Eldron Posted July 1, 2014 Share And the team pulled him from the race....which says alot about their tolerance levels...big up to them. The team didn't pull him - he opted out because his eye has swollen shut and he couldn't see. This is what I mean by grey area - he clearly needed some medical attention but it was refused. The medicine was not making up for a genetic defect or existing condition... rouxtjie and Andrew Steer 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe! Posted July 1, 2014 Share And the team pulled him from the race....which says alot about their tolerance levels...big up to them. Under the UCI rules he was not allowed to take cortisone to treat the swelling because the route of administration of the cortisone was not permitted. The team had no choice in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted July 1, 2014 Share Ok - I've gone back and edited the post where I said I could not see. Got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe! Posted July 1, 2014 Share They should be allowed for sure. But you have to ask yourself....if you suffer from asthma.....is cycling the sport for you???? To me that is a no brainer. If you had asthma at school, you got to sit out all physical activity. Just as I am not creative enough to be a painter, some people don't have the body for sport. Circle argument guys, the inhaler doesn't improve performance ... SwissVan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Steer Posted July 1, 2014 Share Exactly....the greys become black or white.Me, I just want to know who all has what TUE's... my feeling is it's not just a few, but the majority. rouxtjie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rouxtjie Posted July 1, 2014 Share I have just had a rough three days beyond me last week.On Saturday I had 4 hours left to finish off my final goal.I was in much pain and the upper body was full of lactic acid, I took a muscle relaxant on Friday evening and that was that, I can assure you I would have taken anything else to get rid of some pain, but mys stomach would not have agreed.Sometimes we just have to take something to survive, now what if I was in competition and being tested and said muscle relaxant was on the list ?Yip I would have been caught for doping, and if said relaxant was not on the list, then I am a good guy.Perhaps the UCI and WADA should look at what really "improves performance" and what doesn't and re-look their banned substance list.Yip that would be first prize sheriff...but the rate at which drugs are developed it might be a losing battle. I kind of like the black or white approach. Take meds out of competition if you sick or whatever to get better. But the day you step into the ring there is no tolerance...If its a must or life threatening scenario like the Vaughters case, you pull yourself from the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rouxtjie Posted July 1, 2014 Share Circle argument guys, the inhaler doesn't improve performance ...So why does he need it then...mmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe! Posted July 1, 2014 Share So why does he need it then...mmmm? Because he suffers from asthma and its a medical condition, he doesn't gain any advantage over another through the inhaler. So its irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinnekop Posted July 1, 2014 Share Circle argument guys, the inhaler doesn't improve performance ...It takes you from a point A (Cannot breath = cannot stick to the front of the race) to point B (Can stick to a race) I am only playing devils advocate here...... rouxtjie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marko35s Posted July 1, 2014 Share An interesting sub-thread this question and it can become quite philosophical regarding where you draw the line. Should people with a low haematocrit be able to supplement it to get to the level of the "normal" guys? It's not the athlete's fault he didn't get the best genes. Isn't the point of athletics to ascertain who is the best (I guess in terms of nature and nurture) without any added supplements or anything? If you say asthma sufferers are allowed to perhaps take something "normal" athletes can't, is that not in effect levelling the playing field which is contradictory to the best man wins? So many questions!I tend to agree that it does take away from the best man wins/best genes win ethos but then I watch my youngster suffer with an asthma attack stopping a normally athletic kid in his tracks and change my mind.It's complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rouxtjie Posted July 1, 2014 Share Because he suffers from asthma and its a medical condition, he doesn't gain any advantage over another through the inhaler. So its irrelevant.So without it he will maintain the same speed up a climb....he takes it because he like the taste or to freshen his breath for the podium girls....cmon. carbon29er 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davetapson Posted July 1, 2014 Share So why does he need it then...mmmm?So that he can breathe. If asthma inhalers won races, how many in the peloton would suddenly develop late-onset exercise-induced asthma that they'd all get TUE's for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon29er Posted July 1, 2014 Share Circle argument guys, the inhaler doesn't improve performance ...So why does he need it then...mmmm?He clearly stated it improves HIS performance if there is a big effort. Otherwise why on earth would he take it? "PK: And it was Ventolin you used in the Dauphine? CF: Yeah, so that was on the bike before a big effort. PK: But is that using the inhaler to boost your performance? You’re taking it before a big effort, not because you . . . CF: I eat breakfast before a long race. Is that not doing something to boost my performance? If I don’t eat I won’t have any energy; if I don’t have my inhaler before a really big effort I’m probably not going to be able to breathe very well." Edit: removed triple quote Edited July 1, 2014 by carbon29er Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe! Posted July 1, 2014 Share It takes you from a point A (Cannot breath = cannot stick to the front of the race) to point B (Can stick to a race) I am only playing devils advocate here...... Asthma doesn't give you an unfair advantage in sport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rouxtjie Posted July 1, 2014 Share So that he can breathe. If asthma inhalers won races, how many in the peloton would suddenly develop late-onset exercise-induced asthma that they'd all get TUE's for?Exactly...so he can get oxygen to his muscles....a genetic trait that a superior athlete has without an inhaler...THE BETTER ATHLETE from a genetic point of view. Great question...if only we knew hey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted July 1, 2014 Share So that he can breathe. If asthma inhalers won races, how many in the peloton would suddenly develop late-onset exercise-induced asthma that they'd all get TUE's for? You laugh? A few years ago there were sarcastic comments about how amazing it is that only asthma sufferers became professional riders. This was because the majority of pro riders had TUEs for asthma medication. rouxtjie, Andrew Steer and Blackbeard 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now