Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[yaco]

Re: Re:

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

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

Tucker's problem is he believes the sanctity of 'science' is always 100% correct and should never be challenged - It's hard to take him seriously.

 

[Robert5091]

Please Lord, let there not be a donation to the UCI or WADA from the Murdochs.

 

[thehog]

The strangest part is not that Froome gets to skate it’s that WADA folded and didn’t even follow their own rules. They then blamed the UCI! The timing is odd as well, as soon as ASO had barred Froome. Truely bizarre set of events.

 

[yaco]

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?

Certain this applied to Michael Rogers from the Tour of Beijing - Case thrown out because of contaminated meat - Poor Rogers was hung,drawn and quartered by Cycling Australia.

 

[thehog]

The strangest part is not that Froome gets to skate it’s that WADA folded and didn’t even follow their own rules. They then blamed the UCI! The timing is odd as well, as soon as ASO had barred Froome. Truely bizarre set of events.

I would add it doesn't make Froome any more innocent (or guilty) with the manner that the final determination was made.

 

[brownbobby]

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 )

Well of course; i'm as interested as anyone...if there is significant mention of dogs you are welcome to remind me of it

 

[MatParker117]

Re:

Please Lord, let there not be a donation to the UCI or WADA from the Murdochs.

They are selling the team to either Disney or Comcast.

 

[dacooley]

come on, guys, let's not get guided by emotions way too far. almost sure, nobody is going to quit following cycling. moreover, this case incredibly encourages to really hard cheer for any rider able to outperform froome and sky. so allez nibali and bardet, give us some proper redemption for all mockeries Sky force us to pass over. cycling circus continues its procession and doesn't depend on one's sentiments.

 

[King Boonen]

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?

They were in countries where use of clenbuterol to improve livestock yield isn't well monitored and testing has shown a high percentage of meat in these countries contains clenbuterol. Mexico and China spring to mind. This isn't the case in Spain.

 

[hfer07]

This was the last chance the sport had to redeem itself and gain some credibility, but with this ridiculous ruling, just a day after ASO threatened to stop Froome from racing Le Tour, the UCI "miraculously" closes his case....... It just cannot get much more rotten & corrupted in the Sport like that- Enough is Enough

I WILL NOT WATCH LE TOUR, ANY GRAND TOUR AND/OR ANY WEEK LONG RACE, AS LONG AS SKY HAS THE ENTIRE MONOPOLY OF THE SPORT AND KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH ANYTHING WITH IMPUNITY

F.V.K. I.T.

 

[Robert5091]

Re: Re:

Please Lord, let there not be a donation to the UCI or WADA from the Murdochs.

They are selling the team to either Disney or Comcast.

Sure are http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=33914 but the deals not done yet.

 

[ontheroad]

You have to hand it to Froome and Sky, in the midst of Fancy Bears and the doping positive mid winter, their days looked numbered and there was no way you could have seen both Sir Dave and Froome make it to July and the tour. However they are like Teflon, nothing ever seems to stick with them as they sail on again.

 

[hrotha]

So Froome could prove his innocence by replicating the test results in a controlled manner.
But WADA agrees that would be hard to do.
Ergo cleared.

 

[SafeBet]

Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
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).
Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.

Is this for real?

 

[movingtarget]

The strangest part is not that Froome gets to skate it’s that WADA folded and didn’t even follow their own rules. They then blamed the UCI! The timing is odd as well, as soon as ASO had barred Froome. Truely bizarre set of events.

I think the ASO's decision was dumb. It wasn't going to succeed and just put more pressure on the resolution. That said I expected this outcome. The alternative would have been too damaging so instead of another hard blow to the sport it now just continues to be a festering sore keeping the issue in the news and if he wins the Tour it will be discussed even more. Seems to be a political decision from some useless organizations. Little wonder BMC are struggling to find sponsors. Don't look for any sense or logic in this sport.

 

[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?

They were in countries where use of clenbuterol to improve livestock yield isn't well monitored and testing has shown a high percentage of meat in these countries contains clenbuterol. Mexico and China spring to mind. This isn't the case in Spain.

So basically there was no proof really but they let him go.

 

[King Boonen]

Ah right, one of those conversations. Have fun.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
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).
Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.

Is this for real?

It appears so. Which is truely bizarre. Looks like Sky leant on WADA, WADA refused to support the AAF thus the UCI had to drop the case. Such a strange set of events.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

They were in countries where use of clenbuterol to improve livestock yield isn't well monitored and testing has shown a high percentage of meat in these countries contains clenbuterol. Mexico and China spring to mind. This isn't the case in Spain.

Mmm... it was the stick to beat the dog.

Clenbuterol and other substances are most definitely used in European livestock (as has been shown by recurring meat and egg scandals in the Netherlands (and the Netherlands thrives on regulations). In all fairness, his defense was actually quite plausible... if not for the circumstances and other markers.

It was the combination of (among others) plasticizer and clen that made it quite obvious what was going on, yet as plasticizer were not bannable it all went on the Clen claim.

 

[ahsoe]

Last night my country was knocked out of the world cup on penalties. And today this... Well, life goes on, but as others have also mentioned, this must mean, that Sky can get away with anything.
At the very least I expect some real firework from Sky in the Tour now. Could be quite fun to watch, if you can stomach it.

I think, I will watch a couple of flat stages in the beginning, and then tune out once Sky and Froome stamp their superiority on the race on the first mountainous stage, as previous years since 2012-14.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
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).
Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.

Is this for real?

Sounds very real to me..try not to be too judgemental on the basis of just a few short paragraphs which try to summarise the outcome of a thorough review and understanding of the alleged 1500 pages of very detailed evidence which presumably support this conclusion...

It seems the only explanation not being given much consideration here is the most likely one...that he's actually innocent, of this charge at least.

Yeah he may be on the most sophisticated doping programme of all time, who knows, but mega dosing with salbutamol towards the end of a Grand Tour never did make any sense. Him being innocent makes as much sense as any of the other theories that have tried to explain this case in the absence of any facts.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

They were in countries where use of clenbuterol to improve livestock yield isn't well monitored and testing has shown a high percentage of meat in these countries contains clenbuterol. Mexico and China spring to mind. This isn't the case in Spain.

Mmm... it was the stick to beat the dog.

Clenbuterol and other substances are most definitely used in European livestock (as has been shown by recurring meat and egg scandals in the Netherlands (and the Netherlands thrives on regulations). In all fairness, his defense was actually quite plausible... if not for the circumstances and other markers.

It was the combination of (among others) plasticizer and clen that made it quite obvious what was going on, yet as plasticizer were not bannable it all went on the Clen claim.

His defence was rubbish, we're not going to rehash it here but feel free to pull up the thread where it has been discussed ad nauseum.

 

[Craigee]

The strangest part is not that Froome gets to skate it’s that WADA folded and didn’t even follow their own rules. They then blamed the UCI! The timing is odd as well, as soon as ASO had barred Froome. Truely bizarre set of events.

It will be either a bribe or blackmail. Take your pick. Cycling is pathetic.

 

[shakey88]

Re: Re:

The sport is truly beyond repair.

Thanks for years of educational discussions, fellow clinicians. I guess this is a bridge too far for me, at least for the time being.

It is. The governing anti doping body WADA sides with the athlete against their own rules. There's not much more to be said really.

"In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome."

Dangerous precendent.
Dope all you want and when you get caught, claim the test or rules must be faulty because you have a clear conscience. Then pay an expert to write an article supporting your statement and/or send a bag of money to UCI HQ and you're good to go.

Bag of money? is there any evidence of this or is it something you made up?

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
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).
Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.

Is this for real?

.

So, WADA recognizes that Froome overdosed for an interview but somehow the dose was within limits. Then they aknowledge that it's rare to go over the threshold but wait, even so there is a CPKS to prove that we are dealing with a rare case. Then they say CPKS is useless since again, they are dealing with the only athlete in the history of salbutamol abuse who has at the same time illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition.

Basically WADA throws out the window their own anti-doping code. Truly amazing.