it as an undue advantage based on my experience.

    Report
  8. whiteboytrash
    Archived post
    #8
    House said:

    Two comments:

    1) It doesn't matter if your first use of the "puffer" does not help, the UCI has a limit on the amount and if you test positive for more it is considered a non-negative.

    2) While I do not believe that all of those cyclists have asthma, I must point out that excercise induced asthma is fairly common in our world.

    1 in 6 people have asthma ......

    Report
  9. Rolfrae
    Archived post
    #9
    whiteboytrash said:

    1 in 6 people have asthma ......

    I have asthma - maybe I could win the Tour this year? :eek:

    Report
  10. House
    Archived post
    #10
    whiteboytrash said:

    1 in 6 people have asthma ......

    and what about the number who are not treated regularly because they have asthma that is excercise induced?

    Report
  11. Flyer
    Archived post
    #11
    House said:

    and what about the number who are not treated regularly because they have asthma that is excercise induced?


    Someone does not play well with others. The LAF fund raising is not going well.

    Salbutamol seems standard gear for endurance athletes. Swimming, running and cycling. Just as blood boosting is necessary for a Grand Tour victory.

    Is this not obvious by now?

    LIVE WRONG! Nike says so.

    Report
  12. poulidor
    Archived post
    #12

    From a spanish TV, the 3 names are :
    Iban Mayo AAF with Testosterone

    Piepoli and Pettachi with Salbutamol!

    Report
  13. House
    Archived post
    #13

    Apparently Mayo has always had an elevated level of testosterone from natural causes. At least that's what has been said. The other two are said to have TUE's

    Report
  14. Frigo's Luggage
    Archived post
    #14

    Most of these guys don't have asthma. I think over 50% of the bunch was supposed to asthma during the Giro raids (somebody correct me if I'm wrong on the number). If they have problems breathing its probably because they've been anaerobic for huge amounts of time. Its called pursuiters cough and is not asthma.

    This TUE system has to change. You want to take sulbutomal so you can ride better...No problem, go to your doctor and tell him you can't breath. You got a TUE. You want to use cortisone during the 1999 Tour. No problem...go to the doctor after you get caught and have him back date the saddle sore paperwork. You now have a TUE and can win as many grand tours as you like.

    Serafino said:

    I developed asthma due to a still undiagnosed alergy or trigger in my early 30's. Got off a flight from Europe, arriving in N.A. and presto a problem. Let me tell you, when its bad its bad. It was managed, although it almost killed me ten years ago, and it largely went away until a particularly smoggy summer of hard riding two years ago.

    So excercise induced asthma is a factor, as is asthma caused by polution, allergies, etc. Its far more common than a generation ago. In N.A. something like 35-40% of school children have some degree of asthma. This was unheard of years ago.

    If they really have asthma, they have to make accomodations for their dosage. Not being able to breathe is no fun. I can't see how it would be difficult to diagnose either. You either have it or you don't. WADA, UCI, etc., could easily verify the extent of an athlete's asthma.

    On certain days, one or two puffs certainly won't do it for you. Especially if you are competiting at their level. Its about getting back your ability to breathe, not about using it as an undue advantage based on my experience.

    Report
  15. House
    Archived post
    #15

    It's funny how some people will always figure out a way to turn any discussion into an anti-Armstrong thread. Very sad.

    Report
  16. Flyer
    Archived post
    #16

    What is wrong with slamming Nike and Armstrong for cheating????????

    Lance Armstrong rolled out a Nike invented Cancer Foundation (LIVE WRONG) in order to hide his drug cheating disclosures and dupe sick people into 'believing in Cancer miracle cure searches'. While hiding behind charity is a standard practice amongst all endorsed celebrities---Armstrong lowered the bar with chemo therapies, EPO sales promotions, and $300 Nike sneaker sales all in lieu of seeking non-doping solutions.

    That is pretty rotten and deceptive--chiefly because it worked so well.

    Anyone who defends Lance Armstrong or his marketing deceptions better seek out a psychotherapist and get on the proper medications.

    Frankie Andreu has laid the groundwork (EPO confessions in 1999, 2000, 2001 TDFs) for the illegal Lance Armstrong Tour de Farce victories to be set aside and a legal basis for yet another sporting fraud lawsuit.

    All the EPO & Lasagna consumption in the world will not cure Cancer.

    Report
  17. Frigo's Luggage
    Archived post
    #17

    No. I'm not turning it into an anti-Armstrong thread. The asthma medication is the perfect example of the problems with the TUE system. It just so happens that chemical boy was also able to take advantage of the TUE system when he tested positive for taking drugs during the 1999 Tour. Of course, this was well before Cowboy tested positive an additional six times during that same Tour. But, if you give some money to charity and go on Larry King to say there was no doping, people are happy.

    House, do you really believe there is no doping problems in cycling? Or, is your denial just limited to Armstrong? What about TUEs? Don't you see some room for improvement in that system?

    On second thought, maybe I am raising anti-Armstrong issues here. Its just that the guy is the paradigm for the problems with the sport. So, House you have convinced me with your logic and your facts. You are completely right. I apologize for being anti-LAS. I now see the error of my ways. I only wish that Cowboy would return to the sport to re-establish our moral compass. You agree...right, House?

    House said:

    It's funny how some people will always figure out a way to turn any discussion into an anti-Armstrong thread. Very sad.

    Report
  18. Flyer
    Archived post
    #18

    Frigo:

    20 to 1 House will now counter you by calling you a liar. Or a jealous liar.

    Or a lost puppy,

    Or a pathetic loser,

    as if you has personally stolen his Lance Phamrstrong ceiling poster and yellow wrist LIVE WRONG bracelet.

    Nothing is more pitiful than a Nike endorsed LAF doper apologist. They are worse than Jan Ulrich doping apologists by a factor of 50.

    Report
  19. House
    Archived post
    #19
    Frigo's Luggage said:

    No. I'm not turning it into an anti-Armstrong thread. The asthma medication is the perfect example of the problems with the TUE system. It just so happens that chemical boy was also able to take advantage of the TUE system when he tested positive for taking drugs during the 1999 Tour. Of course, this was well before Cowboy tested positive an additional six times during that same Tour. But, if you give some money to charity and go on Larry King to say there was no doping, people are happy.

    Sorry, but discussing a current TUE issue has nothing to do with LA and their are many other examples you could have used but, as is par for the course around here it becomes about LA.

    Quoted post said:

    House, do you really believe there is no doping problems in cycling? Or, is your denial just limited to Armstrong? What about TUEs? Don't you see some room for improvement in that system?

    Where have I said I believe their are no doping problems in cycling? Where have I said I know for a fact LA never doped? Where have I said there is no room for improvement in the system? Oh, wait, I never said any of those things, but I made a comment about how certain people must turn any thread into an anti-Armstrong thread so the response must be to claim that I did say these things or do believe them. *yawn*

    Quoted post said:

    On second thought, maybe I am raising anti-Armstrong issues here. Its just that the guy is the paradigm for the problems with the sport. So, House you have convinced me with your logic and your facts. You are completely right. I apologize for being anti-LAS. I now see the error of my ways. I only wish that Cowboy would return to the sport to re-establish our moral compass. You agree...right, House?

    Wow, what a childish final paragraph, I guess it is easier to do that rather then post something of intelligence. You must be one of the boys, along with Lim, WBT, Bro and the king dope Helmut.

    Report
  20. JohnO
    Archived post
    #20

    When I think of paradigms of problems in the sport, Armstrong just doesn't rise to the top of the list. I tend to think of Saiz, McQuaid, Landis, Basso, Ullrich, Heras, Millar, the Phonak and Kelme/Liberty teams, and the half of peloton that was lining up at Fuentes' doorstep.

    Whatever else can be said about Armstrong, he did not publicly embarress the sport.

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionProfessional Cycling Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.