Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
brownbobby said:
Likely? :lol:
Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.
The TUE was for prednisolone, which isnt exactly known for its weight loss / keep power properties. If the TUE had been for Kenacort then your point would be much more accurate.
Both are glucocorticoids, triamcinolone acetonide is simply more potent by weight, so you can dose less/less often but at the end of the day they do roughly the same thing.
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
TheSpud said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
brownbobby said:
Likely? :lol:
Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.
The TUE was for prednisolone, which isnt exactly known for its weight loss / keep power properties. If the TUE had been for Kenacort then your point would be much more accurate.
Both are glucocorticoids, triamcinolone acetonide is simply more potent by weight, so you can dose less/less often but at the end of the day they do roughly the same thing.
Ok, so as we're talking about OOC use (this was the original 'likely' theory that you put forward) why would they be using prednisolone, when they could be using the much more potent Kenacort perfectly legally :confused:
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/funrunrobbie/status/954800890174758912


20 gen
Interesting read. On a British cycling podcast a fan noted that Froome has been posting his rides on strava and during the last 3 weeks in hot South Africa he has done the same miles as a grand tour. He was in the UCI labs yesterday 19/1/18 @twojohnspodcast
it looked like a lot of his rides were motor paced *220kms ++ @ >45kph average
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
TheSpud said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
brownbobby said:
Likely? :lol:
Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.
The TUE was for prednisolone, which isnt exactly known for its weight loss / keep power properties. If the TUE had been for Kenacort then your point would be much more accurate.
Both are glucocorticoids, triamcinolone acetonide is simply more potent by weight, so you can dose less/less often but at the end of the day they do roughly the same thing.
Ok, so as we're talking about OOC use (this was the original 'likely' theory that you put forward) why would they be using prednisolone, when they could be using the much more potent Kenacort perfectly legally :confused:
I have never seen anyone claim that Pred is used to shed weight & keep power ...
 
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/funrunrobbie/status/954800890174758912


20 gen
Interesting read. On a British cycling podcast a fan noted that Froome has been posting his rides on strava and during the last 3 weeks in hot South Africa he has done the same miles as a grand tour. He was in the UCI labs yesterday 19/1/18 @twojohnspodcast

First I've heard of him being in a lab
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
TheSpud said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
brownbobby said:
Likely? :lol:
Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.
The TUE was for prednisolone, which isnt exactly known for its weight loss / keep power properties. If the TUE had been for Kenacort then your point would be much more accurate.
Both are glucocorticoids, triamcinolone acetonide is simply more potent by weight, so you can dose less/less often but at the end of the day they do roughly the same thing.
Ok, so as we're talking about OOC use (this was the original 'likely' theory that you put forward) why would they be using prednisolone, when they could be using the much more potent Kenacort perfectly legally :confused:
There can be a myriad of reason for that, from easier dosage control (kenacort you take an IM injection and you're done with it for a few weeks, that's nice but you can't adjust dosage as needed, unlike with oral prednisolone everyday), personal preference/biochemistry of the athlete, the ease of obtaining a TUE IC for it (triamcinolone acetonide might be trickier to get), and that's only what i can think of at the top of my head.



I have never seen anyone claim that Pred is used to shed weight & keep power ...
Similar drugs that acts at the same receptor with a similar binding profile having similar effects, unbelievable i know!

Also i love how you try to pass corticosteroids as "just weight loss drugs" (they are not, most people gain weight on them because of increased appetite, fluid retention also play a role, but they can act as weight loss drugs on elite athletes) maybe you want a source more reliable than Millar about their PED effects? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805102
 
Feb 24, 2014
516
0
0
53*11 said:
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/funrunrobbie/status/954800890174758912


20 gen
Interesting read. On a British cycling podcast a fan noted that Froome has been posting his rides on strava and during the last 3 weeks in hot South Africa he has done the same miles as a grand tour. He was in the UCI labs yesterday 19/1/18 @twojohnspodcast
it looked like a lot of his rides were motor paced *220kms ++ @ >45kph average
Could it be the case that Froome has managed to replicate his "dodgy kidney" story during his "Tour of South Africa" and is now satisfied he can return to cycling, knowing he will be exonerated in a few days/weeks??
 
If Froome did simulate a GT in South Africa, who verified Froome did not take more than the allowed dosage of salbutamol?

Also, that could explain him training in black kit. Getting nicely dehydrated. Don't forget he raced in red for 18 stages.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

webvan said:
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
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
webvan said:
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? :eek:

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?! :eek:
 
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 ?
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

webvan said:
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
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
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.
 
Re:

webvan said:
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?
 
Re: Re:

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

ScienceIsCool said:
webvan said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ScienceIsCool said:
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 said:
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY