Log in:  

Register

All About Salbutamol

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

What will the verdict in Froome's salbutamol case?

He will be cleared
29
28%
3 month ban
3
3%
6 month ban
14
13%
9 month ban
23
22%
1 year ban
14
13%
2 year ban
19
18%
4 year ban
2
2%
 
Total votes : 104

Re:

14 Feb 2018 14:17

Catwhoorg wrote:The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts


well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,294
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 14:28

gillan1969 wrote:
Catwhoorg wrote:The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts


well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"


Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 14:37

brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
Catwhoorg wrote:The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts


well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"


Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest


i would disgaree...the 'facts' of the process are already out there....they are the....eh...process he's in - we know those

what's not out there are the 'facts' of his case...i.e. his defence
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,294
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 14:42

gillan1969 wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
Catwhoorg wrote:The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts


well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"


Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest


i would disgaree...the 'facts' of the process are already out there....they are the....eh...process he's in - we know those

what's not out there are the 'facts' of his case...i.e. his defence


Eh, we all gotta disagree sometimes...my point about the meaning of his reference to 'people seeing it from his point view stands.

it being his right and choice to continue riding with the case pending.
Last edited by brownbobby on 14 Feb 2018 14:45, edited 1 time in total.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 14:43

brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
Catwhoorg wrote:The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts


well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"


Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest


coincidentally have literally just watched him saying said words on eurosport...

he starts off saying the peloton is giving him lots of support...before a challenge from journo when he changes it to the riders that have spoken to him have given him support...teammates perhaps ;)
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,294
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 14:47

gillan1969 wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
Catwhoorg wrote:The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts


well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"


Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest


coincidentally have literally just watched him saying said words on eurosport...

he starts off saying the peloton is giving him lots of support...before a challenge from journo when he changes it to the riders that have spoken to him have given him support...teammates perhaps ;)


Looking forward to watching it when i get home tonight...as always written transcripts of interviews can appear very different when you actually watch and hear the words being spoken first hand.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 14:51

Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest[/quote]

coincidentally have literally just watched him saying said words on eurosport...

he starts off saying the peloton is giving him lots of support...before a challenge from journo when he changes it to the riders that have spoken to him have given him support...teammates perhaps ;)[/quote]

Looking forward to watching it when i get home tonight...as always written transcripts of interviews can appear very different when you actually watch and hear the words being spoken first hand.[/quote]


http://www.steephill.tv/players/youtube3/?title=Christopher+Froome+-+interview+before+the+start&dashboard=vuelta-a-andalucia-ruta-ciclista-del-sol&id=fmsRgtcJfcE&yr=2018
53*11
Junior Member
 
Posts: 140
Joined: 05 Feb 2018 10:19

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 14:59

53*11 wrote:Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest


coincidentally have literally just watched him saying said words on eurosport...

he starts off saying the peloton is giving him lots of support...before a challenge from journo when he changes it to the riders that have spoken to him have given him support...teammates perhaps ;)[/quote]

Looking forward to watching it when i get home tonight...as always written transcripts of interviews can appear very different when you actually watch and hear the words being spoken first hand.[/quote]


http://www.steephill.tv/players/youtube3/?title=Christopher+Froome+-+interview+before+the+start&dashboard=vuelta-a-andalucia-ruta-ciclista-del-sol&id=fmsRgtcJfcE&yr=2018[/quote]

OOH thanks....is this some kind of witchcraft? i'm not usually able to view Youtube in the office, but that clip worked. The IT police must have fell asleep :D

He does look his usual uncomfortable self in front of the camera, nothing new there though i guess...
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 15:01

brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
Catwhoorg wrote:The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts


well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"


Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest


i would disgaree...the 'facts' of the process are already out there....they are the....eh...process he's in - we know those

what's not out there are the 'facts' of his case...i.e. his defence


Eh, we all gotta disagree sometimes...my point about the meaning of his reference to 'people seeing it from his point view stands.

it being his right and choice to continue riding with the case pending.


so when he says "when all the facts are out there" he really means "when people actually understand the facts that are already out there"?

or, to take him at his word, perhaps you can help...what facts are we awaiting with regard process?
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,294
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 15:12

well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"[/quote]

Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest[/quote]

i would disgaree...the 'facts' of the process are already out there....they are the....eh...process he's in - we know those

what's not out there are the 'facts' of his case...i.e. his defence[/quote]

Eh, we all gotta disagree sometimes...my point about the meaning of his reference to 'people seeing it from his point view stands.

it being his right and choice to continue riding with the case pending.[/quote]

so when he says "when all the facts are out there" he really means "when people actually understand the facts that are already out there"?

or, to take him at his word, perhaps you can help...what facts are we awaiting with regard process?[/quote]


When does he refer to the facts of the 'process'? I only read a reference to 'the facts'. Apologies if i missed any reference to 'the process' which would put a different spin on my interpretation of what he's said.

But if we're talking just about 'facts' in general, then no sorry, i can't help you there with regards to facts that may be yet to be disclosed....but the great SDB does go some way to answering your question in the interview he gave today....“It’s a challenging situation because we’re privy to a lot more information than is out in the public domain at the minute, and there’s a legal process of course and we don’t want to jeopardise that in any way"
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

14 Feb 2018 15:36

Lol, getting tied in knots because some can’t understand a statement
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,652
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

Re:

14 Feb 2018 15:44

rick james wrote:Lol, getting tied in knots because some can’t understand a statement


:lol: True. i'm not even sure what the question was now that i've been trying to answer :confused:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 18:52

gillan1969 wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
Catwhoorg wrote:The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts


well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"


Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest


i would disgaree...the 'facts' of the process are already out there....they are the....eh...process he's in - we know those

what's not out there are the 'facts' of his case...i.e. his defence


So, just watched properly, you are correct that he refers to 'some people not understanding the process.....but this is a direct response to the interviewer asking him about Tony Martin's comments.

In this respect (when Martin suggested Froome was getting special treatment and should have been suspended immediately after the AAF) Froome is 100% correct, Martin clearly didn't understand the procedures.

That clears that up.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 19:05

brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
Catwhoorg wrote:The key is the aggregation of marginal doubts


well...from the quote on the BBC website Froome is hoping that people will see it from his "point of view"

facts tend not to be 'points of view'

"the facts say i took more than I was allowed...I say i didn't"


Its clear, to me at least when read in context with the full article, that in this quote he's referring to his right to continue riding whilst the case is pending. Not about the test results. Which puts a different spin on the quote to the one you suggest


i would disgaree...the 'facts' of the process are already out there....they are the....eh...process he's in - we know those

what's not out there are the 'facts' of his case...i.e. his defence


So, just watched properly, you are correct that he refers to 'some people not understanding the process.....but this is a direct response to the interviewer asking him about Tony Martin's comments.

In this respect (when Martin suggested Froome was getting special treatment and should have been suspended immediately after the AAF) Froome is 100% correct, Martin clearly didn't understand the procedures.

That clears that up.


So what your considered opinion on this interview?

viewtopic.php?p=2224777#p2224777

Brailsfraud interviewed just now on, ahem, Sky Sports News:

"What we're talking about is how many times he used his puffer. You're allowed to use it 16 times in 24 hours. The question is did he use it more. The rules aren't about the levels in the urine as has been widely reported. The rules are about how many times you use the puffer. You can't falsely accuse someone of wrong doing. That's the worst case scenario if someone has done nothing wrong. That's the whole basis of our society"
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 19:24

So what your considered opinion on this interview?

viewtopic.php?p=2224777#p2224777

Brailsfraud interviewed just now on, ahem, Sky Sports News:

"What we're talking about is how many times he used his puffer. You're allowed to use it 16 times in 24 hours. The question is did he use it more. The rules aren't about the levels in the urine as has been widely reported. The rules are about how many times you use the puffer. You can't falsely accuse someone of wrong doing. That's the worst case scenario if someone has done nothing wrong. That's the whole basis of our society"[/quote]

Since you ask...

First reaction is that's just complete waffle, absolute nonsense.

But then I think, hang on....this isn't something he's said in the heat of the moment, under pressure to answer a question he wasn't ready for. We know he has a habit of falling to pieces in this scenario.

But this is a question he's been spoon fed by a 'friendly reporter'. An opportunity for him to say something about which he's had several months to carefully word and practice what he wants to say.

So, my opinion fwiw is that what appears like nonsense is very deliberate and will be leading to a central part of how this whole saga is about to play out.

That's as far as I get with it...

Edit: thinking it does begin to sound a bit like damage limitation, accepting the case is unwinnable, planning for the fallout by dropping hints about how unfair it is to accuse someone of something they haven't done even if they can't prove they didn't do it. It does have that kind of tone about it
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 20:55

brownbobby wrote:So what your considered opinion on this interview?

viewtopic.php?p=2224777#p2224777

Brailsfraud interviewed just now on, ahem, Sky Sports News:

"What we're talking about is how many times he used his puffer. You're allowed to use it 16 times in 24 hours. The question is did he use it more. The rules aren't about the levels in the urine as has been widely reported. The rules are about how many times you use the puffer. You can't falsely accuse someone of wrong doing. That's the worst case scenario if someone has done nothing wrong. That's the whole basis of our society"


Since you ask...

First reaction is that's just complete waffle, absolute nonsense.

But then I think, hang on....this isn't something he's said in the heat of the moment, under pressure to answer a question he wasn't ready for. We know he has a habit of falling to pieces in this scenario.

But this is a question he's been spoon fed by a 'friendly reporter'. An opportunity for him to say something about which he's had several months to carefully word and practice what he wants to say.

So, my opinion fwiw is that what appears like nonsense is very deliberate and will be leading to a central part of how this whole saga is about to play out.

That's as far as I get with it...

Edit: thinking it does begin to sound a bit like damage limitation, accepting the case is unwinnable, planning for the fallout by dropping hints about how unfair it is to accuse someone of something they haven't done even if they can't prove they didn't do it. It does have that kind of tone about it[/quote]

Thank you. A considered opinion. So respect
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2018 22:27

brownbobby wrote:So what your considered opinion on this interview?

viewtopic.php?p=2224777#p2224777

Brailsfraud interviewed just now on, ahem, Sky Sports News:

"What we're talking about is how many times he used his puffer. You're allowed to use it 16 times in 24 hours. The question is did he use it more. The rules aren't about the levels in the urine as has been widely reported. The rules are about how many times you use the puffer. You can't falsely accuse someone of wrong doing. That's the worst case scenario if someone has done nothing wrong. That's the whole basis of our society"


Since you ask...

First reaction is that's just complete waffle, absolute nonsense.

But then I think, hang on....this isn't something he's said in the heat of the moment, under pressure to answer a question he wasn't ready for. We know he has a habit of falling to pieces in this scenario.

But this is a question he's been spoon fed by a 'friendly reporter'. An opportunity for him to say something about which he's had several months to carefully word and practice what he wants to say.

So, my opinion fwiw is that what appears like nonsense is very deliberate and will be leading to a central part of how this whole saga is about to play out.

That's as far as I get with it...

Edit: thinking it does begin to sound a bit like damage limitation, accepting the case is unwinnable, planning for the fallout by dropping hints about how unfair it is to accuse someone of something they haven't done even if they can't prove they didn't do it. It does have that kind of tone about it[/quote]

indeed I agree...hence my focus on the 'point of view' above...it appears to be an acceptance of defeat with a PR battle to keep the existing constituency...the believers
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,294
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

14 Feb 2018 23:07

Froome salbutamol case is not a positive nor a doping case.
It is just a case to ask for an explanation, not a judge, just an explanation for an adverse analitic (not positive)
There are another 10-12 riders in the same situation that Froome in the current peloton who are riding as well, The difference is that someone was interested to make public this case. We are not going to know those 10-12 names except someone is finally a positive case.
User avatar Taxus4a
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,921
Joined: 12 Aug 2012 18:48
Location: Castilla

Re:

14 Feb 2018 23:14

Taxus4a wrote:Froome salbutamol case is not a positive nor a doping case.
It is just a case to ask for an explanation, not a judge, just an explanation for an adverse analitic (not positive)
There are another 10-12 riders in the same situation that Froome in the current peloton who are riding as well, The difference is that someone was interested to make public this case. We are not going to know those 10-12 names except someone is finally a positive case.


Wild that someone can get a long vacation for not testing positive in a not doping case. I can already see how you'd spin a manslaughter case...

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,716
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re:

14 Feb 2018 23:26

Taxus4a wrote:Froome salbutamol case is not a positive nor a doping case.
It is just a case to ask for an explanation, not a judge, just an explanation for an adverse analitic (not positive)
There are another 10-12 riders in the same situation that Froome in the current peloton who are riding as well, The difference is that someone was interested to make public this case. We are not going to know those 10-12 names except someone is finally a positive case.


Tell us more about those 10 names.
User avatar Rollthedice
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,690
Joined: 11 May 2013 10:59

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Barney, Bogg3r, Bronstein, ClassicomanoLuigi, Google Adsense [Bot], meat puppet and 31 guests

Back to top