Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1040 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Red Rick said:
buckle said:
UCI calling Martin to shut up? Now obviously thing are all gonna go fair from this point onwards
Without prejudice to the wider debate, Tony Martin made a bit of a hash of using this opportunity to highlight, what I read into it as being a long standing frustration with the whole Sky/Uci relationship didn't he?

Missed a bit of an open goal really by completely misrepresenting the rules as he thought they should be applied, so no surprise that the UCI pushed for a retraction.
 
I'll go a step further - No cyclists or team should be making any public comments about the Froome matter - The worst thing is Froome making public comments - Some in cycling need to understand how Anti-Doping works.
 
brownbobby said:
Red Rick said:
buckle said:
UCI calling Martin to shut up? Now obviously thing are all gonna go fair from this point onwards
Without prejudice to the wider debate, Tony Martin made a bit of a hash of using this opportunity to highlight, what I read into it as being a long standing frustration with the whole Sky/Uci relationship didn't he?

Missed a bit of an open goal really by completely misrepresenting the rules as he thought they should be applied, so no surprise that the UCI pushed for a retraction.
Aside from view that there should be no public discourse on this matter from stakeholders, I suggest Martin was half wrong on the issue of provisional suspensions - It's not in the UCI rules for this type of offence, but I suggest a number of teams would provisionally suspend the cyclist.
 
yaco said:
brownbobby said:
Red Rick said:
buckle said:
UCI calling Martin to shut up? Now obviously thing are all gonna go fair from this point onwards
Without prejudice to the wider debate, Tony Martin made a bit of a hash of using this opportunity to highlight, what I read into it as being a long standing frustration with the whole Sky/Uci relationship didn't he?

Missed a bit of an open goal really by completely misrepresenting the rules as he thought they should be applied, so no surprise that the UCI pushed for a retraction.
Aside from view that there should be no public discourse on this matter from stakeholders, I suggest Martin was half wrong on the issue of provisional suspensions - It's not in the UCI rules for this type of offence, but I suggest a number of teams would provisionally suspend the cyclist.
Maybe, but they've already laid out the basis of the defence....."I followed exactly the advice of the team doctor"
Gotta present a united front to follow this through, in public at least
 
brownbobby said:
yaco said:
brownbobby said:
Red Rick said:
buckle said:
UCI calling Martin to shut up? Now obviously thing are all gonna go fair from this point onwards
Without prejudice to the wider debate, Tony Martin made a bit of a hash of using this opportunity to highlight, what I read into it as being a long standing frustration with the whole Sky/Uci relationship didn't he?

Missed a bit of an open goal really by completely misrepresenting the rules as he thought they should be applied, so no surprise that the UCI pushed for a retraction.
Aside from view that there should be no public discourse on this matter from stakeholders, I suggest Martin was half wrong on the issue of provisional suspensions - It's not in the UCI rules for this type of offence, but I suggest a number of teams would provisionally suspend the cyclist.
Maybe, but they've already laid out the basis of the defence....."I followed exactly the advice of the team doctor"
Gotta present a united front to follow this through, in public at least
At the end of the day Froome is 'pushing *** uphill' to beat the charge - It's such a strange charge in the world of 'Anti Doping.' Even if the lawyers try to destroy the science in anti-doping hearings, Froome will need lots of luck - Of course my first reaction upon hearing the news was in which stage did he fail the anti-doping control - As I expected my cynicism was rewarded - The stage after Muchacho in which Froome struggled - Still maintain a decent 'team' would provisionally suspend Froome.
 
From Walsh article today in ST: "That evening at the finish, wanting to show he was healthy, he took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interviews." Then he goes to anti-doping test. This is insane on all levels, first as in did he really do this?, then why do it?, then to use this as some sort of explanation for the positive.
 
Oct 20, 2015
9
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
You are wrong. You have gone to some trouble to quote a passage from the rules which demonstrates that you are wrong.

Salbutamol is not a 'prohibited substance.
Yes, it is. It's on the prohibited list:

All selective and non-selective beta-2 agonists, including all optical isomers, are prohibited.
Including, but not limited to:

...

Salbutamol
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-29_-_wada_prohibited_list_2017_eng_final.pdf

You're confusing non-threshold substances, which are prohibited at any level, with threshold substances, like salbutamol, which are prohibited above a specific threshold. Froome's level is above the threshold, so at this point, he's broken a rule. If he can explain how he could have obtained that level without breaking another rule--limiting the amount of drug he could take in a specific time period--then he presumably won't be sanctioned. But he won't be sanctioned not because he didn't break a rule, but because of a sufficient explanation for why he broke the rule.

Killing someone is against the law, but if you kill someone in self-defense, you might get off. That doesn't mean you didn't break the law, it just means the law recognizes exceptions. (I can already see some lawyers jumping in on this, but I think it's a reasonable view).
I'm not confusing anything

You conveniently clipped an important part of that regulation. Here it is in full.

S3. Beta-2 Agonists

All beta-2 agonists are prohibited at all times by any route of administration (oral, inhaled, injected), except for:

Inhaled Albuterol (also called salbutamol) in dosages under 1600 micrograms (mcg) in any 24-hour period (not to exceed 800 mcg in 12 hours)


Taking salbutamol in doseages above prescribed levels is prohibited. Having high levels of of salbutamol in your urine is not prohibited. It is a threshold set that suggests the doseage limit may have been breached.

Having high levels of the substance in your urine can in theory still occur without having taken more than the permitted dose. In theory at least

Hence AAF. Not doping violation. Yet. No rules have been broken, or at least proven to be broken. Yet. Significantly though the onus is now on Froome to prove he hasn't broken any rules.

Didn't we cover all this earlier in the week.
Then tell me what happens if Froome and his legal counsel decide not to respond at all? After all, no one can be compelled to present a defense. What happens to him then if he hasn't broken a rule at this point?
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
2
0
Stuff like this should really be completed in less than a month. Do that pharmacokinetic and when it fails ban him for 2 years (no back-dating, but all his results gained during the investigation should be scrapped).
 
Re:

El Pistolero said:
Stuff like this should really be completed in less than a month. Do that pharmacokinetic and when it fails ban him for 2 years (no back-dating, but all his results gained during the investigation should be scrapped).
I´d say 9 months ban. Ulissi had 1920ng/ml Froome had 2000. similar ban should be. not 2 years
 
Re: Re:

I'm not confusing anything

You conveniently clipped an important part of that regulation. Here it is in full.

S3. Beta-2 Agonists

All beta-2 agonists are prohibited at all times by any route of administration (oral, inhaled, injected), except for:

Inhaled Albuterol (also called salbutamol) in dosages under 1600 micrograms (mcg) in any 24-hour period (not to exceed 800 mcg in 12 hours)


Taking salbutamol in doseages above prescribed levels is prohibited. Having high levels of of salbutamol in your urine is not prohibited. It is a threshold set that suggests the doseage limit may have been breached.

Having high levels of the substance in your urine can in theory still occur without having taken more than the permitted dose. In theory at least

Hence AAF. Not doping violation. Yet. No rules have been broken, or at least proven to be broken. Yet. Significantly though the onus is now on Froome to prove he hasn't broken any rules.

Didn't we cover all this earlier in the week.[/quote]

Then tell me what happens if Froome and his legal counsel decide not to respond at all? After all, no one can be compelled to present a defense. What happens to him then if he hasn't broken a rule at this point?[/quote]

OK, I'll have a think about that and tell you what I think happens. Right after you tell me what happens if the Sun doesn't rise in the East tomorrow
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
brownbobby said:
Tonton said:
sittingbison said:
Panache

Virenque, Jaja, Pirata, Diablo etc got it in spades that's why you (we) still like them

Not Wiggo or Dawg. Panachless
Good point. Being the devil's advocate, I would argue that for a Brit, '13 Ventoux or '15 PSM are glorious. It's in the eyes of each of us. And the running man episode still showed in highlights, although it never happened since Portal went whining to the officials and results were "adjusted". Now for Wiggo...I can't find a glorious moment :eek: . Or maybe him trying to chase Froome :D . Now that was courage.
You present the Devils advocate view very well I think.

Your earlier comments almost acknowledge that, eh, we don't like doping, but it happens. So if you're gonna do it, do it with panache, don't take the piss too much, and were still gonna like what we like.

Now, you have to understand that for some, I'd even say most, in the U.K., panache isn't something we care so much about. I'm not just talking cycling here, I'm talking sport in general. What we do love is a good story. And we like winners. If we find someone who wins things, and sells us a good story, overcoming a tough upbringing, adversity in earlier life, overcoming all obstacles to achieve greatness, then for some we've got a hero.

Now we've all seen through all this, we've done our research, we've been with the story from the start. We know it's all BS. But for everyone of us, there are many more who think they know Chris Froome because they read the climb. He fits the bill. If only he was actually born in the U.K., and he did something other than ride a bike, he'd be our perfect hero. But we still like him. We still gonna cheer for him when he's showing all those foreigners what British courage and ambition can achieve.

In the microclimate of the Clinic, His fate is sealed. He's busted. Done. But step outside into the wider world, and he's still very much alive and kicking. He's had more column inches in the UK this week than he's had in the previous 5 years, but outside of the specialist press, and the inner circle of 'proper' cycling fans, the number of messages of support, the "eh we believe in you Chris" plastered across social media is overwhelmingly positive for him.

Don't forget cycling has grown enormously in the U.K. In recent years. The casual cycling fan, the ones who know all they need to know about Froome from reading his biography, far outnumbers the 'real' cycling fans. And their voices are just as loud.

I'm not going to try and tell you where I stand on this. You think what you think.

But I'm on the ground in the UK, I'm amongst the cycling fans, new and old. This is my report of how it's looking in my little corner of the British Isles. Froome ain't dead yet. He's very much alive and kicking.

Only time will tell for how long he stays that way.
If cycling really is as massive as you claim it is (an argument we have been hearing for years and it always seemed more hopeful than anything) why do all sky books end in the bargain bin by Christmas of their release year. Why was Froome only 3rd favourite to win the sports person of the country award in a year where he had what could easily be described as the most successful cycling season Of the century so far.
Why is the tour de France shown on a 5th rate cable channel- itv4 and not by a major tv station like it is In many countries that haven't had a tdf winner in decades (some of whom May even show the vuelta or giro on the first channel).
If Froome is such a usain bolt with such a wide fanbase, how comes even before any scandals we saw time after time that the public response to him was overwhelmingly negative?

Yeah, we just arent buying the "b-b'b you guys should be jealous because He has a gazillion fans".
arguments.
Did a swim workout early this morning. Had to wait a bit to get rolling 'cause the pool attendant/lifeguards had that automatic vacuum thingy in the water ... the one that turns only when it bumps into a wall. Hypnotizing when you're still groggy, man.

Hitch ... you're all over the *** place!

BTW, "Pity" line ... I retract ... with apology.
 
Re:

Rollthedice said:
From Walsh article today in ST: "That evening at the finish, wanting to show he was healthy, he took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interviews." Then he goes to anti-doping test. This is insane on all levels, first as in did he really do this?, then why do it?, then to use this as some sort of explanation for the positive.
So now he pleads stupidity instead of weird metabolism?
 
Re: Re:

Alexandre B. said:
Rollthedice said:
From Walsh article today in ST: "That evening at the finish, wanting to show he was healthy, he took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interviews." Then he goes to anti-doping test. This is insane on all levels, first as in did he really do this?, then why do it?, then to use this as some sort of explanation for the positive.
So now he pleads stupidity instead of weird metabolism?
It's closer to the truth probably, but still no excuse
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
sittingbison said:
brownbobby said:
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
You are wrong. You have gone to some trouble to quote a passage from the rules which demonstrates that you are wrong.

Salbutamol is not a 'prohibited substance.
Yes, it is. It's on the prohibited list:

All selective and non-selective beta-2 agonists, including all optical isomers, are prohibited.
Including, but not limited to:

...

Salbutamol
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-29_-_wada_prohibited_list_2017_eng_final.pdf

You're confusing non-threshold substances, which are prohibited at any level, with threshold substances, like salbutamol, which are prohibited above a specific threshold.....

I'm not confusing anything....
merckx index was being generous, and you are correct, you were not confusing anything ;)
Here come the pitchforks...
You're doing a great job of forking yourself, keep up the good work
 
Re:

Rollthedice said:
From Walsh article today in ST: "That evening at the finish, wanting to show he was healthy, he took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interviews." Then he goes to anti-doping test. This is insane on all levels, first as in did he really do this?, then why do it?, then to use this as some sort of explanation for the positive.
Marginal mind gains.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Alexandre B. said:
Rollthedice said:
From Walsh article today in ST: "That evening at the finish, wanting to show he was healthy, he took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interviews." Then he goes to anti-doping test. This is insane on all levels, first as in did he really do this?, then why do it?, then to use this as some sort of explanation for the positive.
So now he pleads stupidity instead of weird metabolism?
It's closer to the truth probably, but still no excuse
If I was Froome. If I was guilty. If I had plenty more skeletons in the closet, then I think I'd be going down this line.

"I was desperate, struggling to breathe, ask any asthmatic, they'll tell you what it's like. I thought it was ok but it turns out I made a stupid mistake. I'm sorry, I accept whatever punishment is handed to me"

This situation would be recoverable. Dude could even get some sympathy (not from the Clinic or those in the know. I know, you knew, you always knew)

Going the full legal option is a risky strategy. It's not always the final verdict that does the damage, but the evidence that gets dragged up along the way to reaching that verdict.
 
Jan 6, 2014
548
0
0
Re:

70kmph said:
LeMonde Article

http://www.lemonde.fr/cyclisme/article/2017/12/14/cyclisme-le-cas-froome-ne-sera-pas-tranche-avant-plusieurs-mois_5229561_1616656.html

Froome hasn't yet taken the lab test

Froome was instructed to take 3 puffs by his Doctor after the finish then go to the controls :eek:
But why would his "doctor" advise this and Froome follow that advise when he wasn't ill like he said after the stage (someone even posted a youtube link to the interview).

Also if it's right that his test results means 40 puffs how can 3 puffs right before doping control explain his test results? Also very unlikely that he took 3 puffs and didn't drink to reduce his dehydration.
 
Re:

yaco said:
I'll go a step further - No cyclists or team should be making any public comments about the Froome matter - The worst thing is Froome making public comments - Some in cycling need to understand how Anti-Doping works.

Oh did Hitler and his Nazis win WW2?

No I don't think they did. It's supposed to be a free world with freedom of speech still.
 
Re: Re:

Craigee said:
yaco said:
I'll go a step further - No cyclists or team should be making any public comments about the Froome matter - The worst thing is Froome making public comments - Some in cycling need to understand how Anti-Doping works.

Oh did Hitler and his Nazis win WW2?

No I don't think they did. It's supposed to be a free world with freedom of speech still.
No. But Stalin did, which is a bit of a problem for the analogy.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Red Rick said:
Alexandre B. said:
Rollthedice said:
From Walsh article today in ST: "That evening at the finish, wanting to show he was healthy, he took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interviews." Then he goes to anti-doping test. This is insane on all levels, first as in did he really do this?, then why do it?, then to use this as some sort of explanation for the positive.
So now he pleads stupidity instead of weird metabolism?
It's closer to the truth probably, but still no excuse
If I was Froome. If I was guilty. If I had plenty more skeletons in the closet, then I think I'd be going down this line.

"I was desperate, struggling to breathe, ask any asthmatic, they'll tell you what it's like. I thought it was ok but it turns out I made a stupid mistake. I'm sorry, I accept whatever punishment is handed to me"

This situation would be recoverable. Dude could even get some sympathy (not from the Clinic or those in the know. I know, you knew, you always knew)

Going the full legal option is a risky strategy. It's not always the final verdict that does the damage, but the evidence that gets dragged up along the way to reaching that verdict.
I agree with all of this. Pleading stupidity means no evil intent, it probably is the best PR move, unlike a lengthy legal battle that could expose more mud and will hurt his image even more. When things get ugly, no one looks pretty.
 
My thoughts:
If he only used it after the stage to appear healthy in the interview surely it wasn't medically necessary? Sky said Froome's asthma was really bad that day hence he took more puffs. Yet he only took 3 puffs afterwards and none during the stage. So with his "bad asthma" he didn't struggle during the stage? Remember he finished with Berto and dropped Nibali while the day before he was dropped like a stone by both.
Also while I do not know enough about the elimination rate of salbutamol to draw a conclusion I think it's unlikely the 3 puffs will show up in his urine after less than an hour in the concentration that was found.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
My thoughts:
If he only used it after the stage to appear healthy in the interview surely it wasn't medically necessary? Sky said Froome's asthma was really bad that day hence he took more puffs. Yet he only took 3 puffs afterwards and none during the stage. So with his "bad asthma" he didn't struggle during the stage? Remember he finished with Berto and dropped Nibali while the day before he was dropped like a stone by both.
Also while I do not know enough about the elimination rate of salbutamol to draw a conclusion I think it's unlikely the 3 puffs will show up in his urine after less than an hour in the concentration that was found.
I think peak concentration is 2 hours after intake for inhalation, but 3 puffs can't explain 2000ng/ml in a million years.

I simply think there's no satisfying explanation for Froome.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY