Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Good point, it seems impossible to prove that he can get 2000 ng/ml if no one spends time with him round the clock to monitor his salbutamol intake and make sure it's the allowed max dosage !

Even worse for Froome is that I highly doubt they kept detailed records of every puff he took during the Vuelta, and then had a physician sign them. So there's no way to show that he's reproducing ANYTHING. Just that he can game the system to show high values.

John Swanson

If Froome has gone into the UCI lab (has to be doubtful) I wonder how thoroughly they check bags/equipment? Do the marigolds get a run out?

Would the guy who hacked the Head of Kenyan Cycling's email account blag it with a salbutamol tablet stashed somewhere the sun don't shine?!

 

[webvan]

Yeah this seems to be a bit of a catch 22 situation here...I wonder how that was dealt with for other pharmacokinetic studies ? Basically you'd have to lock the guy up for 24 hours, allow him 8 puffs every 12 hours and then test him ?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Yeah this seems to be a bit of a catch 22 situation here...I wonder how that was dealt with for other pharmacokinetic studies ? Basically you'd have to lock the guy up for 24 hours, allow him 8 puffs every 12 hours and then test him ?

But that's just it. Even if they do all that. Even if they construct a rigorous test that produces 2000 ng/ml. Froome needs to prove that that's what happened in the 24 hours between Stage 17's doping control and the end of Stage 18. Can he prove that? I doubt it.

John Swanson

 

[hazaran]

I guess it's much easier to speculate wildly than actually read up for a minute?

A urine sample is given *before* and *after* the test. So no, you can't load up on Salbutamol beforehand.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Yeah this seems to be a bit of a catch 22 situation here...I wonder how that was dealt with for other pharmacokinetic studies ? Basically you'd have to lock the guy up for 24 hours, allow him 8 puffs every 12 hours and then test him ?

Precisely, I guess.

Is the "beat the PKStudy" methodology still readily available (if not affordable, practical, etc.) to riders responding to an AAF?
The big question ... how could the study establish any degree of valid 'control' of aforementioned variables?
Is this methodology bound to be cut by doping authorities during next rounds of cost-effectiveness review?

 

[webvan]

Re: Re:

@hazaran - right, I don't think anyone wrote he could "load up" before the test ?

Yeah this seems to be a bit of a catch 22 situation here...I wonder how that was dealt with for other pharmacokinetic studies ? Basically you'd have to lock the guy up for 24 hours, allow him 8 puffs every 12 hours and then test him ?

But that's just it. Even if they do all that. Even if they construct a rigorous test that produces 2000 ng/ml. Froome needs to prove that that's what happened in the 24 hours between Stage 17's doping control and the end of Stage 18. Can he prove that? I doubt it.

John Swanson

True but if he can prove that with MONITORED normal dosage he can reach 2000 ng/ml it would help make his point that the same COULD have happened at the Vuelta. Now if he can't, end of story.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

But that's just it. Even if they do all that. Even if they construct a rigorous test that produces 2000 ng/ml. Froome needs to prove that that's what happened in the 24 hours between Stage 17's doping control and the end of Stage 18. Can he prove that? I doubt it.

John Swanson

He doesn't need to prove it. Doping courts work on the balance of probabilities not proof one way or the other.

If he can show it can happen once, then the balance of probabilities suggest it happened that other time too.

Besides no-one is going to be willing to take the case to a hearing if he has the right test numbers.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

But that's just it. Even if they do all that. Even if they construct a rigorous test that produces 2000 ng/ml. Froome needs to prove that that's what happened in the 24 hours between Stage 17's doping control and the end of Stage 18. Can he prove that? I doubt it.

John Swanson

He doesn't need to prove it. Doping courts work on the balance of probabilities not proof one way or the other.

If he can show it can happen once, then the balance of probabilities suggest it happened that other time too.

Besides no-one is going to be willing to take the case to a hearing if he has the right test numbers.

Hey, Parker. Appreciate the clarity and open mindedness of all your posts.

Understand your point on BOP ... but I'm sure the PKS Test must be deemed to have integrity. What about the issue of variable control? (MI, anyone?)

 

[topcat]

If it can happen once then it's possible it happened another time. Possible, unlikely, not probable. Anyway he couldn't show it happened in sa

 

[Parker]

If it can happen once then it's possible it happened another time. Possible, unlikely, not probable. Anyway he couldn't show it happened in sa

It would become the most credible explanation of what happened though. The prosecution would have to present a more credible explanation with supporting evidence. And unless they have some smoking gun up their sleeve they won't be able to.

No lawyer is going to persist if Froome has persuasive test figures.

 

[topcat]

The most credible explanation is that he's doping

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

The most credible explanation is that he's doping

Winner winner chicken dinner

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

@hazaran - right, I don't think anyone wrote he could "load up" before the test ?

Yeah this seems to be a bit of a catch 22 situation here...I wonder how that was dealt with for other pharmacokinetic studies ? Basically you'd have to lock the guy up for 24 hours, allow him 8 puffs every 12 hours and then test him ?

But that's just it. Even if they do all that. Even if they construct a rigorous test that produces 2000 ng/ml. Froome needs to prove that that's what happened in the 24 hours between Stage 17's doping control and the end of Stage 18. Can he prove that? I doubt it.

John Swanson

True but if he can prove that with MONITORED normal dosage he can reach 2000 ng/ml it would help make his point that the same COULD have happened at the Vuelta. Now if he can't, end of story.

They can't test for oral/inhaled use, so what's to stop him from taking oral in the day before the test?

 

[webvan]

I assume they would test WHEN he shows up and regularly thereafter during the next 24 hours. Now I haven't seen anywhere that he would actually get locked up for 24 hours but absent that I can't see the value of such a study...

 

[Parker]

Re:

- that having been said, 9 months is not really a standard for salbutamol, both the Petacchi and Ulissi cases worked out to be approximately nine months after considering many factors. Neither of them were given exactly nine months
- Petacchi originally was supposed to be banned for one year, so his approximately 9 months was a significant reduction

To be pendantic, when I said the last two cyclists with salbutamol got nine months, they were Ulissi and Alexandre Pliuschin* (in 2015), not Petacchi, who I think got a year.

*Coincidentally a contemporary of Froome's at the UCI's World Cycling Centre in 2007

 

[hazaran]

Re: Re:

They can't test for oral/inhaled use, so what's to stop him from taking oral in the day before the test?

Because you give a urine sample before taking any Salbutamol as part of the test. So whatever concentration of metabolites is in that sample doesn't count.

 

[mrhender]

If it can happen once then it's possible it happened another time. Possible, unlikely, not probable. Anyway he couldn't show it happened in sa

It would become the most credible explanation of what happened though. The prosecution would have to present a more credible explanation with supporting evidence. And unless they have some smoking gun up their sleeve they won't be able to.

No lawyer is going to persist if Froome has persuasive test figures.

It would only be probable if team Froome can show conditions similar to when he tested double up.

You can't just doctor the conditions to suit you.

If Froome somehow manages to doctor the scores.
They have to consider, if Froome somehow gets a free pass on future off scores. What a nightmare.

Just imagine the implications.

Unless of course Froome can show he indeed had an extraordinary kidney failure. But then again, that can't be replicated? So he is toast.

 

[rick james]

Re:

The most credible explanation is that he's doping

Aff his tits on asthma treatment, yikes it’s just like the early 2000s all over again

 

[53*11]

Vaughters: ''Chris Froome should do the honourable thing''
Vaughters warned that ''the case will drag on and on, explaining that even in the event of the ban it would surely be appealed in the Court of Arbitration for Sport – by Froome if it’s a long ban or WADA if it’s a short one.''

since when does honour feature in professional sports with millions of €€€ at stake?
at this stage the UCI are seen in almost the league as FIFA, IOC etc, eg corrupt, toothless and asleep at the wheel

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Vaughters: ''Chris Froome should do the honourable thing''
Vaughters warned that ''the case will drag on and on, explaining that even in the event of the ban it would surely be appealed in the Court of Arbitration for Sport – by Froome if it’s a long ban or WADA if it’s a short one.''

since when does honour feature in professional sports with millions of €€€ at stake?
at this stage the UCI are seen in almost the league as FIFA, IOC etc, eg corrupt, toothless and asleep at the wheel

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Craigee]

Re:

The most credible explanation is that he's doping

Ha Ha Ha. The fanbois here know this of course but they will go down with the ship proudly.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Vaughters: ''Chris Froome should do the honourable thing''
Vaughters warned that ''the case will drag on and on, explaining that even in the event of the ban it would surely be appealed in the Court of Arbitration for Sport – by Froome if it’s a long ban or WADA if it’s a short one.''

since when does honour feature in professional sports with millions of €€€ at stake?
at this stage the UCI are seen in almost the league as FIFA, IOC etc, eg corrupt, toothless and asleep at the wheel

Corrupt and toothless certainly......asleep at the wheel? I don't think so; their eyes are wide open, they see everything, they just choose what they want to be an issue and what they want to ignore.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Elephant in the Froome
perhaps

 

[Parker]

Re:

since when does honour feature in professional sports with millions of €€€ at stake?

Sometime after the 2012 Giro, for sure.At that time it was certainly honourable to celebrate a Giro with a rider he knew had doped and not been punished

 

[zalacain]

Re: Re:

Yes that's a scoop, a UCI lab too, how many of these are there?

In SA there's none accredited. Anyway the controlled test is done in Lausanne so I don't know of what "UCI lab" is that tweet talking about, Froome being in SA riding his own grand tour.

I haven't noticed any (legal) motorpacing in any of the GTs