Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1161 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
thehog said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Robert5091 said:
Desperate? No. They can n't explain the sample, so attack the method of collection - logical! :D
Yes, indeedy

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Dawg's only hope is Morgan finding a legal/procedural loophole. And if Morgan's gone nuclear with the 'take the whole house down' option then Morgan's now out of options.

Froome's option to go into the lab clearly expired a long time ago. That ain't happening :rolleyes:
Sounds like the Dawg is going down a well trodden path. A couple of years back he was telling the UCI test more on Tiede, now tests are not viable, lol! :lol:
Our heroes love playing the never failed a test card

Until they fail a test

Then the whole testing system is worthless and corrupt

:razz:
Remember when he tweeted as he was leaving teneriffe that they should increase tests (as Nibalu was flying in).

Froome really is an awful human being. The day his test was leaked was a great day :)
 
Re:

Ripper said:
Anyone else get the feeling this ain't really going to work out the way alien man and superdooooshbaggery DB had thought it would? It may be time for a wee forced break from racing.
I'm sure they know there's 99% chance Dawg will not get cleared. All they are doing is playing the same theatre, telling the same lies they told us everytime with the straight faces of professional cheaters until the end.
 
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.

And yes, of course, IF Morgan is trying to win the case on a technicality, this just confirms what has seemed very likely for months, that Froome has no explanation. Remember, Morgan won another case, as I posted upthread, when he showed that rules weren’t followed in the process of sample collection:

I was looking through Mike Morgan’s previous successful cases, and as someone here pointed out, he really takes advantage of technicalities:

Adrianova – sample analyzed after SOL expired
Devyatovskly – IRMS analysis interrupted
Bobby Lea – drug was in a pain-killer he took to sleep
Impey – contamination by pharmacist
Campbell-Brown – rules for how urine sample is to be collected were broken
Cilic – confused nicethamide, a banned drug, with nicotinamide, a B vitamin
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Other tactics are "procedural" technicalities like: claiming the athlete's case is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UCI or its judges, location of the proceedings versus location of the AAF, allege defendant was not properly notified of their case in writing within a certain timeframe, etc. All of which was rubbish, but the lawyers have to get paid for doing something
Some of these, such as wrong jurisdiction, fall under No Case to Answer, and should have been resolved very early in the process. Petacchi tried to argue that he wasn't notified within the proper time frame, and that claim was dismissed. He also tried the wrong jurisdiction argument, and argued that WADA failed to appeal on time. His case is a textbook example of all the technicalities that athletes with resources will explore in desperation.
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
Ripper said:
Anyone else get the feeling this ain't really going to work out the way alien man and superdooooshbaggery DB had thought it would? It may be time for a wee forced break from racing.
I'm sure they know there's 99% chance Dawg will not get cleared. All they are doing is playing the same theatre, telling the same lies they told us everytime with the straight faces of professional cheaters until the end.
If only Brian won the election... DB and Dawg were likely banking that was the normal route out of this.
 
Dawg testing out the cobbles, clearly expecting to ride a full season? :eek:


GHENT, Belgium (VN) — Chris Froome should handle the cobbles of the Tour de France’s ninth stage well after previewing the sectors with Team Sky’s experts last week.

The four-time Tour de France champion will try to defend his crown and go for a record-equalling fifth title this summer, but must conquer the 21.7 kilometers of cobbles to Roubaix on July 15.

“He looks good,” said former Paris-Roubaix winner and Sky sports director Servais Knaven. “We saw that in the past he can ride the cobbles, he did Roubaix when he was younger [in 2008 with Team Barloworld], so no, it all looked good. I am not nervous about it. I think it could be a good stage for him.”


Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/news/road/froome-looks-good-roubaix-cobbles_460879#QIImJkcoBbAuWYwc.99
 
Re:

aphronesis said:
How. The values were below. Unless you're wildly hypothesizing that there was chartable variance. Means of collection? In-race testing? What? Some variables of goat *** on a hill? Maybe you could elaborate for once?
How what? How are the other values relevant? If he’s arguing that he had a kidney malfunction, or drug-drug interaction, the values preceding his positive should be unusually low. Of course, then he also needs to establish he was inhaling just as much during this period, but those low values are critical. Values are also important for a dehydration argument, because the urine specific gravity is recorded with each sample, and could be used to show that much higher values, even if below the threshold, were observed on days when the USG was high.

Since you brought it up, "charitable variance" is also a potential argument. As i pointed out early in this thread, if Froome wants to argue that this was just a randomly high reading--which has a little support in studies showing occasional outliers--he needs to show that some of his other values, though not exceeding threshold, were close to it. You would not expect a bunch of low values, and one very high value, you would expect a range of values from very low to very high.
 
How are they critical was the question.

Sure, but that's only in Vuelta. And that presumes that somehow Sky would have pre race values showing how these were all outliers because they measured him between Tour and Vuelta and whatever.

It's hard to see how the inhaler argument holds unless there was a Sky drone over Froome for every stage and they can release all footage to be tediously pored over and counted for inhaler puffs. Along with out of race man servant log entries.

I wonder to an extent if you imagine that they have a scientist as on the case as you when it's really likely to be a lot of semi-hack legal and procedural fluff?
 
thehog said:
Dawg testing out the cobbles, clearly expecting to ride a full season? :eek:


GHENT, Belgium (VN) — Chris Froome should handle the cobbles of the Tour de France’s ninth stage well after previewing the sectors with Team Sky’s experts last week.

The four-time Tour de France champion will try to defend his crown and go for a record-equalling fifth title this summer, but must conquer the 21.7 kilometers of cobbles to Roubaix on July 15.

“He looks good,” said former Paris-Roubaix winner and Sky sports director Servais Knaven. “We saw that in the past he can ride the cobbles, he did Roubaix when he was younger [in 2008 with Team Barloworld], so no, it all looked good. I am not nervous about it. I think it could be a good stage for him.”


Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/news/road/froome-looks-good-roubaix-cobbles_460879#QIImJkcoBbAuWYwc.99
The show must go on. Everything's fine. For whom was the jiffy bag? Well, of course for Emma Pooley. She wasn't there ? Hmmm. The bus surely left. It didn't? You mean Brad was on the bus? Hmmm...
 
Re:

aphronesis said:
Sure, but that's only in Vuelta. And that presumes that somehow Sky would have pre race values showing how these were all outliers because they measured him between Tour and Vuelta and whatever.
They only need the values for a few days before the positive to make the case for kidney malfunction or DDI. And I forgot to mention this, but in Petacchi's case, he did have the values for the other (four) stages in that Giro in which he was tested. So I think Froome must have been given access to his other values; if not, surely Morgan could use the Petacchi case as precedent.

It's hard to see how the inhaler argument holds unless there was a Sky drone over Froome for every stage and they can release all footage to be tediously pored over and counted for inhaler puffs. Along with out of race man servant log entries.
Sure, that's going to be a problem. He could have made entries, but it would be hard to prove they weren't manufactured after the fact, and even if they weren't, one could argue that Froome might easily have forgotten some puffs he made during the race. But--this is a question for someone with asthma--since the inhaler delivers a measured amount of salbutamol, and there is a known amount of doses in the inhaler initially, couldn't he record the before and after amounts? Still would have to depend on Froome's being honest, but at least in theory there would be a reliable record of the amount of puffs taken.

I wonder to an extent if you imagine that they have a scientist as on the case as you when it's really likely to be a lot of semi-hack legal and procedural fluff?
Froome definitely has scientific experts advising him. I strongly suspect one of them is Ken Fitch, who also advised Petacchi. Fitch has written about cases where an athlete has exceeded the threshold, and clearly tends to believe the athlete was innocent in those cases.

One would want the scientists in the beginning, to see if there were a credible scientific explanation. Even as it became increasingly obvious there wasn't, and Morgan would turn to technical flaws in the case, he'd still make his best shot on the science, as there would be nothing to lose.
 
The inhaler, he could, but do you think that's likely. If that were all it hinged on, this should be done.

I'm not suggesting there are no scientists involved; more that their role might be more limited here. He believes? Or gets hired to believe?

Per your edit: but you're still trying to make it science when it's going to end up (pseudo) legal. It's as if you're arguing with Jeff Koons sculptures or crystallized candies.
 
Jul 18, 2013
187
0
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
aphronesis said:
It's hard to see how the inhaler argument holds unless there was a Sky drone over Froome for every stage and they can release all footage to be tediously pored over and counted for inhaler puffs. Along with out of race man servant log entries.
Sure, that's going to be a problem. He could have made entries, but it would be hard to prove they weren't manufactured after the fact, and even if they weren't, one could argue that Froome might easily have forgotten some puffs he made during the race. But--this is a question for someone with asthma--since the inhaler delivers a measured amount of salbutamol, and there is a known amount of doses in the inhaler initially, couldn't he record the before and after amounts? Still would have to depend on Froome's being honest, but at least in theory there would be a reliable record of the amount of puffs taken.
As someone with real asthma for over 40 years, I can tell you that unless you're suffering a severe attack (like, hospitalisation severe), normally 1 to 2 puffs fixes you up and once you've had 3 or 4 puffs max, you don't get any further relief from more puffs. The airways are open as much as they're going to get from the inhaler.

In any event, most of the medication is deposited on the lung and brochial tissues and broken down right there. I find it extremely hard to believe that any number of puffs of an inhaler could cause you to excrete twice the allowable limit in your urine. The chances that an inhaler was the method of administration are vanishingly small, IMO.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
Merckx index said:
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.

And yes, of course, IF Morgan is trying to win the case on a technicality, this just confirms what has seemed very likely for months, that Froome has no explanation. Remember, Morgan won another case, as I posted upthread, when he showed that rules weren’t followed in the process of sample collection:

I was looking through Mike Morgan’s previous successful cases, and as someone here pointed out, he really takes advantage of technicalities:

Adrianova – sample analyzed after SOL expired
Devyatovskly – IRMS analysis interrupted
Bobby Lea – drug was in a pain-killer he took to sleep
Impey – contamination by pharmacist
Campbell-Brown – rules for how urine sample is to be collected were broken
Cilic – confused nicethamide, a banned drug, with nicotinamide, a B vitamin
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Other tactics are "procedural" technicalities like: claiming the athlete's case is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UCI or its judges, location of the proceedings versus location of the AAF, allege defendant was not properly notified of their case in writing within a certain timeframe, etc. All of which was rubbish, but the lawyers have to get paid for doing something
Some of these, such as wrong jurisdiction, fall under No Case to Answer, and should have been resolved very early in the process. Petacchi tried to argue that he wasn't notified within the proper time frame, and that claim was dismissed. He also tried the wrong jurisdiction argument, and argued that WADA failed to appeal on time. His case is a textbook example of all the technicalities that athletes with resources will explore in desperation.
The last honorable lawyer died with Cicero.

Most lawyers are awful human beings... the dregs of society.
 
El Pistolero said:
Merckx index said:
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.

And yes, of course, IF Morgan is trying to win the case on a technicality, this just confirms what has seemed very likely for months, that Froome has no explanation. Remember, Morgan won another case, as I posted upthread, when he showed that rules weren’t followed in the process of sample collection:

I was looking through Mike Morgan’s previous successful cases, and as someone here pointed out, he really takes advantage of technicalities:

Adrianova – sample analyzed after SOL expired
Devyatovskly – IRMS analysis interrupted
Bobby Lea – drug was in a pain-killer he took to sleep
Impey – contamination by pharmacist
Campbell-Brown – rules for how urine sample is to be collected were broken
Cilic – confused nicethamide, a banned drug, with nicotinamide, a B vitamin
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Other tactics are "procedural" technicalities like: claiming the athlete's case is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UCI or its judges, location of the proceedings versus location of the AAF, allege defendant was not properly notified of their case in writing within a certain timeframe, etc. All of which was rubbish, but the lawyers have to get paid for doing something
Some of these, such as wrong jurisdiction, fall under No Case to Answer, and should have been resolved very early in the process. Petacchi tried to argue that he wasn't notified within the proper time frame, and that claim was dismissed. He also tried the wrong jurisdiction argument, and argued that WADA failed to appeal on time. His case is a textbook example of all the technicalities that athletes with resources will explore in desperation.
The last honorable lawyer died with Cicero.

Most lawyers are awful human beings... the dregs of society.
None since Cicero?
 
Re: Re:

Froomster said:
Merckx index said:
aphronesis said:
It's hard to see how the inhaler argument holds unless there was a Sky drone over Froome for every stage and they can release all footage to be tediously pored over and counted for inhaler puffs. Along with out of race man servant log entries.
Sure, that's going to be a problem. He could have made entries, but it would be hard to prove they weren't manufactured after the fact, and even if they weren't, one could argue that Froome might easily have forgotten some puffs he made during the race. But--this is a question for someone with asthma--since the inhaler delivers a measured amount of salbutamol, and there is a known amount of doses in the inhaler initially, couldn't he record the before and after amounts? Still would have to depend on Froome's being honest, but at least in theory there would be a reliable record of the amount of puffs taken.
As someone with real asthma for over 40 years, I can tell you that unless you're suffering a severe attack (like, hospitalisation severe), normally 1 to 2 puffs fixes you up and once you've had 3 or 4 puffs max, you don't get any further relief from more puffs. The airways are open as much as they're going to get from the inhaler.

In any event, most of the medication is deposited on the lung and brochial tissues and broken down right there. I find it extremely hard to believe that any number of puffs of an inhaler could cause you to excrete twice the allowable limit in your urine. The chances that an inhaler was the method of administration are vanishingly small, IMO.
Of course you're right on the money here. It's all a load of nonsense.

Froome's inhaler (and his asthma) are the altitude tent of this generation.
 
Yes to all of this, yes to a Froome-free season and a headless Sky train. Yes to Dave never getting off the black bus and yes to no more more ultra-awkward post-stage press conferences that make the ringpiece contract in shared discomfort. Yes to sale-section Castelli kit (if you dont mind the white and black colour) and unsold Pinarellos.

Then we can pay some attention to what Nibali is on.
 
Re: Re:

Froomster
As someone with real asthma for over 40 years, I can tell you that unless you're suffering a severe attack (like, hospitalisation severe), normally 1 to 2 puffs fixes you up and once you've had 3 or 4 puffs max, you don't get any further relief from more puffs. The airways are open as much as they're going to get from the inhaler.

In any event, most of the medication is deposited on the lung and brochial tissues and broken down right there. I find it extremely hard to believe that any number of puffs of an inhaler could cause you to excrete twice the allowable limit in your urine. The chances that an inhaler was the method of administration are vanishingly small, IMO.
That's Froome's defense there - the sample must be wrong.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Merckx index said:
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.
Presumably Froome's team has had access to the results of his other Vuleta tests. That would allow Froome's team to compare his salbutamol level and the level of any other markers in his system from stage to stage. Which would in turn would allow his team to try and construct a scientific/medical defence

What L'Equipe apparently reported yesterday is 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This is the fishing expedition I referred to above. Morgan wants access to Froome's clean samples to prove that while Uncle Brian was in charge of the UCI there was a high level conspiracy against his client. The Dawg and Morgan in the tinfoil hats now!
 
Wiggo's Package said:
Merckx index said:
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.
Presumably Froome's team has had access to the results of his other Vuleta tests. That would allow Froome's team to compare his salbutamol level and the level of any other markers in his system from stage to stage. Which would in turn would allow his team to try and construct a scientific/medical defence

What L'Equipe apparently reported yesterday is 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This is the fishing expedition I referred to above. Morgan wants access to Froome's clean samples to prove that while Uncle Brian was in charge of the UCI there was a high level conspiracy against his client. The Dawg and Morgan in the tinfoil hats now!
And what on earth would they do with around 20 urine samples? Take to "independent" lab for analysis? That would be the king of all delay games with probably huge $-sign attached to it. Froome has soon spent his Giro appearance with the defence...
 
bambino said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Merckx index said:
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.
Presumably Froome's team has had access to the results of his other Vuleta tests. That would allow Froome's team to compare his salbutamol level and the level of any other markers in his system from stage to stage. Which would in turn would allow his team to try and construct a scientific/medical defence

What L'Equipe apparently reported yesterday is 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This is the fishing expedition I referred to above. Morgan wants access to Froome's clean samples to prove that while Uncle Brian was in charge of the UCI there was a high level conspiracy against his client. The Dawg and Morgan in the tinfoil hats now!
And what on earth would they do with around 20 urine samples? Take to "independent" lab for analysis? That would be the king of all delay games with probably huge $-sign attached to it. Froome has soon spent his Giro appearance with the defence...
No. What it appears he asked for was the results of “all” samples for all riders in some vain hope to prove his result wasn’t abnormal.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
bambino said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Merckx index said:
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.
Presumably Froome's team has had access to the results of his other Vuleta tests. That would allow Froome's team to compare his salbutamol level and the level of any other markers in his system from stage to stage. Which would in turn would allow his team to try and construct a scientific/medical defence

What L'Equipe apparently reported yesterday is 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This is the fishing expedition I referred to above. Morgan wants access to Froome's clean samples to prove that while Uncle Brian was in charge of the UCI there was a high level conspiracy against his client. The Dawg and Morgan in the tinfoil hats now!
And what on earth would they do with around 20 urine samples? Take to "independent" lab for analysis? That would be the king of all delay games with probably huge $-sign attached to it. Froome has soon spent his Giro appearance with the defence...
Your "independent" in quotes is important

Froome/Morgan's experts would be paid big fees knowing a certain conclusion is expected from them...
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
thehog said:
bambino said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Merckx index said:
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.
Presumably Froome's team has had access to the results of his other Vuleta tests. That would allow Froome's team to compare his salbutamol level and the level of any other markers in his system from stage to stage. Which would in turn would allow his team to try and construct a scientific/medical defence

What L'Equipe apparently reported yesterday is 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This is the fishing expedition I referred to above. Morgan wants access to Froome's clean samples to prove that while Uncle Brian was in charge of the UCI there was a high level conspiracy against his client. The Dawg and Morgan in the tinfoil hats now!
And what on earth would they do with around 20 urine samples? Take to "independent" lab for analysis? That would be the king of all delay games with probably huge $-sign attached to it. Froome has soon spent his Giro appearance with the defence...
No. What it appears he asked for was the results of “all” samples for all riders in some vain hope to prove his result wasn’t abnormal.
Is there an accurate translation of the L'Equipe article?

It was in French and behind a paywall when I looked
 
thehog said:
bambino said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Merckx index said:
I’m surprised that Froome’s team couldn’t get those Vuelta samples in the first place. They’re critical to almost any theory of how he exceeded the threshold, e.g., kidney problem, drug-drug interaction, dehydration. They would have to know those values in order to support their case. But maybe the information being withheld is not the values, but the details on how the samples were collected.
Presumably Froome's team has had access to the results of his other Vuleta tests. That would allow Froome's team to compare his salbutamol level and the level of any other markers in his system from stage to stage. Which would in turn would allow his team to try and construct a scientific/medical defence

What L'Equipe apparently reported yesterday is 'Froome's lawyer has asked the UCI for all his Vuelta samples "with the aim of showing that the controls are not trustworthy given the way they are conducted". The LADS refused to release them.'

This is the fishing expedition I referred to above. Morgan wants access to Froome's clean samples to prove that while Uncle Brian was in charge of the UCI there was a high level conspiracy against his client. The Dawg and Morgan in the tinfoil hats now!
And what on earth would they do with around 20 urine samples? Take to "independent" lab for analysis? That would be the king of all delay games with probably huge $-sign attached to it. Froome has soon spent his Giro appearance with the defence...
No. What it appears he asked for was the results of “all” samples for all riders in some vain hope to prove his result wasn’t abnormal.
For Vuelta or the stage? All samples of all riders in Vuelta would complete nonsense.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY