Log in:  

Register

Froome Talk Only

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re:

11 Jul 2018 21:19

Benotti69 wrote:WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome



In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.


So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!


That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 727
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

11 Jul 2018 21:23

It took Froome more then 8 months to come up with an explaination. Speedy!
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,261
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re:

11 Jul 2018 21:58

Robert5091 wrote:It took Froome more then 8 months to come up with an explaination. Speedy!


Took 8 months for Sky to lean on WADA enough to pressure the UCI out of sanctioning Froome.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,380
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

11 Jul 2018 21:58

bambino wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome



In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.


So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!


That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?


WADA is a smoke screen. Nothing more.

They intervened because Sir David got on the phone to Sir Craig and who knows if anything was promised but Froome got off an obvious doping AAF and Sky keep up the pretence to their fans they are squeaky clean, when it is at this stage as obvious as USPS were a dirty team.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,456
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 08:17

Benotti69 wrote:
bambino wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome



In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.


So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!


That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?


WADA is a smoke screen. Nothing more.

They intervened because Sir David got on the phone to Sir Craig and who knows if anything was promised but Froome got off an obvious doping AAF and Sky keep up the pretence to their fans they are squeaky clean, when it is at this stage as obvious as USPS were a dirty team.


Luckily, I think that this case has opened the eyes of a lot of fans except the most committed ones.
General cycling fans can see through the outcome of the case, and Sky's spin efforts to appear whiter than white, and recognise that the process and the situation is suspicious. And even if everything has been done by the book in the Salbutamol case, it would be foolish to think, that Froome is racing solely on asthma medicine.

Even though Sky would want us to forget the past and particularly the last 30 years of cycling history, it is hard not to think doping and possibly collusion when you see this case and Sky's domination with the history in mind.

At least that is my opinion.
ahsoe
Junior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Sep 2016 11:45
Location: Denmark

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 08:17

Benotti69 wrote:
bambino wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome



In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.


So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!


That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?


WADA is a smoke screen. Nothing more.

They intervened because Sir David got on the phone to Sir Craig and who knows if anything was promised but Froome got off an obvious doping AAF and Sky keep up the pretence to their fans they are squeaky clean, when it is at this stage as obvious as USPS were a dirty team.


I tend to think this is along the lines of what happened. It certainly fits the unusual twists and turns and timeline of this case. It also fits the modus operandi of people and organisations (Teflons?) that seem immune from the penalties, censures and restrictions normal mortals face. That is to say when you are facing a guilty verdict, a reverse, a decision you don't like, don't fight facts with facts, rather go for the figures of authority who make the decisions. Attack them, get them changed, bribe them, have them transferred, blackmail them, leverage them, go to their boss and have their boss do it, do it any way you can. Widen the playing field, offer a Brexit deal, offer an improved knighthood, whatever.
User avatar wirral
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,454
Joined: 28 Mar 2011 06:05

12 Jul 2018 08:30

What is interesting about this case is the precedent it sets for future Sabutamol cases.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

12 Jul 2018 09:35

macbindle wrote:What is interesting about this case is the precedent it sets for future Sabutamol cases.

yes without recourse to past cases.
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,499
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

12 Jul 2018 10:08

That is the same in many aspects of life. You can reanimated wrongly convicted murderers in the US just as you can't give years back to gay men imprisoned pre-1967.

Problem with anti-doping is that it is pretty crap in every way.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 12:02

bambino wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome



In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.


So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!


That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?


Isn't that obvious? Do you think Froome would be exonerated if WADA didn't interfered?
User avatar Blanco
Member
 
Posts: 1,143
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 19:33
Location: Serbia

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 12:45

Blanco wrote:
bambino wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome



In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.


So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!


That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?


Isn't that obvious? Do you think Froome would be exonerated if WADA didn't interfered?


Nope. Sir Dave rang Sir Craig shared a large port and cigar saying the boy Chris is a guud'un.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,456
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re:

12 Jul 2018 12:55

Escarabajo wrote:Why some people post in the clinic and not in the road forum?
Especially some that defend Sky or Froome. That is weird.

The clinic is for discussing doping no? I.e. Both sides, did you want it to just be an echo chamber?
Singer01
Member
 
Posts: 1,035
Joined: 18 Nov 2013 19:04

Re: Re:

12 Jul 2018 13:17

TourOfSardinia wrote:
macbindle wrote:What is interesting about this case is the precedent it sets for future Sabutamol cases.

yes without recourse to past cases.


There is no precedent in sports law, a tribunal does not refer to another case for making its decision. That was the point of WADA press release. Nothing has changed in regards Salbutamol, nothing. The very next case, same set of circumstances will most likely result in sanction.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,380
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Froome Talk Only

12 Jul 2018 17:31

WADA to change name soon to WADEFFA -- World Anti-Doping (Except For Froome) Agency.
User avatar JosephK
Junior Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: 24 Jul 2016 15:49

Re: Froome Talk Only

12 Jul 2018 19:07

https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 796
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Froome Talk Only

12 Jul 2018 20:50

brownbobby wrote:https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:


Yeah, someone is lying, take a guess who? :lol:
User avatar Blanco
Member
 
Posts: 1,143
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 19:33
Location: Serbia

12 Jul 2018 22:00

Used to be Froome dragged into Bertie thread. Now the sky fans miss bertie for the dirty laundry?
User avatar mrhender
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,650
Joined: 11 Jul 2013 07:54

Re: Froome Talk Only

12 Jul 2018 22:23

brownbobby wrote:https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:


Let’s see what they means for his power-to-weight ratio. Taking the 458 watts reading we can work backwards. By finding 5% of that number (22.9) and subtracting that you can find an estimate of what Contador’s FTP for an hour would be. This is a generally accepted rule of thumb for cyclists.


The power at 1 hour is 95% that at 20 minutes? I never heard that before. E.g., when Grappe studied Froome’s power files in 2013, he said:

Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome's power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome's drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.


If you take the difference between 20 and 60 minutes as a %, which makes much more sense than some fixed value of watts, and apply to Contador, you get about 6.3 W/kg. That’s still very high, and I’m not sure why he’s bragging about it, since it’s almost certainly a juiced value.

But I'd be interested to hear what Alex says about 20 vs. 60 minutes power.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,715
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Froome Talk Only

13 Jul 2018 03:55

Merckx index wrote:
brownbobby wrote:https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:


Let’s see what they means for his power-to-weight ratio. Taking the 458 watts reading we can work backwards. By finding 5% of that number (22.9) and subtracting that you can find an estimate of what Contador’s FTP for an hour would be. This is a generally accepted rule of thumb for cyclists.


The power at 1 hour is 95% that at 20 minutes? I never heard that before. E.g., when Grappe studied Froome’s power files in 2013, he said:

Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome's power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome's drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.


If you take the difference between 20 and 60 minutes as a %, which makes much more sense than some fixed value of watts, and apply to Contador, you get about 6.3 W/kg. That’s still very high, and I’m not sure why he’s bragging about it, since it’s almost certainly a juiced value.

But I'd be interested to hear what Alex says about 20 vs. 60 minutes power.


Alex may correct me and if he does I won't argue....but the general rule of thumb I've always heard used to calculate (1 hour power) FTP from a 20 minute test is exactly that, 95%. It's certainly the protocol that the likes of Joe Friel, Allen/Coggan refer to.

Of course this is just estimation, the only true way to find 1 hour power is to ride and see what you can sustain for the full hour....but that's not a test that many people like to do!
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 796
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

13 Jul 2018 04:04

For Pinot, it's 85-90%, this is consistent with what Grappe said about Froome and makes much more sense.

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,715
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ctaylor, Google Adsense [Bot], Nighttrain99 and 56 guests

Back to top