Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1109 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

hazaran said:
Red Rick said:
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.
Still they'll need to have some surveillance so he can't take any Sal orally during the whole test-day...
 
Re: Re:

zalacain said:
Rollthedice said:
webvan said:
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
I would imagine that is to mimic the effect of being in a peloton to some extent if he really is trying to get to the same physiological state as he was in the Vuelta. I can't see how they could say you can't do that as walking cold into a lab under different conditions is hardly replicating the circumstances of the AAF is it ?
 
Re: Re:

glassmoon said:
hazaran said:
Red Rick said:
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.
Still they'll need to have some surveillance so he can't take any Sal orally during the whole test-day...
They take a baseline before starting so it can't be gamed in that way.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
glassmoon said:
hazaran said:
Red Rick said:
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.
Still they'll need to have some surveillance so he can't take any Sal orally during the whole test-day...
They take a baseline before starting so it can't be gamed in that way.
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
glassmoon said:
hazaran said:
Red Rick said:
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.
Still they'll need to have some surveillance so he can't take any Sal orally during the whole test-day...
They take a baseline before starting so it can't be gamed in that way.
And if he pops the hidden pill just after providing the baseline sample...
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
What's to stop him using the organisation that is supposed to police him to commission work to exonerate him.....probably more far fetced than hypnotism and yet......................................
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
If tests are so great

Then why are there so many dopers around?
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
If tests are so great

Then why are there so many dopers around?
First of all - different tests. This is testing something is deliberately going to take in a control environment.

Secondly - are there so many around? Perhaps you should point them out to the authorities. Don't confuse you opinions with fact.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Red Rick said:
If tests are so great

Then why are there so many dopers around?
First of all - different tests. This is testing something is deliberately going to take in a control environment.

Secondly - are there so many around? Perhaps you should point them out to the authorities. Don't confuse you opinions with fact.
Controlled to what degree is my question.

And if there's people in amateur teams getting arrested in doping investigations, I'm not gonna blindly assume the very top of the pyramid is clean. It actually works the other way around.

I have no evidence, just plenty of reasons to be cynical
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
Its a perfectly valid question - I understand the baseline proposition.

I mean would they test him within 15 mins of arrival, within an hour, after say another hour? There would need to be a number of samples to rule out Froome having just popped a pill before going in to the test. And that would be before any puffing away on the inhaler.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
I mean would they test him within 15 mins of arrival, within an hour, after say another hour? There would need to be a number of samples to rule out Froome having just popped a pill before going in to the test. And that would be before any puffing away on the inhaler.
I'm fairly sure that experts who have spent their lives doing this will have managed to rule out some half-baked ruse that someone on the internet can dream up.

It seems that some on here are worried that Froome will produce an exonerating test and are getting their conspiracies in early. Don't worry he probably won't. But if he does, it will be a legitimate test.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Red Rick said:
If tests are so great

Then why are there so many dopers around?
First of all - different tests. This is testing something is deliberately going to take in a control environment.

Secondly - are there so many around? Perhaps you should point them out to the authorities. Don't confuse you opinions with fact.


parker, it would seem nainve in the extreme to imagine there is no doping in the pro and amateur peloton. there is ample evidence over the years of the anti doing authorities being one or two steps behind the dopers, in terms of being able to detect PEDs; a case in point; in the early 1990s they did not have a test for EPO, then they developed a test, the dopers quickly moved onto variations of PED micro dosing, combined with masking agents to try to game the anti doping tests. where professional sports is concerned (and the inherent profit motive for those at the top of the pile) the temptation to game, cheat and yes dope is very strong, particularly when the risk of detection is slight. and i believe Sky (with their whiter than white marginal gains) are certainly no angels in this regard, despite the insufferable arrogance of SDB on this point.
 
UCI have some satellite centres in the world and one of them is in South Africa. if all the km have been done for the test, maybe he was supervised each day until the test day. Maybe the test have been under the supervision of this centre.They have access to North West University High Performance Institute, sports physiologist, medical facilities. as somerone arealdy posted https://twitter.com/WCCAfrica
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

CTQ said:
UCI have some satellite centres in the world and one of them is in South Africa. if all the km have been done for the test, maybe he was supervised each day until the test day. Maybe the test have been under the supervision of this centre.They have access to North West University High Performance Institute, sports physiologist, medical facilities. as somerone arealdy posted https://twitter.com/WCCAfrica
I heard they also have access to Impey's pharmacist ;)
 
Re: Re:

53*11 said:
parker, it would seem nainve in the extreme to imagine there is no doping in the pro and amateur peloton. there is ample evidence over the years of the anti doing authorities being one or two steps behind the dopers, in terms of being able to detect PEDs; a case in point; in the early 1990s they did not have a test for EPO, then they developed a test, the dopers quickly moved onto variations of PED micro dosing, combined with masking agents to try to game the anti doping tests. where professional sports is concerned (and the inherent profit motive for those at the top of the pile) the temptation to game, cheat and yes dope is very strong, particularly when the risk of detection is slight. and i believe Sky (with their whiter than white marginal gains) are certainly no angels in this regard, despite the insufferable arrogance of SDB on this point.
I'm not saying there's no doping. Especially not in the amateur or continental levels. Imagine all sorts goes on there.

However, I do believe that at the top of the sport there is less doping now than at any time since I started watching the sport in 1986.
 
Wait.....some of you guys could be on to something here that we haven't considered before....

You're right, easy to game these tests, the authorities can't be trusted. So what if some bad guy, one of the many enemies Sky/Froome have made in recent years, got hold of Froome's test at the Vuelta and dropped a Salbutamol tab in it!?

That would explain it, much more likely than Froome and his megabucks doping advisors screwing up on something so simple as asthma meds right?

Anybody?
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
These seem like normal questions about the process. While I want to assume the system is foolproof, I'm not a big "faith" guy myself. Not sure why the constant defense of this rider, who has been lying about a great many things.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
brownbobby said:
Wait.....some of you guys could be on to something here that we haven't considered before....

You're right, easy to game these tests, the authorities can't be trusted. So what if some bad guy, one of the many enemies Sky/Froome have made in recent years, got hold of Froome's test at the Vuelta and dropped a Salbutamol tab in it!?

That would explain it, much more likely than Froome and his megabucks doping advisors screwing up on something so simple as asthma meds right?

Anybody?
Yep, that must be it.

Thanks Bobby - for clearing things up.

But you are doing TeamSky and Froome a disservice. This was supposed to be the final "trump" card.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
These seem like normal questions about the process. While I want to assume the system is foolproof, I'm not a big "faith" guy myself. Not sure why the constant defense of this rider, who has been proven to lie about a great many things.
I don't see there is any 'constant defending of anybody.

All Parker, and on òccasions myself, are doing is challenging some of the increasingly speculative theories that are being thrown about in the last few days in the absence of any new information or hard facts for us to get stuck into in recent weeks.

It's just debate, this is a public forum which thrives on debate and differences in opinion. Without that it just becomes a closed group for like minded individuals to wallow in the comfort of mutual self affirmation.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
These seem like normal questions about the process. While I want to assume the system is foolproof, I'm not a big "faith" guy myself. Not sure why the constant defense of this rider, who has been lying about a great many things.
Could you please list these many lies? Thanks.
 
brownbobby said:
Wait.....some of you guys could be on to something here that we haven't considered before....

You're right, easy to game these tests, the authorities can't be trusted. So what if some bad guy, one of the many enemies Sky/Froome have made in recent years, got hold of Froome's test at the Vuelta and dropped a Salbutamol tab in it!?

That would explain it, much more likely than Froome and his megabucks doping advisors screwing up on something so simple as asthma meds right?

Anybody?

Have you been following the 'bottle saga" revolving around Pyeongchang ?

The most recent bottle design were apparently trivial to reopen and tamper with.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
Parker said:
TheSpud said:
So the test would be to see if there was an increase of 2000, or whether he would go over 2000?

Whats to stop him popping some oral sal in the carpark as he arrives, gives a sample straight away. A few hours later after some puffs in the lab he'd be glowing like a lightstick.
And what's to stop him getting a hypnotist to hypnotise the tester into filling in false results. Or what about kidnapping him and replacing with friend wearing one of those latex masks from Mission: Impossible.

Don't you think the people who run and analyse these tests know what they are doing? At least more than people who have no idea how the test is done.
These seem like normal questions about the process. While I want to assume the system is foolproof, I'm not a big "faith" guy myself. Not sure why the constant defense of this rider, who has been proven to lie about a great many things.
I don't see there is any 'constant defending of anybody.

All Parker, and on òccasions myself, are doing is challenging some of the increasingly speculative theories that are being thrown about in the last few days in the absence of any new information or hard facts for us to get stuck into in recent weeks.

It's just debate, this is a public forum which thrives on debate and differences in opinion. Without that it just becomes a closed group for like minded individuals to wallow in the comfort of mutual self affirmation.
We could not disagree more. I'm simply reacting to a long string of posts which call into question and as such attempt to refute, without reason or evidence, any suggestion that Froome might not be all on the up and up.

The group isn't closed, the forum isn't like-minded. There is simply a mountain of evidence which has led many reasonable people to the same conclusion, that Froome and Sky are certainly engaged in disinformation campaigns and overwhelmingly likely to be doping.

That the massive preponderance of evidence points to a fairly obvious conclusion is not evidence of groupthink. It's evidence of rationality. Attempts to paint it as something else are self-congratulatory deflections. IMO.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
53*11 said:
parker, it would seem nainve in the extreme to imagine there is no doping in the pro and amateur peloton. there is ample evidence over the years of the anti doing authorities being one or two steps behind the dopers, in terms of being able to detect PEDs; a case in point; in the early 1990s they did not have a test for EPO, then they developed a test, the dopers quickly moved onto variations of PED micro dosing, combined with masking agents to try to game the anti doping tests. where professional sports is concerned (and the inherent profit motive for those at the top of the pile) the temptation to game, cheat and yes dope is very strong, particularly when the risk of detection is slight. and i believe Sky (with their whiter than white marginal gains) are certainly no angels in this regard, despite the insufferable arrogance of SDB on this point.
I'm not saying there's no doping. Especially not in the amateur or continental levels. Imagine all sorts goes on there.

However, I do believe that at the top of the sport there is less doping now than at any time since I started watching the sport in 1986.
Hmm

Why do you imagine all sort of things going on at ameteur/continental levels. But not at Pro-level?

Just because they dont dope the same way now as they did in 98' does that mean it's cleaner?

Or does it mean dopers with ressources, can - and have learned to dope clever (as per current testing regimes)?

I wont deny it can be a little bit of both. But just saying "it's cleaner now, than 30 years ago", is nothing more than well known cop out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS