Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1090 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
Outside magazine pulling plenty of punches asking for Froome to be banned:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2277476/suspending-belief?utm_content=buffer7c515&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tweet

Cycling is rife with these sorts of unlikely stories. In 2005, for instance, when Tyler Hamilton was called out for doping, he argued that the small amount of a second type of blood mixed in with his own came from a “vanishing twin,” which, before dying in utero, had left him with traces of its blood. (Of course it wasn’t from a blood transfusion, silly.)
No matter how the decision on Froome turns out, it’s clear that UCI and its anti-doping processes are broken. The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away. If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.
Outside Magazine, who before and after the fall knelt at the altar of LA so much you had to think they were fellating him? Where's that salt cellar...
This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Moving on, I thought it was a good article, good for a non-cycling publication to reach some of the masses who may not understand the case fully.
like when you posted instagram pics of U23 racers TOTALLY unrelated from Sky, in the Sky thread?
 
You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.
 
thehog said:
You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.
They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.
 
Parker said:
thehog said:
You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.
They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.
did the pics got deleted from Insta?
 
pastronef said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.
They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.
did the pics got deleted from Insta?
Probably - I haven't been to look. I only saw the screenshot put on here.
 
thehog said:
This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.
Please, take your frustrations out using the Report Button, it's why God invented it...
 
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.
Please, take your frustrations out using the Report Button, it's why God invented it...
Not required, you could just stay on topic and make life easier for everyone including the mods. That’s the shot! :cool:

(noted you backed down from your Outside/Armstrong assertion :) )
 
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.
Please, take your frustrations out using the Report Button, it's why God invented it...
Not required, you could just stay on topic and make life easier for everyone including the mods. That’s the shot! :cool:

(noted you backed down from your Outside/Armstrong assertion :) )
Whatever you say Hoggy, it must be true.
 
From the Outside article:

The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away.
This is a very interesting point. The breathalyzer test assumes that a certain amount of alcohol in the breath corresponds to a certain amount in the plasma, which results in a certain degree of impairment. The driver could argue that his physiology is such that a larger than usual amount of alcohol ends up in the breath, so that his plasma level wasn’t actually that high. Or s/he could even argue, following a blood test, that peculiar physiology resulted in just, say, half a glass of wine resulting in a high blood plasma concentration normally associated with several drinks, but that this did not mean that such a high concentration reached neurons in the brain that control movement and other behavior necessary for driving.

Someone like Morgan or Howard Jacobs (who represented not only Floyd, but also Cesar Cielo and three other Brazilian swimmers who successfully used the contaminated tablet defense before Impey) could have a field day if allowed to defend drunk drivers. The larger point being that when it comes to doping sanctions, WADA bends over backwards to accommodate athletes--beginning with setting the bar for a positive very high to protect against false positives--to a degree that would be considered absurd if applied to ordinary citizens accused of breaking the law.

If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.
That’s not quite true. If Froome drags out the hearing process—e.g., if he managed to deny an appearance before CADF to after the Giro and Tour—he could get a longer than usual ban. This is because Article 10.8 of the Code says that bans begin at the time of the positive sample, while 10.11 says they begin at the time of the hearing. There are exceptions, but they apparently don’t apply to athletes who intentionally stall. So, e.g., if Froome were given a nine month ban in August, following the Tour, he would lose all his results in 2018, plus he could not race again until the following May. This is kind of like double jeopardy, but as I understand it, is done precisely to discourage athletes from trying to drag out the process. If Froome could establish it wasn't his fault that the hearing was delayed, he wouldn't be subject to this increased ban. The nine months would begin with the positive sample, so that in fact he would be free to race following the hypothetical decision in August.
 
https://www.idrottsforskning.se/astmamedicin-gor-idrottare-starkare-och-mer-explosiva/
WADA's Danish Vibeke Backer states that Sundby/Froome levels of Salbutamol are PE. Interestingly, the high allowed levels of asthma medicine is because of financial consideration - lower limits would cost a lot due to the legal costs of all the "active asthmatics" that would be caught. No normal asthmatic though would take such large doses and be walking around let alone riding up a mountain :)
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
https://www.idrottsforskning.se/astmamedicin-gor-idrottare-starkare-och-mer-explosiva/
WADA's Danish Vibeke Backer states that Sundby/Froome levels of Salbutamol are PE. Interestingly, the high allowed levels of asthma medicine is because of financial consideration - lower limits would cost a lot due to the legal costs of all the "active asthmatics" that would be caught. No normal asthmatic though would take such large doses and be walking around let alone riding up a mountain :)
Thanks for this link. I found it interesting that Backer believes Sundby was definitely trying to take the maximum amount that would test just below the limit (and in fact, he didn’t miss by much; his two positive samples were both around 1350 ng/ml, about 10% above the DL). She basically implicates the team doctor, who in the CAS decision provides a statement justifying Sundby’s use of a nebulizer and very high doses.

“Sundby knew what was going on. Everyone was aware of it, and it was the team doctor who prescribed the medicine. The ethics of team physicians who treat athletes are, unfortunately, not always the best," she said.
I had thought Sundby had a definite medical need for high doses, and certainly the CAS panel bought into this, but Backer doesn’t. The CAS decision also mentions that Sundby at one time was taken off salbutamol because he developed atrial fibrillation, surely a warning sign of overdosing.

Another major significance of the Sundby case is that his lawyers argued for a distinction between how much salbutamol is “taken” or consumed, vs. how much actually gets into the system. This goes back to a point that John S. raised in the very beginning of this thread that I always wondered about, that while nominally one takes in a fixed amount such as 100 ug per puff, tests which measure deposition of the drug on the lungs reveal a lower amount, maybe less than half of this. This obviously has great relevance to interpreting lab studies designed to correlate urine levels with amount inhaled. Sundby’s team in fact claimed, on the basis of some studies cited, that the 15 mg, or 15,000 ug, he took by nebulizer was actually equivalent to only the 1600 ug by inhaling allowed per 24 hour (though Sundby's own lab tests did not support this). The prosecution countered by arguing that all that can be easily and reliably controlled is how much drug is consumed, so the limits have to be based on this.
 
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.
Please, take your frustrations out using the Report Button, it's why God invented it...
Not required, you could just stay on topic and make life easier for everyone including the mods. That’s the shot! :cool:

(noted you backed down from your Outside/Armstrong assertion :) )
Whatever you say Hoggy, it must be true.
Why do you call yourself Hoggy?
 
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
Outside magazine pulling plenty of punches asking for Froome to be banned:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2277476/suspending-belief?utm_content=buffer7c515&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tweet

Cycling is rife with these sorts of unlikely stories. In 2005, for instance, when Tyler Hamilton was called out for doping, he argued that the small amount of a second type of blood mixed in with his own came from a “vanishing twin,” which, before dying in utero, had left him with traces of its blood. (Of course it wasn’t from a blood transfusion, silly.)
No matter how the decision on Froome turns out, it’s clear that UCI and its anti-doping processes are broken. The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away. If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.
Outside Magazine, who before and after the fall knelt at the altar of LA so much you had to think they were fellating him? Where's that salt cellar...
This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Moving on, I thought it was a good article, good for a non-cycling publication to reach some of the masses who may not understand the case fully.
Fair point of argument by FMK, Hog, even on this thread. You use OutsideOnline (Froome) article to support a point. FMK discredits the point by discrediting the credibility of the publication ... based on its seemingly flip flop relationship with Armstrong. Eg. Livestrong vs Stages. I'm with him on that. Not only that ... (here we come Armstrong thread) the O.O. Livestrong article was a sink of soapsuds. Under close reading, there's not much there ... except for those Clinicians who say ... "I see things at night." :lol:
 
http://forskning.ku.dk/find-en-forsker/?pure=da/publications/the-influence-of-exercise-and-dehydration-on-the-urine-concentrations-of-salbutamol-after-inhaled-administration-of-1600-g-salbutamol-as-a-single-dose-in-relation-to-doping-analysis(010debb0-4d61-4658-9b4d-707eba68efaf).html
In conclusion, exercise and dehydration affect urine concentrations of salbutamol and increase the risk of Adverse Analytical Findings in samples collected after inhalation of that maximal permitted (1600 µg) for salbutamol. This should be taken into account when evaluating doping cases of salbutamol.
Bingo! Case dismissed! (throw in some dodgy kidneys on top and we have a winner)
 
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.
Please, take your frustrations out using the Report Button, it's why God invented it...
Not required, you could just stay on topic and make life easier for everyone including the mods. That’s the shot! :cool:

(noted you backed down from your Outside/Armstrong assertion :) )
Whatever you say Hoggy, it must be true.
Why do you call yourself Hoggy?
Suggest you spend less time trying to be quicker with a quip than Oscar Wilde and more time paying attention - then you might understand why the disrepute clause is irrelevant to the Froome case
 
Alpe73 said:
Fair point of argument by FMK, Hog, even on this thread. You use OutsideOnline (Froome) article to support a point. FMK discredits the point by discrediting the credibility of the publication ... based on its seemingly flip flop relationship with Armstrong. Eg. Livestrong vs Stages. I'm with him on that. Not only that ... (here we come Armstrong thread) the O.O. Livestrong article was a sink of soapsuds. Under close reading, there's not much there ... except for those Clinicians who say ... "I see things at night." :lol:
Among my fave Outside stories about LA is this piece of BS from former editor Hal Espen, helpfully titled How I Enabled the Cult of Lance Armstrong:
as a magazine journalist once deeply invested in covering the Armstrong era in cycling, I also feel a shock of self-recrimination as I struggle to reconcile my part in lionizing a man who, in hindsight, was almost certainly a cheat and a liar of breathtaking audacity and shamelessness. How could I have characterized the rumors and accusations that Lance relied on banned performance-enhancing drugs and techniques as part of a "myth"?
So, as I said: where Outside is concerned, keep the salt cellar handy.

Specifically WRT the current 'story', this Tweet from CN's Laura Weislo is not without relevance:
Laura J. Weislo
‏@Laura_Weislo


Seriously, non-endemic media, if you can't get your facts straight about salbutamol please stop opining that cycling is somehow screwed.
Weislo's opinion should matter here: Outside half-inched much of its 'research' from something she wrote.
 
pastronef said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.
They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.
did the pics got deleted from Insta?
Did the pics ever exist on Insta? All we have is a nice bit of PhotoShoppery someone posted, with not even a link to the Insta account it allegedly came from...
 

ooo

Feb 2, 2016
43
1
3,585
Re:

Robert5091 said:
https://www.idrottsforskning.se/astmamedicin-gor-idrottare-starkare-och-mer-explosiva/
WADA's Danish Vibeke Backer states that Sundby/Froome levels of Salbutamol are PE. Interestingly, the high allowed levels of asthma medicine is because of financial consideration - lower limits would cost a lot due to the legal costs of all the "active asthmatics" that would be caught. No normal asthmatic though would take such large doses and be walking around let alone riding up a mountain :)
ASO/UCI can partially discriminate athlets with special medical needs:

on TdF only first week (or first stages outside of France) should be treated with normal allowance of medicine
and the rest of TdF stages should have 50% of normal allowance of medicine (blaming Froome and Lance)
athlete and their doctors after first stages can decide if they can continue with 50% lowered medicine allowance

It makes first stages interesting - drug assisted athlets with top allowed medicine levels will be fighting for stage wins
this also brings more money from international partners who hosts first TdF stages and from TV partners,
and for the rest of the stages inside the France there will be much less medicine influence.
 
fmk_RoI said:
pastronef said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.
They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.
did the pics got deleted from Insta?
Did the pics ever exist on Insta? All we have is a nice bit of PhotoShoppery someone posted, with not even a link to the Insta account it allegedly came from...
It was actually Facebook, not Instagram. Do keep up when pretending to know everything :cool:
 
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
pastronef said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.
They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.
did the pics got deleted from Insta?
Did the pics ever exist on Insta? All we have is a nice bit of PhotoShoppery someone posted, with not even a link to the Insta account it allegedly came from...
It was actually Facebook, not Instagram. Do keep up when pretending to know everything :cool:
in the pics you posted it says "via Instagram" so they were posted both on FB and Insta I guess
 
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
pastronef said:
Parker said:
thehog said:
You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.
They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.
did the pics got deleted from Insta?
Did the pics ever exist on Insta? All we have is a nice bit of PhotoShoppery someone posted, with not even a link to the Insta account it allegedly came from...
It was actually Facebook, not Instagram. Do keep up when pretending to know everything :cool:
The person I was replying to said it was Insta. Your're now saying it was Facebook. The person who posted it originally said it was Twitter. Make your mind up, please. Or, better still, just post a link to the account. TIA.
thehog said:
A series of photos appeared albeit briefly on Twitter of BC U23 cyclists at a base in Italy. Photos include picking up deliveries of tramadol (pictured),Ventolin, getting wasted mixing wine with the controlled substance, painting a cats paws with liquid paper and smashing up the villa. Impressive work. Start them young the zero tolerance Sky way :cool:

 
I didn’t post the rest of the photos, one was enough to get the gist of what was going on. I guess make of them what you will. Assuming all of them were doctored and photoshopped because no one has anything better to do than create a fake dossier of U23 riders from Britain buying and taking drugs, getting drunk and painting the paws of a cat :cool:
 
Alpe73 said:
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
Outside magazine pulling plenty of punches asking for Froome to be banned:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2277476/suspending-belief?utm_content=buffer7c515&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tweet

Cycling is rife with these sorts of unlikely stories. In 2005, for instance, when Tyler Hamilton was called out for doping, he argued that the small amount of a second type of blood mixed in with his own came from a “vanishing twin,” which, before dying in utero, had left him with traces of its blood. (Of course it wasn’t from a blood transfusion, silly.)
No matter how the decision on Froome turns out, it’s clear that UCI and its anti-doping processes are broken. The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away. If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.
Outside Magazine, who before and after the fall knelt at the altar of LA so much you had to think they were fellating him? Where's that salt cellar...
This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Moving on, I thought it was a good article, good for a non-cycling publication to reach some of the masses who may not understand the case fully.
Fair point of argument by FMK, Hog, even on this thread. You use OutsideOnline (Froome) article to support a point. FMK discredits the point by discrediting the credibility of the publication ... based on its seemingly flip flop relationship with Armstrong. Eg. Livestrong vs Stages. I'm with him on that. Not only that ... (here we come Armstrong thread) the O.O. Livestrong article was a sink of soapsuds. Under close reading, there's not much there ... except for those Clinicians who say ... "I see things at night." :lol:
Just about every publication in that era was Armstrong friendly. It was the times. It’s a poor point to make as we know just about everyone in print fawned over Lance during that period. It doesn’t denigrate future works some 10 years later.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY