RugbyRebels

Big D wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016 ... -david-mi/

Here's the detail from the Telegraph story

Dr Brian Lipworth, of the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, said he believed there was “no scientific reason” why a drug like triamcinolone would be performance-enhancing.

“An anabolic steroid like testosterone puts on muscle mass but this is a catabolic steroid which breaks down muscle,” said Lipworth . “The benefits to David Millar were probably the fact that he was cheating by taking EPO and testosterone at the same time as he was using triamcinolone.”


Ian Pavord, a Professor of Respiratory Medicine at the University of Oxford, said he too doubted injected triamcinolone could help athletic performance as it would “reduce proximal muscle mass”.

I was just linking it for info.

Big D wrote:I was just linking it for info.

No criticism intended

Rather worryingly for me.

“It would cure his [Wiggins’s] hay fever, no doubt about that,” Lipworth said. “But the side effects are totally unacceptable in my humble opinion. We see patients who get side effects even on the higher potency inhaled corticosteroids like fluticasone, let alone injectables, which is why it’s utterly bonkers to prescribe it.

I am on a high dose Flucticasone inhaler. I had to go on the highest available in Houston as the airborne allergens there left me unable to function. I contracted pneumonia twice in two years.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There's nothing even slightly remarkable about Farah's 2 TUEs.

I've been concerned for a long time about the numbers of athletes with asthma. A number of people on here have sought to reassure me about this but it still worries me.

It is worrying. It is also worrying the number of people in the general population who have an asthma diagnosis. When I was still coaching minis 10 years ago, we would collect the inhalers off the kids at the start of training. I reckon about a quarter of them had a salbutamol inhaler. At school, I was the only one in my year with asthma, and ther couldn't have been more than a slack handful in the whole school.

WaspInWales wrote:I get the feeling next year's Tour is going to be rather hostile towards Sky...more so than recently.

Because the others are clean and honest?

Digby wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:I get the feeling next year's Tour is going to be rather hostile towards Sky...more so than recently.

Because the others are clean and honest?

No, just the general perception in some quarters in France that Froome is a cheat and Sky are not as squeaky clean as they like to boast. These leaks will do little to lift those doubts.

I've no doubt a decent percentage of pro riders from all around the world are using the TUE system, just as much, if not more than the Brits but unless their data is leaked, the public will only be interested in the potential for scandal regarding our lads and lasses.

WaspInWales wrote:

Digby wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:I get the feeling next year's Tour is going to be rather hostile towards Sky...more so than recently.

Because the others are clean and honest?

No, just the general perception in some quarters in France that Froome is a cheat and Sky are not as squeaky clean as they like to boast. These leaks will do little to lift those doubts.

I've no doubt a decent percentage of pro riders from all around the world are using the TUE system, just as much, if not more than the Brits but unless their data is leaked, the public will only be interested in the potential for scandal regarding our lads and lasses.

Froomes TUE has been known about pretty much since he got it.

Stones of granite wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There's nothing even slightly remarkable about Farah's 2 TUEs.

I've been concerned for a long time about the numbers of athletes with asthma. A number of people on here have sought to reassure me about this but it still worries me.

It is worrying. It is also worrying the number of people in the general population who have an asthma diagnosis. When I was still coaching minis 10 years ago, we would collect the inhalers off the kids at the start of training. I reckon about a quarter of them had a salbutamol inhaler. At school, I was the only one in my year with asthma, and ther couldn't have been more than a slack handful in the whole school.

Or is it the volume of pro athletes who have doctors that tell them they have asthma/ADHD/really bad allergies (apparently) and can benefit from TUEs that is the worrying issue?

I think the verification/validation of TUEs could be looked at. Perhaps install a 10person panel at WADA level and 3 are selected to review each TUE? Although I imagine there are 1000s of TUEs.

ADHD was Gatlins excuse the 1st time he failed IIRC.

Big D wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There's nothing even slightly remarkable about Farah's 2 TUEs.

I've been concerned for a long time about the numbers of athletes with asthma. A number of people on here have sought to reassure me about this but it still worries me.

It is worrying. It is also worrying the number of people in the general population who have an asthma diagnosis. When I was still coaching minis 10 years ago, we would collect the inhalers off the kids at the start of training. I reckon about a quarter of them had a salbutamol inhaler. At school, I was the only one in my year with asthma, and ther couldn't have been more than a slack handful in the whole school.

Or is it the volume of pro athletes who have doctors that tell them they have asthma/ADHD/really bad allergies (apparently) and can benefit from TUEs that is the worrying issue?

I think the verification/validation of TUEs could be looked at. Perhaps install a 10person panel at WADA level and 3 are selected to review each TUE? Although I imagine there are 1000s of TUEs.

ADHD was Gatlins excuse the 1st time he failed IIRC.

I think the volume would swamp that system. It needs to be dealt with at national level, and by the governing bodies of each sport. TUEs don't just apply to professional athletes, but amateurs as well.

Big D wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:The whole fact that some people are now expressing doubts about athletes like Farah suggests that the FSBs agitprop campaign is a success.

A big well done to Putin, the world anti-doping campaign is now in danger of going to into meltdown, with who knows what consequences for sport and athletes.

I am no more concerned about Farah than a week ago. Do I think he is clean? Yes until proven otherwise the same with most other athletes. But that doesn't mean when Salazar and Rupp are being looked at suspiciously and between 2010 and 2011 Farah took 40s off his 10k pb that I can blame people for looking at him with an element of suspicion.

Personally I believe he is clean, I actually believe he is easily one of Britain's greatest track athletes but admittedly has undoubtedly benefitted from competing in the current era which isn't his fault and a discussion for another day.

I'm in the same boat. I don't think Farah is a doper, but I have that background cynicism regarding athletics (and cycling) that has been reinforced by far too many scandals over the years. The optimistic side of me is pleased that rugby doesn't have the same problem (at least in degree of severity, I know there are cases of individual dopers within the game) - perhaps its the nature of the sports involved? Don't know.

I also wonder if the number of drugs on the prohibited list and the exceptions are too complicated. Admittedly professional athletes and their medical staff should be well aware of what they can and cant take in the normal course of events or for specific medical problems. But given that with almost every revelation there is some comment that the drug is for medical purposes and was prescribed by a doctor, I do wonder if the rules are too detailed.

Sandydragon wrote:

Big D wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:The whole fact that some people are now expressing doubts about athletes like Farah suggests that the FSBs agitprop campaign is a success.

A big well done to Putin, the world anti-doping campaign is now in danger of going to into meltdown, with who knows what consequences for sport and athletes.

I am no more concerned about Farah than a week ago. Do I think he is clean? Yes until proven otherwise the same with most other athletes. But that doesn't mean when Salazar and Rupp are being looked at suspiciously and between 2010 and 2011 Farah took 40s off his 10k pb that I can blame people for looking at him with an element of suspicion.

Personally I believe he is clean, I actually believe he is easily one of Britain's greatest track athletes but admittedly has undoubtedly benefitted from competing in the current era which isn't his fault and a discussion for another day.

I'm in the same boat. I don't think Farah is a doper, but I have that background cynicism regarding athletics (and cycling) that has been reinforced by far too many scandals over the years. The optimistic side of me is pleased that rugby doesn't have the same problem (at least in degree of severity, I know there are cases of individual dopers within the game) - perhaps its the nature of the sports involved? Don't know.

I also wonder if the number of drugs on the prohibited list and the exceptions are too complicated. Admittedly professional athletes and their medical staff should be well aware of what they can and cant take in the normal course of events or for specific medical problems. But given that with almost every revelation there is some comment that the drug is for medical purposes and was prescribed by a doctor, I do wonder if the rules are too detailed.

Rugby, and particularly welsh rugby i think, is the biggest offender in UKADA I believe.

Which performance enhancing drugs would you want to leave off the list?

Reducing muscle mass being pretty useful in a race with thousands of meters of climbing, just look at wiggins from 2012 tour totally emaciated.

Sky have Zero credibility

And dont bother with the neither does anyone else shit, they're the ones who rode in on their white horse to save cycling, they've now blown that for everyone, the next team that so they'll do that will be laughed at "we've heard that before" cycling is finished now - irredeemable

paddy no 11 wrote:Reducing muscle mass being pretty useful in a race with thousands of meters of climbing, just look at wiggins from 2012 tour totally emaciated.

Sky have Zero credibility

Reducing muscle mass being pretty useful in a race with thousands of meters of climbing
Really? know much about cycling do you?

Seriously you dont think keeping weight off helps in cycling? Its all we've heard about from "marginal gains", yes reduced weight helps you climb (and no I wouldnt claim to know a whole lot about cycling but enough to see thru armstrong before all the same)

paddy no 11 wrote:Seriously you dont think keeping weight off helps in cycling? Its all we've heard about from "marginal gains", yes reduced weight helps you climb (and no I wouldnt claim to know a whole lot about cycling but enough to see thru armstrong before all the same)

Keeping weight off helps, losing muscle mass equates to losing power. A pro cyclist will try to lose weight through fat loss, not muscle loss. For most of them, the demands of the sport mean that keeping muscle mass is the challenge, not losing it.

Not only that, but the Tour de France and the Giro d'Italia (one occasion of each where Wiggins has had a TUE immediately before) don't just consist of climbing, they have flat sections and time trial sections. In these, TTs in particular, weight is of almost no consideration - power and aerodynamics trump weight every time. For the sprint sections outright power is demanded, and for the TT power endurance is demanded.

Loss of power through loss of muscle mass is the last thing a pro cyclist needs.

Further to my previous post, here are the details of the 2013 Giro d'Italia, immediately before which Wiggins received a TUE for corticosteroid injection. He pulled out after stage 11 citing a chest infection. I presume that the early signs of this is what prompted the injection in the first place.

1 130 km (81 mi) Flat stage
2 17.4 km (11 mi) Team time trial
3 222 km (138 mi) Medium-mountain stage
4 246 km (153 mi) Medium-mountain stage
5 203 km (126 mi) Flat stage
6 169 km (105 mi) Flat stage
7 177 km (110 mi) Medium-mountain stage
8 54.8 km (34 mi) Individual time trial
9 170 km (106 mi) Medium-mountain stage
10 167 km (104 mi) Mountain stage
11 182 km (113 mi) Medium-mountain stage
12 134 km (83 mi) Flat stage
13 254 km (158 mi) Flat stage
14 180 km (112 mi) Mountain stage
15 149 km (93 mi) Mountain stage
16 238 km (148 mi) Medium-mountain stage
17 214 km (133 mi) Flat stage
18 20.6 km (13 mi) Individual time trial
19 139 km (86 mi) Mountain stage
20 203 km (126 mi) Mountain stage
21 197 km (122 mi) Flat stage

Stones of granite wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There's nothing even slightly remarkable about Farah's 2 TUEs.

I've been concerned for a long time about the numbers of athletes with asthma. A number of people on here have sought to reassure me about this but it still worries me.

It is worrying. It is also worrying the number of people in the general population who have an asthma diagnosis. When I was still coaching minis 10 years ago, we would collect the inhalers off the kids at the start of training. I reckon about a quarter of them had a salbutamol inhaler. At school, I was the only one in my year with asthma, and ther couldn't have been more than a slack handful in the whole school.

There are substantially more people suffering asthma in the last 20 years. Deaths are falling but prevalence increases at pace.

Wiggins was a track cyclist he was always going to have the ability to make time on the flat/time trials what he couldnt do was the haute climbs. They shot there man full of corticosteroids, dropped the weight and hey presto he can climb HC and wins the tour. Its legitimate but they have no credibility in my eyes.

More will follow

Stones of granite wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Seriously you dont think keeping weight off helps in cycling? Its all we've heard about from "marginal gains", yes reduced weight helps you climb (and no I wouldnt claim to know a whole lot about cycling but enough to see thru armstrong before all the same)

Keeping weight off helps, losing muscle mass equates to losing power. A pro cyclist will try to lose weight through fat loss, not muscle loss. For most of them, the demands of the sport mean that keeping muscle mass is the challenge, not losing it.

Not only that, but the Tour de France and the Giro d'Italia (one occasion of each where Wiggins has had a TUE immediately before) don't just consist of climbing, they have flat sections and time trial sections. In these, TTs in particular, weight is of almost no consideration - power and aerodynamics trump weight every time. For the sprint sections outright power is demanded, and for the TT power endurance is demanded.

Loss of power through loss of muscle mass is the last thing a pro cyclist needs.

Interesting article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28363129

I do a lot of cycling myself. It's not even October and I've already managed 100k of climbing this year and I'm not particularly built for it. I weigh about 88kg so I'm considerably heavier than most climbers but at the same time, I can hold my own reasonably well enough. At my current weight, I'll never trouble the best club climbers but if I somehow managed to lose 20 kg, I'd be a lot quicker but the downside would be the loss of power for sprinting.

WaspInWales wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Seriously you dont think keeping weight off helps in cycling? Its all we've heard about from "marginal gains", yes reduced weight helps you climb (and no I wouldnt claim to know a whole lot about cycling but enough to see thru armstrong before all the same)

Keeping weight off helps, losing muscle mass equates to losing power. A pro cyclist will try to lose weight through fat loss, not muscle loss. For most of them, the demands of the sport mean that keeping muscle mass is the challenge, not losing it.

Not only that, but the Tour de France and the Giro d'Italia (one occasion of each where Wiggins has had a TUE immediately before) don't just consist of climbing, they have flat sections and time trial sections. In these, TTs in particular, weight is of almost no consideration - power and aerodynamics trump weight every time. For the sprint sections outright power is demanded, and for the TT power endurance is demanded.

Loss of power through loss of muscle mass is the last thing a pro cyclist needs.

Interesting article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28363129

I do a lot of cycling myself. It's not even October and I've already managed 100k of climbing this year and I'm not particularly built for it. I weigh about 88kg so I'm considerably heavier than most climbers but at the same time, I can hold my own reasonably well enough. At my current weight, I'll never trouble the best club climbers but if I somehow managed to lose 20 kg, I'd be a lot quicker but the downside would be the loss of power for sprinting.

I also do a lot of cycling and in Scotland we have plenty hills. Of course, in general, what the article says is true, but a pro rider can't win the Tour or the Giro or any of the other classics on climbing alone. Lose muscle, lose power, lose the race, it's that simple. If Wiggins strategy was to lose muscle mass, he would have to have done that through a training program designed to lose overall muscle and to strengthen the remaining muscle.
The loss of muscle mass proximal to the injection just before a race is a very poor strategy. It will cut very little weight overall, but it will lead to a local, uncompensated weakness.

paddy no 11 wrote:Wiggins was a track cyclist he was always going to have the ability to make time on the flat/time trials what he couldnt do was the haute climbs. They shot there man full of corticosteroids, dropped the weight and hey presto he can climb HC and wins the tour. Its legitimate but they have no credibility in my eyes.

More will follow

I'll look forward to your "more to follow" because this is nonsense.

Losing weight and thus losing power on the flats would of course be offset in that there's less of you to force through the air, and the rider is the worst aerodynamic feature on the bike.

Digby wrote:Losing weight and thus losing power on the flats would of course be offset in that there's less of you to force through the air, and the rider is the worst aerodynamic feature on the bike.

It's not offset by very much, if anything at all. You need to lose an awful lot of weight to reduce your frontal area by a significant amount.
How much of a reduction in frontal area reduction do you think Wiggins achieved through muscle mass loss proximal to an injection site? Bear in mind that we are talking about the "aero tuck" not the shopper position.

Digby wrote:Losing weight and thus losing power on the flats would of course be offset in that there's less of you to force through the air, and the rider is the worst aerodynamic feature on the bike.

I know the square root of feck all about any of this.

However ([emoji57] ) in the olympics that dutch girl won gold despite carrying a shit load of extra timber which clearly didn't affect her aerodynamicity. I know that's track cycling etc but it was obvious that, when you're bent over the handle bars, having extra weight around your middle doesn't affect how you get thru the air to that big of an extent.

Aerodynamicity.