All About Salbutamol

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

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

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[53*11]

Re: Re:

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

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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

He does look his usual uncomfortable self in front of the camera, nothing new there though i guess...

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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"

 

[rick james]

Lol, getting tied in knots because some can’t understand a statement

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

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

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

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"

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

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

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

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

 

[Taxus4a]

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.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

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

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

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.

 

[fasthill]

Re:

There are another 10-12 riders in the same situation that Froome in the current peloton who are riding as well

Can't wait for you to tell us more.

 

[Blanco]

Re:

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.

Maybe, if you count Petacchi, Piepoli, Ulissi and others :lol:

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

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.

Maybe, if you count Petacchi, Piepoli, Ulissi and others :lol:

Those riders are well knows, they were santioned, Ulissi raced one day in the middle of his 6 months ban, and his top 20 that day counts, but I dont know if his santion was fare or not, or he payed for another questions.

What I say is today there are about 10-12 riders in the same situation in the peloton and nobody knows his name, becouse there is no reason to know it until determine there is a positive or not, and Froome should be the same case. But someone with power want to damage SKY now, so Froome has not the same situation that those other riders becouse everybody in cycling talk about that now. We doesnt know if Contador was in the same situation and he could explain the adverse result, or Chaves or Pinot or Boudart or any other rider is having the same today.
If you consider fair that of about 12 riders with more than 1000 salbutamol, only the case of Froome is on the media, you are not neutral in this case.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

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.

Why?? they are not positives, there is nothing wrong, they has no taken any forbiden substance and they just has to clarify and analitical data, analitical wich doesnt mean they doped. If there is not explanation, they will be santioned and you will know those names.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

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.

Why?? they are not positives, there is nothing wrong, they has no taken any forbiden substance and they just has to clarify and analitical data, analitical wich doesnt mean they doped. If there is not explanation, they will be santioned and you will know those names.

Question is HOW DO YOU KNOW there are more riders than Froome with AAFs?

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

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.

Why?? they are not positives, there is nothing wrong, they has no taken any forbiden substance and they just has to clarify and analitical data, analitical wich doesnt mean they doped. If there is not explanation, they will be santioned and you will know those names.

Question is HOW DO YOU KNOW there are more riders than Froome with AAFs?

Froome told Landa yesterday, before the stage, and than Landa told Taxus after the stage

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

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)

Yes, it is a positive and a doping case. To say that an explanation is required doesn't distinguish it from any other doping case, e.g., clenbuterol. In any doping case, the defendant is given the opportunity to try to explain the positive, and if s/he can't, a sanction is imposed. No difference with Froome.

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.

In 2015, there was a total of 115 AAFs for beta2-agonists in the ADAMS system, 16 of which were for salbutamol. In road cycling there were 11 AAFs for beta2-agonists, about 10% of the total. So on this basis, one would expect 1-2 AAFs for salbutamol in the peloton per year. The ratio may be different for cyclists, but it's highly unlikely that there are 10-12 salbutamol AAFs per year.

Most AAFs for beta2-agonists are for terbutaline, which is not a specified substance, hence an AAF is reported and requires a suspension (unless the rider has a TUE).

If you consider fair that of about 12 riders with more than 1000 salbutamol, only the case of Froome is on the media, you are not neutral in this case.

Of all the riders known to test > 1000 ng/ml, Froome has the highest level.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.

Why?? they are not positives, there is nothing wrong, they has no taken any forbiden substance and they just has to clarify and analitical data, analitical wich doesnt mean they doped. If there is not explanation, they will be santioned and you will know those names.

Just tell the judge he is cleans and good to go