Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1030 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
Eh, it's feeling more and more BB to me, almost akin to Contie's clen. What is the half-life of Sal in a BB, or does time elapsed not affect it? I know we have some people in the know...
 
Jul 20, 2015
109
0
0
Gigs_98 said:
I'm actually starting to wonder whether Froome might maybe really be "innocent". Maybe he just tried to push the boundries and take as much Salbutamol as allowed but because of some unknown reasons it backfired and his body didn't process the substance fast enough. I've now already read a few articles claiming the too high portion of Salbutamol in his urine might be due to dehydration which sounds logical to someone like me who isn't exactly knowledgeable in this topic. I just don't get why you would purposely take too much of a substance like Salbutamol when you know you'll get tested the following day. Wouldn't that be unbelievably stupid? This just doesn't make sense to me.
Well-

1. There is no chance that he was dehydrated enough to cause a 100% increase in levels, beyond the allowable limit...while still being able to drop Nibali. Un-possible. Further, the literature Ive read suggests that dehydration can in fact increase the concentration- by 5-10%. So, even if we allow for this, what accounts for the other 90% over the limit?
Cheating, thats what.

2. It turns out the most of these guys in fact are...stupid. With Sky, we can go back as far as you like, and find absolutely absurd and ridiculous explanations for everything that seemed off. The Clinic has mocked these clowns for years. Turns out, however, that a fawning and sycophantic media (Kimmage aside) simply refused to ask tough questions, gave the benefit of the doubt, and on and on.
People often avoid asking tough questions of people perceived to be in positions of power or prestige, and that is clearly the case here.
I mean, a literate 12 year old with access to Google could have disproved the majority of Brailsfords crap in 30 seconds, had anyone WANTED to get to the truth. Because really, these guys arent very bright- but they are wealthy and powerful.

Look- with the odd prevalence of asthma in the peleton, surely some other athletes have run afoul of the rules like this, right? (If you believe the Sky explanations, that is.)
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

As Froome and Sky are much higher profile than Kittel it only makes sense that the response to similar trangressions will not be the same. With all the great pr and attention that the media gives Froome and Sky it is equally coveted by them. With that comes an equal amount of a criticism and commentary from the fans of the sport. You can't have the fame without the scrutiny.
The procedure undergone by Kittel is more akin to snake oil than blood doping too, the shame of having been outed doing that should be enough :D
 
Re:

MartinGT said:
That doctor interview is interesting a max 16 puffs in a 24h period. Yet he took twice that. Dodgy.
We don't know what he took. Strikes me as wildly unlikely that he tripped this reading puffing on an inhaler. I wouldn't make that assumption at all–it leans toward buying the "asthma" defense, which seems obviously a cover for OOC doping.
 
I remember believers used to say it was ”incredible stupid” of wonderboy to take drugs in the aftermath of his cancer (in an attempt to talk down the allegations when it started to circle around in -99) and yet that is what he did.

It boils down to either certain riders are incredible stupid, or incredible willing to take higher risks then everybody else, or are certain they could do this and get away with it. We dont have all the facts about Froome but its unlikely he would have got himself into this clusterfeck under Crooksons watch, like Armstrong went down after having burned too many bridges.
 
No_Balls said:
I remember people used to say it was ”incredible stupid” for wonderboy to take drugs in the aftermath of his cancer (when the allegations started to first circle around -99) and yet that is what he did.

It boils down to either certain riders are incredible stupid, or incredible willing to take higher risks then everybody else, or are certain they could do this and get away with it. We dont have all the facts about Froome but its unlikely he would have got himself into this clusterfeck under Crooksons watch, like Armstrong went down after having burned too many bridges.
Exactly. Heard this take regarding:

Armstrong
Hamilton
Landis
Heras
Zuelle
Pantani
Wiggins
Froome
Beltran
Simoni
Valverde
Contador
Boonen
Museeuw
Garzelli
DiLuca
...

I could type all morning.

It's not a reason to believe the rider didn't do it. Every one of those riders was doping and at some point they missed the window. That's all that happened here.
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
brownbobby said:
hrotha said:
brownbobby said:
The Hitch said:
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.
As Froome and Sky are much higher profile than Kittel it only makes sense that the response to similar trangressions will not be the same. With all the great pr and attention that the media gives Froome and Sky it is equally coveted by them. With that comes an equal amount of a criticism and commentary from the fans of the sport. You can't have the fame without the scrutiny.
I heard some guy in Timbuktu just took some epo.

Quick everyone rush to condemn him exactly the same way as you would the 5th most decorated your de France champion of all time or you are all hypocrites
 
Re:

veji11 said:
Well honestly that Kittel thing was outrageous and still is. You pump your blood out and put it back in and you argue it's ok ??? really ? UCI at the time lacked guts. It should have if not punished at least massively shamed the culprit saying that "while not legally punishable because unknown at the time this action is viewed as having a clear intent of boosting one's blood efficiency artificially and therefore to reaping benefits akin to those of banned doping. This type of practice will not be tolerated and should not have been tolerated, the UCI regrets not being able to punish the rider for what should have been an offence.". Boom.
You had 6 years to attack kittel for this. You are only getting the knives out now because a guy who was mean to poor froomie seems to like him.
 
.Froomestrong. said:
Gigs_98 said:
I'm actually starting to wonder whether Froome might maybe really be "innocent". Maybe he just tried to push the boundries and take as much Salbutamol as allowed but because of some unknown reasons it backfired and his body didn't process the substance fast enough. I've now already read a few articles claiming the too high portion of Salbutamol in his urine might be due to dehydration which sounds logical to someone like me who isn't exactly knowledgeable in this topic. I just don't get why you would purposely take too much of a substance like Salbutamol when you know you'll get tested the following day. Wouldn't that be unbelievably stupid? This just doesn't make sense to me.
Well-

1. There is no chance that he was dehydrated enough to cause a 100% increase in levels, beyond the allowable limit...while still being able to drop Nibali. Un-possible. Further, the literature Ive read suggests that dehydration can in fact increase the concentration- by 5-10%. So, even if we allow for this, what accounts for the other 90% over the limit?
Cheating, thats what.

2. It turns out the most of these guys in fact are...stupid. With Sky, we can go back as far as you like, and find absolutely absurd and ridiculous explanations for everything that seemed off. The Clinic has mocked these clowns for years. Turns out, however, that a fawning and sycophantic media (Kimmage aside) simply refused to ask tough questions, gave the benefit of the doubt, and on and on.
People often avoid asking tough questions of people perceived to be in positions of power or prestige, and that is clearly the case here.
I mean, a literate 12 year old with access to Google could have disproved the majority of Brailsfords crap in 30 seconds, had anyone WANTED to get to the truth. Because really, these guys arent very bright- but they are wealthy and powerful.

Look- with the odd prevalence of asthma in the peleton, surely some other athletes have run afoul of the rules like this, right? (If you believe the Sky explanations, that is.)
Great post
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Re: Re:

MartinGT said:
jmdirt said:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381
Good read that
VN: And via the other methods, how does that affect an athlete?
DTB: With injections or tablets, you start getting some additional effects. You might see anabolic effects, such muscle-growing or fat-burning, similar to what Clenbuterol might do. That wouldn’t result from a couple of puffs. That would be a longer-term abuse with a higher level of it to get that anabolic effect, over weeks or even months.
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381#VhqrqjPOFXIpetm1.99
Why does this seem to sound more and more like he has transfused a bag from a period of injected OOC use and simply got his 'glow' calcs way out.

1.Seems to follow the way Sky pushed the envelope with triamcinilone OOC to clone the super skinny climbing troop.
2. No matter how good their medical advice is 'slipping up' of glow period from transfusions is always the downfall e.g. Contador

It's all about the watts per kilo and the their real enemy is a drop in watts per kilo OOC. It's clear from Freeman's stockpiling that the battle with wpk is primary in this arms race and being clean secondary.
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Re: Re:

B_Ugli said:
MartinGT said:
jmdirt said:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381
Good read that
VN: And via the other methods, how does that affect an athlete?
DTB: With injections or tablets, you start getting some additional effects. You might see anabolic effects, such muscle-growing or fat-burning, similar to what Clenbuterol might do. That wouldn’t result from a couple of puffs. That would be a longer-term abuse with a higher level of it to get that anabolic effect, over weeks or even months.
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381#VhqrqjPOFXIpetm1.99
Why does this seem to sound more and more like he has transfused a bag from a period of injected OOC use and simply got his 'glow' calcs way out.

1.Seems to follow the way Sky pushed the envelope with triamcinilone OOC to clone the super skinny climbing troop.
2. No matter how good their medical advice is 'slipping up' of glow period from transfusions is always the downfall e.g. Contador
According to Mercx index your bag theory is highly unlikely.
viewtopic.php?p=2212338#p2212338
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
We don't know what he took. Strikes me as wildly unlikely that he tripped this reading puffing on an inhaler. I wouldn't make that assumption at all–it leans toward buying the "asthma" defense, which seems obviously a cover for OOC doping.
Apparently they can test whether it's been inhaled or injected so I assume this test will be part of the case for both sides.
 
Re: Re:

deValtos said:
red_flanders said:
We don't know what he took. Strikes me as wildly unlikely that he tripped this reading puffing on an inhaler. I wouldn't make that assumption at all–it leans toward buying the "asthma" defense, which seems obviously a cover for OOC doping.
Apparently they can test whether it's been inhaled or injected so I assume this test will be part of the case for both sides.
It can also be taken orally from what I understand. Happy to be corrected if that's wrong. Will the test show that as well? I sure would like to hear the answer to how he took it. Seems difficult to swallow (pun intended) that this amount was administered via inhaler. Sure seems the least likely answer anyway.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Re: Re:

miguelindurain111 said:
B_Ugli said:
MartinGT said:
jmdirt said:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381
Good read that
VN: And via the other methods, how does that affect an athlete?
DTB: With injections or tablets, you start getting some additional effects. You might see anabolic effects, such muscle-growing or fat-burning, similar to what Clenbuterol might do. That wouldn’t result from a couple of puffs. That would be a longer-term abuse with a higher level of it to get that anabolic effect, over weeks or even months.
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381#VhqrqjPOFXIpetm1.99
Why does this seem to sound more and more like he has transfused a bag from a period of injected OOC use and simply got his 'glow' calcs way out.

1.Seems to follow the way Sky pushed the envelope with triamcinilone OOC to clone the super skinny climbing troop.
2. No matter how good their medical advice is 'slipping up' of glow period from transfusions is always the downfall e.g. Contador
According to Mercx index your bag theory is highly unlikely.
viewtopic.php?p=2212338#p2212338
So if it's highly unlikely he did a bag and highly unlikely he took 40 odd puffs on an inhaler how did it get there?

And more to the point why if no performance advantage? *that is known of

*it being noted here that Sky have a penchant for experimenting with different substances to see what if any performance enhancing effect they may or may not have*
 
Re: Re:

B_Ugli said:
So if it's highly unlikely he did a bag...
I'm yet to be convinced of that. It's certainly a well-informed opinion worth heeding, but even that opinion was couched in qualifiers around how it would have been really dumb for Froome to take the drug before storing a bag. It would, but dumber things have been done many times.

...and highly unlikely he took 40 odd puffs on an inhaler how did it get there?

And more to the point why if no performance advantage?
Per the above link, it definitely has performance advantage at the oral and injected doses. Notably cutting weight, which again points to his OOC activity. Given the history and admissions, we can be close to 100% certain they're using corticos and other drugs OOC to cut weight.
 
Re: Re:

B_Ugli said:
miguelindurain111 said:
B_Ugli said:
MartinGT said:
jmdirt said:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381
Good read that
VN: And via the other methods, how does that affect an athlete?
DTB: With injections or tablets, you start getting some additional effects. You might see anabolic effects, such muscle-growing or fat-burning, similar to what Clenbuterol might do. That wouldn’t result from a couple of puffs. That would be a longer-term abuse with a higher level of it to get that anabolic effect, over weeks or even months.
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381#VhqrqjPOFXIpetm1.99
Why does this seem to sound more and more like he has transfused a bag from a period of injected OOC use and simply got his 'glow' calcs way out.

1.Seems to follow the way Sky pushed the envelope with triamcinilone OOC to clone the super skinny climbing troop.
2. No matter how good their medical advice is 'slipping up' of glow period from transfusions is always the downfall e.g. Contador
According to Mercx index your bag theory is highly unlikely.
viewtopic.php?p=2212338#p2212338
So if it's highly unlikely he did a bag and highly unlikely he took 40 odd puffs on an inhaler how did it get there?

And more to the point why if no performance advantage? *that is known of

*it being noted here that Sky have a penchant for experimenting with different substances to see what if any performance enhancing effect they may or may not have*
VN: What about the other banned methods of taking Salbutamol?
DTB: You can also take Salbutamol via oral tablets, intravenously or a nebulizer [a kind of vapor mask], but those are going to be much more potent, and have a much larger effect. An inhaler goes directly to the lungs and relaxes the bronchial muscles to ease breathing. The other uses go into the whole system, including the blood system, and would have a larger effect.
Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381#1EVGwzdFRb01SWX6.99
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Not sure if posted, so apologies if so. But I found this interesting:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/angel-hernandez-i-no-longer-dope-athletes-but-pretty-much-everyone-else-does/

What about asthma inhalers? So often we see top-level endurance athletes sucking on inhalers, a sight at odds with most people’s childhood memories of asthmatic classmates’ loathing of aerobic exercise. Could it be the humble asthma inhaler holds performance-enhancing qualities?

‘I call it the “transporter”,’ he says. ‘It opens and expands not only your lung capacity but also your pulmonary capability, so it has improved capacity to move the blood cells…

‘In other words, if you were using EPO, or if you were using another substance like EPO, it would help you to boost endurance even more. It is like multiplying the effects by between three and five times.’

He points out some athletes are using the pumps legitimately because they have what he calls ‘induced asthma’ from training, but that others are cheating by conning doctors into giving them medical letters stating that they have the condition, letters that no anti-doping agency on the planet can argue with. ‘It’s like a green light for doping,’ he says.
 
I'm leaning more and more towards the possibility that Froome and other "asthmatics" don't use inhalers except for show. That huge spike is easier to explain if he took salbutamol tablets or injections. Can the tests detect the way the subtance was taken? I've read something about this, but nothing definitive so far.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY