• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1028 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Escarabajo said:
Kretch said:
Blanco said:
I'm with Jaksche and Digger with this. Blood bag. Huge amounts of salbutamol taken between two races, for weight loss. He then withdrew blood for a BB full of salbutamol. He probably wanted to reinfuse it for Angliru stage, but panicked after Los Machucos and get it back straight away.

This. The most reasonable explanation for the salbutamol spike.
I like this theory as well. He was probably using an inhaler during the race within the rules but the contents in that blood bag made it worse.

Memories of Contador come to mind. Different drugs but similar failed logistics!

Do they ever test blood in competition, or is it only ever urine tests? I should probably know the answer to this, but i dont....
As I understand it is mostly urine tests because of the difficulty of drawing blood during competition.

Having said that it could have happened that the draw blood during the rest days or during the days before the competition. It was discussed a while back and I have difficulty remembering now.
 
Re:

Bronstein said:
Froome pulling an Armstrong:

UtukZbC.jpg


P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C. :mad:

So was Froome in a state of emergency when he doubled up his puffs? :confused: :D
You know what? Let him tweet rubbish like that when he feels like, because it seems the pressure is beginning to boil up on his mind :D
 
Re: Re:

hfer07 said:
Bronstein said:
Froome pulling an Armstrong:

UtukZbC.jpg


P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C. :mad:

So was Froome in a state of emergency when he doubled up his puffs? :confused: :D
You know what? Let him tweet rubbish like that when he feels like, because it seems the pressure is beginning to boil up on his mind :D
To be fair, that is most likely written by Michelle. Froome couldn't really put that much thought into it.
 
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
brownbobby said:
Escarabajo said:
Kretch said:
Blanco said:
I'm with Jaksche and Digger with this. Blood bag. Huge amounts of salbutamol taken between two races, for weight loss. He then withdrew blood for a BB full of salbutamol. He probably wanted to reinfuse it for Angliru stage, but panicked after Los Machucos and get it back straight away.

This. The most reasonable explanation for the salbutamol spike.
I like this theory as well. He was probably using an inhaler during the race within the rules but the contents in that blood bag made it worse.

Memories of Contador come to mind. Different drugs but similar failed logistics!

Do they ever test blood in competition, or is it only ever urine tests? I should probably know the answer to this, but i dont....
As I understand it is mostly urine tests because of the difficulty of drawing blood during competition.

Having said that it could have happened that the draw blood during the rest days or during the days before the competition. It was discussed a while back and I have difficulty remembering now.

I would guess this to be the case. Just pondering the likelihood of blood bags still being used in competition. IF regular blood testing was being carried out, i'd guess it would almost eliminate the practice.
Over the course of a GT, the blood passport would show a natural decline in HCT levels. The sudden spike that would inevitably come with the blood bag would be a huge flashing beacon on the Athletes Biological Passport.
But if it's just urine tests, then it's a possibility, i'm sure there are ways to hide the markers of a transfusion in urine tests.
 
Re:

Frankschleck said:
Wow i am shocked. He should of course at least get a year and the vuelta taken away from him. I don't believe people with astma should be riding pro cycling.

Overwhelmingly, they're not.

Don't understand why anyone buys this old doper's saw. No one with Asthma is going to test at that level, it's pure doping. OOC doping re-injected by blood or some other such nonsense. The why doesn't matter. Repeating the talking points of these clowns just gives them some small bit of credibility. Let's all be a little more discerning with what we're willing to swallow.
 
Interesting, the dehydration excuse or partial excuse for exceeding limit can be tested via the urine sample taken:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...e-finding-and-what-is-the-next-step-dk55vd8mc

In that case, how can it be proved either way?
It is up to Froome to prove that the abnormal result was only down to him taking the permitted therapeutic dose. He will have to take a pharmacokinetic test, which measures metabolism and excretion rates during exercise. He will also be expected to provide evidence that he only used his inhaler within the permitted limits. Analysis of his urine sample should be able to determine his level of dehydration at the time he provided it.
 
Re:

Irondan said:
Everyone laughing at Chris Froome, Sky, Dave Brailsford and all the other hypocrites out there that no doubt deserve this fate seem to be missing the bigger picture in that this is AWFUL for pro cycling! A four time Tour De France champion has just been given back an AAF and people are laughing about it like it's funny or good for cycling when it's not funny at all, although it does feel good to be proven right it's not a laughing matter if you're a fan of pro cycling. I suppose the snipers of the world are having a good time with this but personally, I think this is just another black mark on a sport that has too many black marks to it's credit.

I love pro cycling and feel like I've been punched in the gut even though I'm not at all a Chris Froome or Team Sky fan.

Someday, all these doping scandals are going to catch up to the sport, is this the day? :(

Maybe at some point people will figure out it's bad for cycling that riders cheat, rather than bad for cycling that the cheaters test positive. I know, I'm a dreamer.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
As I understand it is mostly urine tests because of the difficulty of drawing blood during competition.

Having said that it could have happened that the draw blood during the rest days or during the days before the competition. It was discussed a while back and I have difficulty remembering now.

I would guess this to be the case. Just pondering the likelihood of blood bags still being used in competition. IF regular blood testing was being carried out, i'd guess it would almost eliminate the practice.
Over the course of a GT, the blood passport would show a natural decline in HCT levels. The sudden spike that would inevitably come with the blood bag would be a huge flashing beacon on the Athletes Biological Passport.
But if it's just urine tests, then it's a possibility, i'm sure there are ways to hide the markers of a transfusion in urine tests.

Read the All About Salbutamol thread, Merckx Index explains why a contaminated blood bag is pretty much out of the question.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Irondan said:
Everyone laughing at Chris Froome, Sky, Dave Brailsford and all the other hypocrites out there that no doubt deserve this fate seem to be missing the bigger picture in that this is AWFUL for pro cycling! A four time Tour De France champion has just been given back an AAF and people are laughing about it like it's funny or good for cycling when it's not funny at all, although it does feel good to be proven right it's not a laughing matter if you're a fan of pro cycling. I suppose the snipers of the world are having a good time with this but personally, I think this is just another black mark on a sport that has too many black marks to it's credit.

I love pro cycling and feel like I've been punched in the gut even though I'm not at all a Chris Froome or Team Sky fan.

Someday, all these doping scandals are going to catch up to the sport, is this the day? :(

Maybe at some point people will figure out it's bad for cycling that riders cheat, rather than bad for cycling that the cheaters test positive. I know, I'm a dreamer.


Well said. This is a good thing.
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
mb2612 said:
brownbobby said:
LaFlorecita said:
mb2612 said:
One thing to note on dehydration, is that the stage was only 4 hours, with a break winning by 10 minutes, and the temperature was only 20 C, and Froome finished well.



As such, it's hard to see a reason why he would be more dehydrated on this stage than on any of the others.
Good point!

No one yet has claimed that he was more dehydrated.

He's admitted (or at least offered as part of his excuse) that he increased his doseage.

So, increased doseage, same levels of hydration = higher levels in the body when tested


Sure, the obvious defence is presumably something along the lines of:

1) He normally takes 400 mcg a day, 1/4 of the maximum amount
2) As he was suffering more than usual he increased this dosage to the maximum daily amount, 1600 mcg
3) Unbeknown to Froome, his quarterly maximum leaves him with a blood concentration of 500ng/ml (half the limit)
4) He quadrupled his dose and accidentally triggered the test, while still following the rules

As he was tested every day, there should be a measure of salbutamol every day, so if Sky have recorded his daily dose (and surely they keep their medical records) then it could be relatively easy to map the ingestion and excretion quantities.

If the values don't line up, then one possible explanation would be dehydration, as studies have shown that you can get significant spikes in salbutamol though a combination of legal doses and dehydration.

As such, it's useful to know if Froome was more dehydrated on stage 18 than normal, and given the stage and weather, that seems pretty unlikely. It's possible that even on an easy stage he didn't drink and hence got dehydrated, someone could probably go through the footage to check if they were very keen to rule out that possibility.

You're joking, right? :lol:

Yes he has to be joking. That or he thinks everyone here is as thick as a brick to believe it.

News for the pro Sky and Froome dreamers. Other riders have been found guilty for the same thing. No rubbish about dehydration. Just simple plain old "guilty as charged"
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
No_Balls said:
thehog said:
Bronstein said:
Froome pulling an Armstrong:

UtukZbC.jpg


That is scraping the bottom of the barrel.... it’s the “I’m sorry for the cynics and sceptics who don’t believe...”

It’s got Michelle written all over it mind you. Get Lance back, at least he could lie with conviction, this guy has crumbled and is now appeasing to the asthma sufferers around the world to “believe and remain strong”.

Sorry to say but this is end of Froome. He is fried one way or the other.

Poor froomey. He has to overdose prescripted dosages in order to becoming a Tour de France-legend. He could die otherwise. :rolleyes:

from this can we conclude that losing time to Nibali on the preceding stage is an "emergency situation"?

more comedy gold from our hapless hero.... :lol:

Yup. Whenever life gives you lemons, double up the inhaler.

Professional cycling really is a freak show with comedy value way over the likes of professional boxing and WWF. You really cant make this *** up.
 
Clyde Puffer said:
"So he "inhaled" TWICE the limit threshold of Salbutamol - TWICE as much "

Did he inhale twice as much?????
His urinary Salbutamol level was twice the permitted level, but this does NOT mean he inhaled twice as much.
a urinary concentration of 2000ng/mL is meaningless if you do not consider how concentrated or dilute the urine sample is. You could take the same number of puffs of an inhaler, but your salbutaml levels will be very different if you are climbing a mountain in the Vuelta whilst sweating like a pig, walking in the Australian outback for a couple of days with no water, or if you have just had 6 pints at your local pub.
The salbutamol concentration should be expressed as a ratio to urinary creatinine concentration in order to take the dilution or concentration of the sample into account.
i assume Froome is innocent until all of the scientific evidence is heard!

Yeah Yeah Yeah

so why is this not very common then? Any truth in what you say here would mean that a lot of cyclists with a puffer would produce positive tests but sadly for this theory it is very uncommon. Sorry he's guilty.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Irondan said:
Everyone laughing at Chris Froome, Sky, Dave Brailsford and all the other hypocrites out there that no doubt deserve this fate seem to be missing the bigger picture in that this is AWFUL for pro cycling! A four time Tour De France champion has just been given back an AAF and people are laughing about it like it's funny or good for cycling when it's not funny at all, although it does feel good to be proven right it's not a laughing matter if you're a fan of pro cycling. I suppose the snipers of the world are having a good time with this but personally, I think this is just another black mark on a sport that has too many black marks to it's credit.

I love pro cycling and feel like I've been punched in the gut even though I'm not at all a Chris Froome or Team Sky fan.

Someday, all these doping scandals are going to catch up to the sport, is this the day? :(

Maybe at some point people will figure out it's bad for cycling that riders cheat, rather than bad for cycling that the cheaters test positive. I know, I'm a dreamer.
That wasn't my point Red but I get what you're saying. I think you understand what I was saying too in that this isn't a laughing matter. Of course, it's good that dopers get caught. Cycling is better off without the riders that try and get cute with the rules such as Bradley Wiggins and now Chris Froome and the long list of others.

"I haven't broken any rules" is such a load of *** it can't even be quantified. Maybe that's what people find funny? I guess it's so disgusting that it becomes comical? I don't know, all I know is that we the fans of pro cycling have lost yet again. Another multi-time Tour de France champion is embroiled in a doping scandal. The people trying to minimize this will feel the same pain that everyone else feels when their hero gets their just deserts.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
Don't worry, we have a new vanguard of clean cycling in the shape of Tony Martin and Marcel Kittel.
What is the case against Kittel and Tony Martin then? ;)

Long time ago now, but as i recall Kittel used to think it was OK to have the blood removed from his body, passed through some kind of UV exposure, and then reinfused. All sounds perfectly normal to me :lol:
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
Don't worry, we have a new vanguard of clean cycling in the shape of Tony Martin and Marcel Kittel.
What is the case against Kittel and Tony Martin then? ;)

Long time ago now, but as i recall Kittel used to think it was OK to have the blood removed from his body, passed through some kind of UV exposure, and then reinfused. All sounds perfectly normal to me :lol:
Perfectly legal at the time he did it, according to a CAS ruling.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
Don't worry, we have a new vanguard of clean cycling in the shape of Tony Martin and Marcel Kittel.
What is the case against Kittel and Tony Martin then? ;)

Long time ago now, but as i recall Kittel used to think it was OK to have the blood removed from his body, passed through some kind of UV exposure, and then reinfused. All sounds perfectly normal to me :lol:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-rules-uv-light-blood-treatments-in-germany-were-not-doping/

Sorry, as i thought. Perfectly normal. Definetely not doping :confused:
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
brownbobby said:
The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
Don't worry, we have a new vanguard of clean cycling in the shape of Tony Martin and Marcel Kittel.
What is the case against Kittel and Tony Martin then? ;)

Long time ago now, but as i recall Kittel used to think it was OK to have the blood removed from his body, passed through some kind of UV exposure, and then reinfused. All sounds perfectly normal to me :lol:
Perfectly legal at the time he did it, according to a CAS ruling.

It was legal (not banned) in 2008 because WADA didnt know about it. As soon as it came to light in 2012 it was banned immediately. If taking your own blood out of your body, passing it through a UV light and then reinfusing isn't blood doping then i don't know what is. WTF were they doing, trying to get his blood a nice healthy tan?

He got off on a technicality. If Froome beats this charge on a legal technicality the Clinic goes batshit crazy. Rightly so. If we insert Froome's name in place of Kittel in this report, then change the year to 2011 the Clinic goes batshit crazy.

My first response when i saw Tony Martins post this morning, name checking Kittel as the paragon of virtue was to presume it was a spoof.

It appears i was wrong.
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
red_flanders said:
Irondan said:
Everyone laughing at Chris Froome, Sky, Dave Brailsford and all the other hypocrites out there that no doubt deserve this fate seem to be missing the bigger picture in that this is AWFUL for pro cycling! A four time Tour De France champion has just been given back an AAF and people are laughing about it like it's funny or good for cycling when it's not funny at all, although it does feel good to be proven right it's not a laughing matter if you're a fan of pro cycling. I suppose the snipers of the world are having a good time with this but personally, I think this is just another black mark on a sport that has too many black marks to it's credit.

I love pro cycling and feel like I've been punched in the gut even though I'm not at all a Chris Froome or Team Sky fan.

Someday, all these doping scandals are going to catch up to the sport, is this the day? :(

Maybe at some point people will figure out it's bad for cycling that riders cheat, rather than bad for cycling that the cheaters test positive. I know, I'm a dreamer.
That wasn't my point Red but I get what you're saying. I think you understand what I was saying too in that this isn't a laughing matter. Of course, it's good that dopers get caught. Cycling is better off without the riders that try and get cute with the rules such as Bradley Wiggins and now Chris Froome and the long list of others.

"I haven't broken any rules" is such a load of *** it can't even be quantified. Maybe that's what people find funny? I guess it's so disgusting that it becomes comical? I don't know, all I know is that we the fans of pro cycling have lost yet again. Another multi-time Tour de France champion is embroiled in a doping scandal. The people trying to minimize this will feel the same pain that everyone else feels when their hero gets their just deserts.

Yep, we're on the same page. My comment, though poorly worded wasn't really about you, it was meant to be a general one with which I was sure you'd agree.

You have to laugh. It's the only way to get through the comical defenses that people on this thread and other places swallow at face value, telling themselves it's all the interest of "fairness". The rules are so skewed in favor of allowing doping that for someone to pull a boner like this simply indicates how much actual doping they're really doing. Laughing is the only way to get through it.

I stopped taking cycling seriously somewhere around 1998. Shame on me for taking that long.
 

TRENDING THREADS