Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1041 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
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.
Peak concentration in urine I assume?
 
That's the trap: admitting any kind of guilt goes against the entire Sky rhetoric. It's one thing to be accuser, another to be convicted. Sky and Froome don't want that, obviously. And double down. Risky.

And I agree that they have already been too far in the denial talks. Froome should have kept quiet. His mentioning of the inhaler was a big mistake...it's a lie. According to the other thread, it would have taken like 40 puffs iirc to post this kind of a number...
 
Tonton said:
That's the trap: admitting any kind of guilt goes against the entire Sky rhetoric. It's one thing to be accuser, another to be convicted. Sky and Froome don't want that, obviously. And double down. Risky.

And I agree that they have already been too far in the denial talks. Froome should have kept quiet. His mentioning of the inhaler was a big mistake...it's a lie. According to the other thread, it would have taken like 40 puffs iirc to post this kind of a number...
Agreed. It's almost like the whole Jiffybag thing never happened.

You would think they would have learnt that saying nothin is often preferable to saying the first thing that pops in to your head.

It was for Emma. Brad wasn't on the bus.....surely they know that there are so many people out there, paid and unpaid, who are just waiting to interrogate every detail of everything they say when something like this goes public...
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Red Rick said:
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.
Peak concentration in urine I assume?
Yeah
 
brownbobby said:
Tonton said:
That's the trap: admitting any kind of guilt goes against the entire Sky rhetoric. It's one thing to be accuser, another to be convicted. Sky and Froome don't want that, obviously. And double down. Risky.

And I agree that they have already been too far in the denial talks. Froome should have kept quiet. His mentioning of the inhaler was a big mistake...it's a lie. According to the other thread, it would have taken like 40 puffs iirc to post this kind of a number...
Agreed. It's almost like the whole Jiffybag thing never happened.

You would think they would have learnt that saying nothin is often preferable to saying the first thing that pops in to your head.

It was for Emma. Brad wasn't on the bus.....surely they know that there are so many people out there, paid and unpaid, who are just waiting to interrogate every detail of everything they say when something like this goes public...
Sudden public pressure and panic makes people do strange things.
 
One thing I dont understand...

When a big cyclist like this gets caught... we gonna ignore that team bosses, staff, doctors etc dont know that some stuff is going on? That they have no idea about it or that is just what you sign up for when you decide to cheat. You just a scapegoat at the end of the day. It is only your name on the line when you get caught.

Why not ban the whole *insert foul language* team? Since they probably been helping him cheat.

Either way. I will be amazed if he ever wins a race again. Good riddance.
 
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.
The problem they’ve got is they are trying to explain some of the lies with other lies not realising it then boxes them in why he had a positive test. The fact he didn’t look sick in the slightest on Stage 17 nor 18 in post race interviews they make up a lie to cover it. Then another lie that he doesn’t use his inhaler during races in fear of embassment, to have Froome send out a tweet to asthma suffers not to be “judged” or feel “embarrassed”.

Dawg is really bad at this, needs some schooling from Lance no how to lie and look convincing.
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
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.
I like this post. Fort he historical point it makes
 
bambino said:
brownbobby said:
Tonton said:
That's the trap: admitting any kind of guilt goes against the entire Sky rhetoric. It's one thing to be accuser, another to be convicted. Sky and Froome don't want that, obviously. And double down. Risky.

And I agree that they have already been too far in the denial talks. Froome should have kept quiet. His mentioning of the inhaler was a big mistake...it's a lie. According to the other thread, it would have taken like 40 puffs iirc to post this kind of a number...
Agreed. It's almost like the whole Jiffybag thing never happened.

You would think they would have learnt that saying nothin is often preferable to saying the first thing that pops in to your head.

It was for Emma. Brad wasn't on the bus.....surely they know that there are so many people out there, paid and unpaid, who are just waiting to interrogate every detail of everything they say when something like this goes public...
Sudden public pressure and panic makes people do strange things.
It does, but now I think about it more, the response is even worse than Jiffy bag saga.

That started as a press expose, there anything along the lines of no comment immediately makes them look guilty. But as soon as UKAD got involved the shutters came down. "Sorry, we're confident of no wrongdoing, but we can't comment on an ongoing investigation"

They had this excuse in the bag, fresh in the mind as soon as this story broke. Simples. If you're in a hole stop digging.

So why rush out these ill conceived lies (or what we think are lies) when they didn't need to say anything. Again, one can only presume arrogance...
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Libertine Seguros said:
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.
I like this post. Fort he historical point it makes
Me too. Very clever
 
Apr 15, 2016
179
0
0
there's nothing for the fans of the sport to even argue about , it's obvious him and the team have been doping for years just like the rest of the peleton , the only difference is they cranked it up a few notches and destroyed the enjoyment of the sport

no one likes the US/UK Postal style of racing outside of the fans of said teams and hopefully this opens up a large can of worms and makes Sir Dave and Sky disappear
 
Re: Re:

rote_laterne said:
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.
Poker face. In cycling, like many sports, don't let opponents see your weakness. Just because he said he wasn't ill, doesn't automatically follow that he wasn't ill.

But that's all I've got, no plausible explanation for the other elements of this part of the excuse that don't add up.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
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.
Explanation isn't the objective, obfuscation is.

I think it's clear Froome never expected the AAF to become public, & the way he's flapping shows this. It's interesting to speculate who leaked the story too; could it have even come from inside Sky ?
 
Re: Re:

keeponrollin said:
Red Rick said:
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.
Explanation isn't the objective, obfuscation is.

I think it's clear Froome never expected the AAF to become public, & the way he's flapping shows this. It's interesting to speculate who leaked the story too; could it have even come from inside Sky ?
Well they need to get Bernal the spot somehow. :D
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
rote_laterne said:
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.
Poker face. In cycling, like many sports, don't let opponents see your weakness. Just because he said he wasn't ill, doesn't automatically follow that he wasn't ill.

But that's all I've got, no plausible explanation for the other elements of this part of the excuse that don't add up.
After Froome consults with his lawyers, consults with his doping "experts," and has his associates' stories all locked in . . . we'll her the truth from Froome.

Marginal gains forever!!!
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
It's a petulant piece by PK. As someone observed on twitter he's never written anything exposing the Irish bloodstock industry. The takeaway from this article is that Paul and the rest of us need to join a monastery. The same conclusion was reached by Alisdair MacIntyre in his seminal philosophical work "After Virtue" from the early 80's. I tried to join one but no sexual acting out and no sports left me traumatized at the time.
 
More and more it looks like that extra puffs theory is just cover up for something worse (bad blood bag?) It just doesn't add up the other way.
They've never expected the aaf to show up, now they are willing to get low punishment for extra puffs instead of blood doping questions/accusations imho.
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
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.
And freaking Harry Truman...
 
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.
Dawg was doping alright, no question. Caught with something less than "high-octane" but nevertheless it is doping. There is no way they can justify that level of salbutamol in urine if it would have been used for therapeutic reasons. So they will try to spin it as if it was a doctor's mistake, stupidity or some other odd reason. Ulissi's lawyer said the crash at the start of the stage caused a jump in values, he got 9 months. Ross Tucker explains here in short and very well how the concentration in urine works:

"This guy, circled, inhaled 1600 mcg salbutamol in 4 x 400mcg doses every 2 hours. 8hrs after 1st dose, and 2hrs after his 4th and final 400mcg dose, his level was 800 ng/ml. #Froome is 2.5x higher, with half the amount inhaled (else Froome would be admitting to doping).

 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
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.
Dawg was doping alright, no question. Caught with something less than "high-octane" but nevertheless it is doping. There is no way they can justify that level of salbutamol in urine if it would have been used for therapeutic reasons. So they will try to spin it as if it was a doctor's mistake, stupidity or some other odd reason. Ulissi's lawyer said the crash at the start of the stage caused a jump in values, he got 9 months. Ross Tucker explains here in short and very well how the concentration in urine works:

"This guy, circled, inhaled 1600 mcg salbutamol in 4 x 400mcg doses every 2 hours. 8hrs after 1st dose, and 2hrs after his 4th and final 400mcg dose, his level was 800 ng/ml. #Froome is 2.5x higher, with half the amount inhaled (else Froome would be admitting to doping).

If the relation between intake and urine concentration is linear in those ranges, Froome is like 20 standard deviations from the mean.

The chance of that happening is a yuge number of zero's
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY