Log in:  

Register

The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 22:18

macbindle wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
macbindle wrote:You are forgetting that Froome wasn't selected for the Vuelta team in 2011. He got a place because someone else withdrew.

By the way, Froome isn't the only pro who lives in Monoco. The dots might lead elsewhere.


Imagine Froome can beat other pros on motors who took delivery of motors, just imagine that, i think i hear the Disney tune......... :D


Matthew Goss, Simon Gerrans, Dave Tanner, Mark Renshaw, Theo Bos, Richie Porte, Calvin Watson,Axel Merckx, Gert Steegmans, Tom Boonen, Philippe Gilbert, Stefan Everts, Justine Hénin, Thierry Boutsen,Tim Wellens, Geraint Thomas, Lizzie A, Vino, Pozzato

...all direct competitors of Froome, you imply.

:lol:

Look, I'll leave you to it. There really is nothing to be
gained from you and I interacting apart from a sore head for me.

Cheers.


According to Sky, all those guys were way ahead of Froome in talent. But then what do Sky know........ :D I bet Justine Henin was better on a bike than pre 2011 Froome. :rolleyes:
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,315
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

07 Jun 2018 00:23

yaco wrote:
macbindle wrote:
Saint Unix wrote:
macbindle wrote:I agree with most but not all of that. I'm just slightly curious as to why you have posted it rather than ponder the specific questions I asked...or not answer at all.

Why don't you get around to posting those studies Merckx Index requested before being all holier-than-thou about answering questions?


Why? Because searching for studies, and re-reading them, is a time-consuming business. Not something I can do at a click of your fingers, especially since I am posting on a phone whilst eating my dinner.

The questions I asked can be answered quite quickly with either a theory, or an acknowledgement that it remains a mystery.

I hope that helps.


You will find somewhere in 'The Clinic' posts that detail to some extent the defence put forward by Petacchi and Ullisi - A few who post in The Clinic will be able to find the posts.

We don't care about Petacchi or Ullisi. Tell us about Froome. Don't make sh1t up
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,432
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

Re: Re:

08 Jun 2018 20:58

Merckx index wrote:
macbindle wrote:
searching for studies, and re-reading them, is a time-consuming business. Not something I can do at a click of your fingers, especially since I am posting on a phone whilst eating my dinner.


Mac, some well-intentioned advice: stay off this forum while eating. Your stomach deserves more respect than that. There are very few things in life—and certainly this forum is not one of them—that are so important that they should or need to be attended to while eating. Make time for meals and just eat. Period.

yaco wrote:
You will find somewhere in 'The Clinic' posts that detail to some extent the defence put forward by Petacchi and Ullisi - A few who post in The Clinic will be able to find the posts.


Petacchi raised all the usual issues that athletes over the salbutamol threshold try, but as was noted in the CAS decision, he provided no evidence to support any of them. That’s why there was no discussion of any of them in the decision, other than to mention that they were raised. Very clearly nothing remotely close to 1500 pages.

Ulissi’s decision was never published, as it wasn’t required by his federation, and like most athletes, he was too chicken-sh!t to let the fans know the details of his case.

Sundby’s case has been discussed at length in the salbutamol thread. His main defense was that he should be allowed to use a nebulizer on his doctor’s recommendation, and that the relationship between amount inhaled and urine concentration is very different in that case from that of the inhaler. Not relevant to Froome (unless he switches his story that he didn't take too much by accident), and again, didn’t take that many pages to document.

Froome’s case, as a guess, is going to come down to a claim that urine levels can be much higher if a sample is given within one hour of taking the maximum allowed. Again, that argument doesn’t require anything close to 1500 pages. There isn’t any single argument I can imagine that would require anything like that amount; even if he tried every argument ever tried in a salbutamol case, that would be excessive. But I’m guessing Lappartient was exaggerating when he said 1500 pages. Unless a very large fraction of them are cover letters, administrative details, and other fluff not directly related to the science.

Floyd's case was the most complex I think I can recall--unlike Froome's case, in Floyd's there were serious questions about lab procedures and the validity of measurements--and how many pages was that? Of course the final decision is going to be stream-lined compared to all the supporting documents, but still.

The other issue with Landis is that he claims he was doped to the gills.... just not with testosterone (what he was positive for, for the post 2012 crowd)
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,723
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

Re: Re:

08 Jun 2018 22:14

42x16ss wrote:The other issue with Landis is that he claims he was doped to the gills.... just not with testosterone (what he was positive for, for the post 2012 crowd)

Given that he said under oath that he hadn't taken testosterone, he's pretty much committed to that story (for the Landis is a hero crowd).
Parker
Member
 
Posts: 1,594
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 01:20

Re: Re:

09 Jun 2018 07:14

Parker wrote:
42x16ss wrote:The other issue with Landis is that he claims he was doped to the gills.... just not with testosterone (what he was positive for, for the post 2012 crowd)

Given that he said under oath that he hadn't taken testosterone, he's pretty much committed to that story (for the Landis is a hero crowd).


What does the bolded bit mean? Is it deliberately wrong syntax for the in-crowd like "My Bad"?
User avatar wirral
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,405
Joined: 28 Mar 2011 06:05

Re: Re:

11 Jun 2018 22:17

Parker wrote:
42x16ss wrote:The other issue with Landis is that he claims he was doped to the gills.... just not with testosterone (what he was positive for, for the post 2012 crowd)

Given that he said under oath that he hadn't taken testosterone, he's pretty much committed to that story (for the Landis is a hero crowd).

Nobody thinks Landis is a hero. They do think that lifting the lid on Armstrong and USPS was admirable, considering the initial backlash he received for it. Same with Hamilton.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,723
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

11 Jun 2018 22:18

But the main point of Parker's post still stands.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

11 Jun 2018 23:21

macbindle wrote:But the main point of Parker's post still stands.

Why wouldn't it? Of course Landis is committed to his comments that he didn't use testosterone during the 2006 TDF.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,723
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 16:19

42x16ss wrote:
macbindle wrote:But the main point of Parker's post still stands.

Why wouldn't it? Of course Landis is committed to his comments that he didn't use testosterone during the 2006 TDF.


Correct.

The pulse behind Landis’s fight was that he wasn’t using testosterone prior to that stage. And that the UCI & the lab had conspired in someway to produce the positive. With the emotion taken out of the hearing there certainly were some very strange and odd occurrences to not only reach the positive but in the following testimony. Now that Verbruggen has taken the secret to his grave probably the only two remaining people who truly know what happened are McQuaid and the lab technician who changed her testimony during the hearing after crying an awful lot and given a recess by the panel. Some odd signature thrown in for good measure made for a very strange case. If reasonable doubt was the bar for conviction I don’t think USADA would have made the case, nor the UCI or WADA.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,093
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 26 guests

Back to top