Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1011 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
My guess is that Cookson tried to hush it down. Just like McQuaid did with contadors test before the german media leaked it. Would explain why he was so calm Now with Lappartient inn charge guess the plans changed. Tinfoil hat theory i know.
 
Re:

Craigee said:
We didn't see him take 32 puffs during the stage so he must've done it before the stage. No excuse for getting it wrong.
I don't think the argument is going to be that he mistakenly took too many puffs. That wouldn't be a defence.

Indeed Froome has already stated that he increased his doseage but within the allowed limits.

As we're seeing already, the defence is going to centre around technical and scientific reasons why concentrations of the substance in the body can be effected by circumstance.
 
Re:

Poursuivant said:
If you're taking twice as many puffs; how did they think this wouldn't happen? How did they expect to hear no more about it?
Two possible explanations:

Leinders was on holiday somewhere where he didn't had mobile signal.

As per Nibali, an old Italian saying: The mother of the idiot is always pregnant.
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
If he doesn't get banned, he will use this incident (accident) as an extra motivation to prove his cleanliness by winning the Giro-Tour double :lol:
 
was the level of 2000 ng/mL confirmed or is it just a bad translation/interpretation of the "in excess of 1000 ng/mL" around the web?
2000 seems too pretty/round number to be actual amount in sample... not that it would matter if it already is >1000.
 
Re:

glassmoon said:
was the level of 2000 ng/mL confirmed or is it just a bad translation/interpretation of the "in excess of 1000 ng/mL" around the web?
2000 seems too pretty/round number to be actual amount in sample... not that it would matter if it already is >1000.
The urine test, taken on 7 September, showed levels of the drug, Salbutamol, which is commonly taken for asthma, were at 2,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml).

says here: http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42335916
 
A couple of things. I suspect that this will be seen, in the long run, as a minor infraction and it distracts from more major issues with Froome (Pred for a start).

Secondly, I just can't see Froome/Sky taking double the legal dose when he is inevitably going to be tested. That would be stupid ... and they may be a lot of things but they aren't stupid. My bet is that they will "find" a reason for the high concentration in the urine ... dehydration for instance.

That said, he should lose the Vuelta even if there is ultimately no ban.
 
Re:

armchairclimber said:
A couple of things. I suspect that this will be seen, in the long run, as a minor infraction and it distracts from more major issues with Froome (Pred for a start).

Secondly, I just can't see Froome/Sky taking double the legal dose when he is inevitably going to be tested. That would be stupid ... and they may be a lot of things but they aren't stupid. My bet is that they will "find" a reason for the high concentration in the urine ... dehydration for instance.

That said, he should lose the Vuelta even if there is ultimately no ban.
They're not stupid? No, but they think the general cycling fan is and will aim their excuses at them.
 
Re:

armchairclimber said:
A couple of things. I suspect that this will be seen, in the long run, as a minor infraction and it distracts from more major issues with Froome (Pred for a start).

Secondly, I just can't see Froome/Sky taking double the legal dose when he is inevitably going to be tested. That would be stupid ... and they may be a lot of things but they aren't stupid. My bet is that they will "find" a reason for the high concentration in the urine ... dehydration for instance.

That said, he should lose the Vuelta even if there is ultimately no ban.
Exactly this.

Before deciding to presume him guilty as charged, i just cant get past this point yet :confused:
 
In Ulissi's case, didn't he provide evidence that extra puffs produced a nonlinear increase in sambuterol. So it could have just been one or two extra puffs which caused this?
 
Re: Re:

MartinGT said:
armchairclimber said:
A couple of things. I suspect that this will be seen, in the long run, as a minor infraction and it distracts from more major issues with Froome (Pred for a start).

Secondly, I just can't see Froome/Sky taking double the legal dose when he is inevitably going to be tested. That would be stupid ... and they may be a lot of things but they aren't stupid. My bet is that they will "find" a reason for the high concentration in the urine ... dehydration for instance.

That said, he should lose the Vuelta even if there is ultimately no ban.
They're not stupid? No, but they think the general cycling fan is and will aim their excuses at them.
No they won't. The primary aim will be to get Froome cleared of all charges and excuses will be targeted accordingly.

The cycling public will be secondary and incidental to this process.
 
Re: Re:

MartinGT said:
armchairclimber said:
A couple of things. I suspect that this will be seen, in the long run, as a minor infraction and it distracts from more major issues with Froome (Pred for a start).

Secondly, I just can't see Froome/Sky taking double the legal dose when he is inevitably going to be tested. That would be stupid ... and they may be a lot of things but they aren't stupid. My bet is that they will "find" a reason for the high concentration in the urine ... dehydration for instance.

That said, he should lose the Vuelta even if there is ultimately no ban.
They're not stupid? No, but they think the general cycling fan is and will aim their excuses at them.
Bingo. I suspect that Sky will do two things if Froome gets a provisional suspension:

Dredge up previous Salbutamol positives where the subject has gotten off very lightly or altogether and claim Froome is a victim.

Be relieved that Froome doesn’t have to attempt the double and can focus on the Tour.
 
Re: Re:

MartinGT said:
armchairclimber said:
A couple of things. I suspect that this will be seen, in the long run, as a minor infraction and it distracts from more major issues with Froome (Pred for a start).

Secondly, I just can't see Froome/Sky taking double the legal dose when he is inevitably going to be tested. That would be stupid ... and they may be a lot of things but they aren't stupid. My bet is that they will "find" a reason for the high concentration in the urine ... dehydration for instance.

That said, he should lose the Vuelta even if there is ultimately no ban.
They're not stupid? No, but they think the general cycling fan is and will aim their excuses at them.
I'd say they have been pretty stupid repeatedly. Have they blamed this on Emma Pooley yet ?
 
My wife is asthmatic and when she has a bad attack she has taken that many puffs. It doesn't have adverse health effects. I also know that during a bad attack, the asthma sufferer will do anything to clear their airway.

As stated above, CF knows all too well the rules regarding the medicine. So...either he miscalculated, or really couldn't breathe. The third alternative is that he's been using salbutamol as a PED all along -- I wouldn't rule that out but since you can get a TUE for it, why?

I'm scratching my head a bit, as I did for Contador. I don't doubt that CF's preparation involves more than pane e aqua, but not sure this is the smoking gun we've been waiting for. On the other hand, he and his team may decide to eat a suspension along with a lot of mea culpas.
 
Another nail in the coffin for the sport or does Froome get the benefit of the doubt ? As a lifelong asthmatic myself, if he needed that much Ventolin and his asthma was that bad, a good performance on the day is very unlikely. Not sure how many puffs that equates to but 12 puffs per day is standard for a regular asthmatic unless he or she is not just wheezing but having full blown asthma attacks as well which often wind up on a trip to hospital or the doctors. If you are having actual asthma attacks, you are not racing a bike let alone walking. Even if he was constantly wheezing and needed the Salbutamol, any type of performance apart from sitting in the pack would surprise me. Salbutamol on it's own rarely stops full blown asthma attacks but it can alleviate the wheezing depending on the severity of the attack.enough to sit a chair and watch TV..........
 
Re:

Bolder said:
My wife is asthmatic and when she has a bad attack she has taken that many puffs. It doesn't have adverse health effects. I also know that during a bad attack, the asthma sufferer will do anything to clear their airway.

As stated above, CF knows all too well the rules regarding the medicine. So...either he miscalculated, or really couldn't breathe. The third alternative is that he's been using salbutamol as a PED all along -- I wouldn't rule that out but since you can get a TUE for it, why?

I'm scratching my head a bit, as I did for Contador. I don't doubt that CF's preparation involves more than pane e aqua, but not sure this is the smoking gun we've been waiting for. On the other hand, he and his team may decide to eat a suspension along with a lot of mea culpas.
If it was that bad for him, surly he wouldnt go onto win the stage by 1'+ ? Surly.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY