Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[VayaVayaVaya]

To my mind, Contador getting banned (and losing a Tour, Giro, and a shot at another Tour) for an infinitesimal amount of clenbuterol, which other athletes across sports have since been cleared for, while Froome walks for having twice the legal limit of salbutamol on a day in which he miraculously turned the tables on Nibali, is tragic. Both are or were likely doping with other substances, of course, but the disparate official results are a joke. And I do understand the official classifications.

 

[King Boonen]

To my mind, Contador getting banned (and losing a Tour, Giro, and a shot at another Tour) for an infinitesimal amount of clenbuterol, which other athletes across sports have since been cleared for, while Froome walks for having twice the legal limit of salbutamol on a day in which he miraculously turned the tables on Nibali, is tragic. Both are or were likely doping with other substances, of course, but the disparate official results are a joke. And I do understand the official classifications.

You may understand the classifications, but it does feel like you don't understand the differences in the cases.

 

[Franklin]

Epo isn't doping according to Dutch research so..

I think there might be a business model of testing substances on dogs, pigs, rabbits and hamsters. Write a paper one with the most outliers, argue that genetically all mammals are pretty much the same besides a few genes. :lol:

 

[meat puppet]

Re: Re:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1013725303670296576

Aye, he's hurting...which is very good in my book

Tucker is right. Strict liability may become threatened. Add it up with the recent cases from Norwegian xc skiing where the athletes got off very easily, things do not look good.

Of course, people might wish the fig leaf of antidoping be removed from diametrically opposed perspectives. It is not much more these days.

The point is that anyone who has the capacity to look beyond tribal emotional investments will understand that this might have serious implications beyond celebrating that somewhere an honest scientist is hurting.

I detest big capital trumping democratic institutions (almost regardless of how dysfuctional and corrupt they have become). In the end this boils down to the fact that sky destroyed cycling by literally buying it.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

To my mind, Contador getting banned (and losing a Tour, Giro, and a shot at another Tour) for an infinitesimal amount of clenbuterol, which other athletes across sports have since been cleared for, while Froome walks for having twice the legal limit of salbutamol on a day in which he miraculously turned the tables on Nibali, is tragic. Both are or were likely doping with other substances, of course, but the disparate official results are a joke. And I do understand the official classifications.

You may understand the classifications, but it does feel like you don't understand the differences in the cases.

I haven’t read the hundreds of pages in the all about salbutamol thread and I am not a chemist or sports doctor/scientist, I admit. So in short, you’re right. It does seem like both positives are potentially indicative of doping (blood bags containing traces, oral salbutamol or excessive dosages) and both could be plausibly argues based on context (the super questionable meat contamination, the dehydration or the suddenly faulty testing method that wasn’t deemed faulty when they previously banned riders). Both seemed like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, though, so I am mainly arguing from an emotional sense of disparately dispensed justice. I wish I understood this better, though, and will try to research more.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1013725303670296576

This seems horribly over the top unless he has more knowledge of what was actually submitted.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Epo isn't doping according to Dutch research so..

I think there might be a business model of testing substances on dogs, pigs, rabbits and hamsters. Write a paper one with the most outliers, argue that genetically all mammals are pretty much the same besides a few genes. :lol:

Oh come on, despite the fun factor in this little side story of the whole case, surely no one believes that such a small sample random study, had any significant bearing on the outcome of the case do they

 

[LaFlorecita]

To my mind, Contador getting banned (and losing a Tour, Giro, and a shot at another Tour) for an infinitesimal amount of clenbuterol, which other athletes across sports have since been cleared for, while Froome walks for having twice the legal limit of salbutamol on a day in which he miraculously turned the tables on Nibali, is tragic. Both are or were likely doping with other substances, of course, but the disparate official results are a joke. And I do understand the official classifications.

this is what hurts the most

 

[King Boonen]

To my mind, Contador getting banned (and losing a Tour, Giro, and a shot at another Tour) for an infinitesimal amount of clenbuterol, which other athletes across sports have since been cleared for, while Froome walks for having twice the legal limit of salbutamol on a day in which he miraculously turned the tables on Nibali, is tragic. Both are or were likely doping with other substances, of course, but the disparate official results are a joke. And I do understand the official classifications.

You may understand the classifications, but it does feel like you don't understand the differences in the cases.

I haven’t read the hundreds of pages in the all about salbutamol thread and I am not a chemist or sports doctor/scientist, I admit. So in short, you’re right. It does seem like both positives are potentially indicative of doping (blood bags containing traces, oral salbutamol or excessive dosages) and both could be plausibly argues based on context (the super questionable meat contamination, the dehydration or the suddenly faulty testing method that wasn’t deemed faulty when they previously banned riders). Both seemed like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, though, so I am mainly arguing from an emotional sense of disparately dispensed justice. I wish I understood this better, though, and will try to research more.

The main difference is one was expected to be in the riders system and the other had absolutely no business being there. I won't comment on the actual verdicts because in Froome's case we still don't have nearly enough information, but in Contador's case he was completely unable to show that the contaminated steak was even plausible. As you point out, other athletes have been able to, so the fact he couldn't should really highlight how far-fetched his explanation was.

The Salbutamol thread is a great example of what happens when people take what little information is available and build their own narrative about what is actually happening.

 

[Carols]

I cannot express how disgusted I am right now......

 

[LaFlorecita]

@KB Contador was unable to prove the contaminated steak theory was MORE plausible than any other theory.
Frustratingly if he had switched to a contaminated supplement defence (Froome's case shows us that you can freely switch between defences without damaging your credibility in the eyes of the jury) he would have gotten off most likely.

 

[Saint Unix]

Ulissi must be fuming.

In any case, the Tour just lost a viewer.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

@KB Contador was unable to prove the contaminated steak theory was MORE plausible than any other theory.
Frustratingly if he had switched to a contaminated supplement defence (Froome's case shows us that you can freely switch between defences without damaging your credibility in the eyes of the jury) he would have gotten off most likely.

Several athletes have managed to show it was contaminated meat. If it were at all plausible he would have been fine, but it wasn't.

He didn't switch to supplements because there were other riders using the same supplements who were tested and not found to be positive. It might have been an easier sell but he'd still have struggled.

As to changing defence, we honestly have no idea what Froome's defence has been and how it has changed. We have a whole load of assumptions posted as if they are fact, but in reality we don't, and likely never will, know exactly how it proceeded. That just makes it even more frustrating.

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Re:

Sky fans having a field day gloating - it'll come back to haunt them - they don't care about the future of this sport
Has anyone checked Bikeretard forum

You think anyone who supports Sky actually cares about Cycling?

The influx of passionate Cycling fans in Britain is just like the influx of passionate British Boxing fans once Anthony Joshua started to make a name.

Unfortunately there's going to have to be a Landis style incident with someone like Geraint in order for the lid to be opened. But again Geraint Thomas' transformation is almost as crazy as Froome's and there's no chance he gets caught either.

Cycling is finished.

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

Cycling is finished.

Eh, the others will catch up again eventually. Other than having more money at the moment there's no rational reason why the British advantage in fire power in cycling should be permanent.

 

[fmk_RoI]

To be clear ... I don’t ‘know’ that ASO is acting in bad faith ... is trying to ‘stick it to’ Froome.

But ... based on the similar circumstances of disrepute fear around the Giro, based on the fact that UCI rules permit Froome to ride ... plus the perfect storm for ASO to be tempted to play the “Budd Rule ... I am therefore suspicious of ASO’s motivations. Would like to see their legitimate predictions on branding being negatively affected by allowing Froome to ride.

The only difference between the ASO version of the disrepute rule and the UCI version that applies to all other races is the appeal route (TAS/CAS vs French CAS). Lappartient has said that the UCI can't block Froome. Are the differences between Swiss law and French law so vast that ASO can win what the UCI cannot?

If those differences are only minor then you have to ask what is ASO playing for if not the win?

As in the Boonen case, are they being pressured to act (either by government ("How's that for Brexit dividend, rose bouef?") or by a French broadcaster concerned about a fall off in viewing figures)?

Are they simply intent on showing they did everything they could and the fault is in the rules, so a WADA/UCI problem?

Are they trying to scare Sky, playing chicken, inflaming the roadside fans, endangering the peloton, and so trying to force Sky to do 'the right thing' if not before the race starts then once the craziness kicks off (shades of Bartali and his hasty retreat after the col d'Aspin in 1950)?

WRT bad faith, though, note that Sky played the rules on filing their line up, waiting until the last minute. We'll still get a decision earlier than in the Boonen case (IIRC) but Sky have not left ASO much wiggle room.

Prudhomme speaking today:

"three weeks ago we went to the court of arbitration of the French Olympic Committee, an independent sporting authority, in search of a response. The answer has come today after waiting for months. I’m not going to complain that we have a verdict but it’s a pity that, once again, it has come at the last moment. The verdict for something that took place in September of last year on the Vuelta has come in the week before the Tour de France. Chris Froome can take part. For the past few months, we’ve endured a climate that hasn’t been at all pleasant. We needed an answer, and that’s why we went the court of arbitration three weeks ago. Our procedure is now obsolete because the superior authority [the UCI and WADA – ed.] has indicated that there is no offence.”

 

[Pirazziattacks]

To my mind, Contador getting banned (and losing a Tour, Giro, and a shot at another Tour) for an infinitesimal amount of clenbuterol, which other athletes across sports have since been cleared for, while Froome walks for having twice the legal limit of salbutamol on a day in which he miraculously turned the tables on Nibali, is tragic. Both are or were likely doping with other substances, of course, but the disparate official results are a joke. And I do understand the official classifications.

this is what hurts the most

Yes, the real victim here is... Alberto Contador. Come on, this is just weird.

 

[Pirazziattacks]

Re: Re:

Sky fans having a field day gloating - it'll come back to haunt them - they don't care about the future of this sport
Has anyone checked Bikeretard forum

You think anyone who supports Sky actually cares about Cycling?

The influx of passionate Cycling fans in Britain is just like the influx of passionate British Boxing fans once Anthony Joshua started to make a name.

Unfortunately there's going to have to be a Landis style incident with someone like Geraint in order for the lid to be opened. But again Geraint Thomas' transformation is almost as crazy as Froome's and there's no chance he gets caught either.

Cycling is finished.

Thomas, the guy who's won a couple of one week tours? He's absolutely insane, probably going to be winning GTs for the next decade. Seriously, let's not get carried way here.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Re:

To my mind, Contador getting banned (and losing a Tour, Giro, and a shot at another Tour) for an infinitesimal amount of clenbuterol, which other athletes across sports have since been cleared for, while Froome walks for having twice the legal limit of salbutamol on a day in which he miraculously turned the tables on Nibali, is tragic. Both are or were likely doping with other substances, of course, but the disparate official results are a joke. And I do understand the official classifications.

this is what hurts the most

Yes, the real victim here is... Alberto Contador. Come on, this is just weird.

Haha no not the real victim. You’re right. Stupid thing to focus on.

 

[Bronstein]

Apparently the WADA Code doesn't apply to Froome:

WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.

In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-will-not-appeal-uci-decision-in-christopher-froome-case

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Epo isn't doping according to Dutch research so..

I think there might be a business model of testing substances on dogs, pigs, rabbits and hamsters. Write a paper one with the most outliers, argue that genetically all mammals are pretty much the same besides a few genes. :lol:

Oh come on, despite the fun factor in this little side story of the whole case, surely no one believes that such a small sample random study, had any significant bearing on the outcome of the case do they

you'll be eagerly anticipating the release of the defence as well then...a circle's become a square...I think we should all see how they did that (apart from Alpe who'll accept what the authorities tell him )

 

[markene2]

Re: Re:

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

Quote from Dave Braisford:
A review of all Chris’s 21 test results from the Vuelta revealed that the Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation and therefore consistent with him having taken a permitted dose of Salbutamol."

Hopefully, WADA will present a more detailed explanation soon

Hopefully, because that wrong assumption right there is glaringly obvious.

Yeah, i read it the same way you do!

 

[MartinGT]

I cannot express how disgusted I am right now......

Saw your tweet, you're not the only one Carol

 

[yaco]

Re:

Makes WADA look rather silly, maybe a few swords will be fallen on there soon.

This is my take - The science or the alleged lack of rigour behind some of WADA's decision's regarding substances has often been open to question - I hope there are more challenges to WADA in the future.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

@KB Contador was unable to prove the contaminated steak theory was MORE plausible than any other theory.
Frustratingly if he had switched to a contaminated supplement defence (Froome's case shows us that you can freely switch between defences without damaging your credibility in the eyes of the jury) he would have gotten off most likely.

Several athletes have managed to show it was contaminated meat. If it were at all plausible he would have been fine, but it wasn't.

He didn't switch to supplements because there were other riders using the same supplements who were tested and not found to be positive. It might have been an easier sell but he'd still have struggled.

As to changing defence, we honestly have no idea what Froome's defence has been and how it has changed. We have a whole load of assumptions posted as if they are fact, but in reality we don't, and likely never will, know exactly how it proceeded. That just makes it even more frustrating.

How were the other athletes able to show it was contaminated meat? Did they have a sample?