Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

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?

Never in sporting history has anyone bribed an official. That is just not cricket!!!!

Oh hang on, it happens all the time.......

 

[Bronstein]

Re: 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.

Just to protect a donkey.

 

[thehog]

Re: 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.

Have to agree. Truely, truely bizarre set of events and to be honest why did WADA interject themselves at stage? It really wasn’t for them to make a determination.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re: Re:

Epo is not a ped. Salbutomol metabolises strangely in dogs. Froome walks. Money talks and *** walks.

yes!!!

It's fitting that cycling should be attracting WWE fans these days. It's got the lycra, the freaky looking body shapes and everyone knows who is going to win. Cycling just needs more mullets

 

[wrinklyvet]

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.

The more probable situation is that Froome's lawyer got his teeth into not only the science but also the wording of the provision about Salbutamol. If you have ever read it the first thing that comes to mind is "This will never work in practice and stand up to scrutiny, worded like that." Or at least if you have any preference for unabiguity in a legal situation that will be the likely impresion. As reported by la Gazetta it seems the work on this regulation will be undetaken again to come up with something they can rely upon and operate.

I don't know why it is necessary to suggest there were fraudulent payments or blackmail. I know you don't care what you say with not the slightest proof or indication of truth, but that lack of care is irresponsible.

 

[hrotha]

Rather than a direct bribe or anything of the sort, I think it's more likely that UCI and WADA don't care all that much in the first place, and they're not willing to make the investment to fight a defendant with enough resources to bury them both. More and more often they'll refrain from pursuing even apparently slam-dunk cases, just in case they actually lose. Or they'll only dare to do it against nobodies who can't put up much of a fight.

 

[Craigee]

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?

Common Sense mate Common Sense. You do have some don't you????

 

[Benotti69]

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.

The more probable situation is that Froome's lawyer got his teeth into not only the science but also the wording of the provision about Salbutamol. If you have ever read it the first thing that comes to mind is "This will never work in practice and stand up to scrutiny, worded like that." Or at least if you have any preference for unabiguity in a legal situation that will be the likely impresion. As reported by la Gazetta it seems the work on this regulation will be undetaken again to come up with something they can rely upon and operate.

I don't know why it is necessary to suggest there were fraudulent payments or blackmail. I know you don't care what you say with not the slightest proof or indication of truth, but that lack of care is irresponsible.

This type of post ignores everything we know about the sport. To suggest a bribe or blackmail is certainly within the historic precedents set. You could also add incompetence and stupidity.

UCI decided not to proceed against the richest team in the sport run by Sir Dave Brailsford and possibly the sports history. WADA run by Sir Craig Reedie decides there is also nothing of note in levels double the norm. No of course it is all down to the science and a good lawyer.

Even Michael Rasmussen thinks WADA are a joke.

HAHAHA :lol:

 

[wrinklyvet]

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?

Common Sense mate Common Sense. You do have some don't you????

Common sense would suggest that bribery is not the only way to win a legal case and may in fact be the least likely reason.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Reading WADA statement. Sounds like they acknowledge that sometimes the limit is exceeded without exceeding the max dose. But a controlled pharmacokinetic study would have to show that the rider's physiology would make this possible. Yet they then disregard this rule because it wouldn't be possible to completely copy the circumstances around the test?
This would make sense if this was a regular occurrence, but it doesn't sound that way. So looks like they didn't want to punish him in the slight chance he was innocent so let him off.
Back to the controlled pharmacokinetic study: what was all the riding in SA this off season for?
And regarding the rules: they basically clear Froome on the basis that sometimes, a false positive occurs. Isn't this the case for any test? Froome hasn't done anything to show his physiology would cause such a high concentration of salbutamol in his urine, dodgy kidney or not. In fact, the fact that this apparently hasn't happened before to him and his claims that, first, he took more salbutamol because of an asthma attack, and later, that he took three puffs in quick succession before the interview, point in a different direction.
Seems like his lawyers found a loophole and WADA was more than happy to help them get through it.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Rather than a direct bribe or anything of the sort, I think it's more likely that UCI and WADA don't care all that much in the first place, and they're not willing to make the investment to fight a defendant with enough resources to bury them both. More and more often they'll refrain from pursuing even apparently slam-dunk cases, just in case they actually lose. Or they'll only dare to do it against nobodies who can't put up much of a fight.

No the people who run sporting federations only do so for financial gain. it is the reason sport is so *** in the first place.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: 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.

Have to agree. Truely, truely bizarre set of events and to be honest why did WADA interject themselves at stage? It really wasn’t for them to make a determination.

so presumably there is proof that froome took the extra (press interview) puffs...I mean surely they have not just relied on him telling them???? And of course we get confirmation that he had a documented illness...such an illness he hammered Nibali at the tail end of a GT...the iller he gets the faster he goes

 

[wrinklyvet]

Reading WADA statement. Sounds like they acknowledge that sometimes the limit is exceeded without exceeding the max dose. But a controlled clinical trial would have to show that the rider's physiology would make this possible. Yet they then disregard this rule because it wouldn't be possible to completely copy the circumstances around the test?
This would make sense if this was a regular occurrence, but it doesn't sound that way. So looks like they didn't want to punish him in the slight chance he was innocent so let him off.
Back to the controlled clinical study: what was all the riding in SA this off season for?
And regarding the rules: they basically clear Froome on the basis that sometimes, a false positive occurs. Isn't this the case for any test? Froome hasn't done anything to show his physiology would cause such a high concentration of salbutamol in his urine, dodgy kidney or not. In fact, the fact that this apparently hasn't happened before to him and his claims that, first, he took more salbutamol because of an asthma attack, and later, that he took three puffs in quick succession before the interview, point in a different direction.
Seems like his lawyers found a loophole and WADA was more than happy to help them get through it.

Briefly, yes. It appears to me that the defence stated in the provision is impossible and the bald statement there about what constitutes use in excess of a therapeutic dose is probably easily challenged.

 

[Craigee]

Re:

Rather than a direct bribe or anything of the sort, I think it's more likely that UCI and WADA don't care all that much in the first place, and they're not willing to make the investment to fight a defendant with enough resources to bury them both. More and more often they'll refrain from pursuing even apparently slam-dunk cases, just in case they actually lose. Or they'll only dare to do it against nobodies who can't put up much of a fight.

They would care all right. The bribes had to be very big with the expected fall out that will surely come. And again Cycling rules the world for perceived corruption. Can you imagine the papers tomorrow?

 

[Craigee]

Reading WADA statement. Sounds like they acknowledge that sometimes the limit is exceeded without exceeding the max dose. But a controlled clinical trial would have to show that the rider's physiology would make this possible. Yet they then disregard this rule because it wouldn't be possible to completely copy the circumstances around the test?
This would make sense if this was a regular occurrence, but it doesn't sound that way. So looks like they didn't want to punish him in the slight chance he was innocent so let him off.
Back to the controlled clinical study: what was all the riding in SA this off season for?
And regarding the rules: they basically clear Froome on the basis that sometimes, a false positive occurs. Isn't this the case for any test? Froome hasn't done anything to show his physiology would cause such a high concentration of salbutamol in his urine, dodgy kidney or not. In fact, the fact that this apparently hasn't happened before to him and his claims that, first, he took more salbutamol because of an asthma attack, and later, that he took three puffs in quick succession before the interview, point in a different direction.
Seems like his lawyers found a loophole and WADA was more than happy to help them get through it.

Briefly, yes. It appears to me that the defence stated in the provision is impossible and the bald statement there about what constitutes use in excess of a therapeutic dose is probably easily challenged.

Easily challenged? Holy Moly. Why didn't the others who were prosecuted for lower readings think of that?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Rather than a direct bribe or anything of the sort, I think it's more likely that UCI and WADA don't care all that much in the first place, and they're not willing to make the investment to fight a defendant with enough resources to bury them both. More and more often they'll refrain from pursuing even apparently slam-dunk cases, just in case they actually lose. Or they'll only dare to do it against nobodies who can't put up much of a fight.

They would care all right. The bribes had to be very big with the expected fall out that will surely come. And again Cycling rules the world for perceived corruption. Can you imagine the papers tomorrow?

There is no hope. If it makes you feel better to think there were bribes nobody will change your mind. We could discuss them. How much were they? Who paid. Where's the money now?

 

[gillan1969]

Reading WADA statement. Sounds like they acknowledge that sometimes the limit is exceeded without exceeding the max dose. But a controlled clinical trial would have to show that the rider's physiology would make this possible. Yet they then disregard this rule because it wouldn't be possible to completely copy the circumstances around the test?
This would make sense if this was a regular occurrence, but it doesn't sound that way. So looks like they didn't want to punish him in the slight chance he was innocent so let him off.
Back to the controlled clinical study: what was all the riding in SA this off season for?
And regarding the rules: they basically clear Froome on the basis that sometimes, a false positive occurs. Isn't this the case for any test? Froome hasn't done anything to show his physiology would cause such a high concentration of salbutamol in his urine, dodgy kidney or not. In fact, the fact that this apparently hasn't happened before to him and his claims that, first, he took more salbutamol because of an asthma attack, and later, that he took three puffs in quick succession before the interview, point in a different direction.
Seems like his lawyers found a loophole and WADA was more than happy to help them get through it.

Briefly, yes. It appears to me that the defence stated in the provision is impossible and the bald statement there about what constitutes use in excess of a therapeutic dose is probably easily challenged.

as ever...get a doc to say your ill and you can fly.......fly I tells you......................

and lining up in this years tour we have, well yes the riders, but more importantly...in charge of blood - ferrari, weight - cechini, data - freeman, liaison with authorities - Lienders, dogsbody - Cope. Truly a dream team.....

 

[wrinklyvet]

Reading WADA statement. Sounds like they acknowledge that sometimes the limit is exceeded without exceeding the max dose. But a controlled clinical trial would have to show that the rider's physiology would make this possible. Yet they then disregard this rule because it wouldn't be possible to completely copy the circumstances around the test?
This would make sense if this was a regular occurrence, but it doesn't sound that way. So looks like they didn't want to punish him in the slight chance he was innocent so let him off.
Back to the controlled clinical study: what was all the riding in SA this off season for?
And regarding the rules: they basically clear Froome on the basis that sometimes, a false positive occurs. Isn't this the case for any test? Froome hasn't done anything to show his physiology would cause such a high concentration of salbutamol in his urine, dodgy kidney or not. In fact, the fact that this apparently hasn't happened before to him and his claims that, first, he took more salbutamol because of an asthma attack, and later, that he took three puffs in quick succession before the interview, point in a different direction.
Seems like his lawyers found a loophole and WADA was more than happy to help them get through it.

Briefly, yes. It appears to me that the defence stated in the provision is impossible and the bald statement there about what constitutes use in excess of a therapeutic dose is probably easily challenged.

Easily challenged? Holy Moly. Why didn't the others who were prosecuted for lower readings think of that?

No idea. perhaps they couldn't afford either the cost or the risk.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Rather than a direct bribe or anything of the sort, I think it's more likely that UCI and WADA don't care all that much in the first place, and they're not willing to make the investment to fight a defendant with enough resources to bury them both. More and more often they'll refrain from pursuing even apparently slam-dunk cases, just in case they actually lose. Or they'll only dare to do it against nobodies who can't put up much of a fight.

They would care all right. The bribes had to be very big with the expected fall out that will surely come. And again Cycling rules the world for perceived corruption. Can you imagine the papers tomorrow?

There is no hope. If it makes you feel better to think there were bribes nobody will change your mind. We could discuss them. How much were they? Who paid. Where's the money now?

not quite sure you've got the whole idea of bribes...they are, what an accountant might call......er.....off balance sheet.........please ensure you don't involve yourself in any bribing activity...you may get caught

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Rather than a direct bribe or anything of the sort, I think it's more likely that UCI and WADA don't care all that much in the first place, and they're not willing to make the investment to fight a defendant with enough resources to bury them both. More and more often they'll refrain from pursuing even apparently slam-dunk cases, just in case they actually lose. Or they'll only dare to do it against nobodies who can't put up much of a fight.

They would care all right. The bribes had to be very big with the expected fall out that will surely come. And again Cycling rules the world for perceived corruption. Can you imagine the papers tomorrow?

There is no hope. If it makes you feel better to think there were bribes nobody will change your mind. We could discuss them. How much were they? Who paid. Where's the money now?

not quite sure you've got the whole idea of bribes...they are, what an accountant might call......er.....off balance sheet.........please ensure you don't involve yourself in any bribing activity...you may get caught

So you'll never know. Good luck with that allegation. Should run well and become the new conspiracy theory.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Rather than a direct bribe or anything of the sort, I think it's more likely that UCI and WADA don't care all that much in the first place, and they're not willing to make the investment to fight a defendant with enough resources to bury them both. More and more often they'll refrain from pursuing even apparently slam-dunk cases, just in case they actually lose. Or they'll only dare to do it against nobodies who can't put up much of a fight.

They would care all right. The bribes had to be very big with the expected fall out that will surely come. And again Cycling rules the world for perceived corruption. Can you imagine the papers tomorrow?

There is no hope. If it makes you feel better to think there were bribes nobody will change your mind. We could discuss them. How much were they? Who paid. Where's the money now?

not quite sure you've got the whole idea of bribes...they are, what an accountant might call......er.....off balance sheet.........please ensure you don't involve yourself in any bribing activity...you may get caught

So you'll never know. Good luck with that allegation. Should run well and become the new conspiracy theory.

Always shout conspiracy theory when you cannot defend the obvious and hope people back down. Everyone who has done wrong in sport has shouted that. Welcome to a long and illustrious club.

I mean the guy who has won the last 3 GTs in a row has an AAF in a sport rife with doping, a culture of doping and cheating and some still think he is cleans!!!!

Lalaland.

You know, they know, we all know. We have been here before, lots and lots of times.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Rather than a direct bribe or anything of the sort, I think it's more likely that UCI and WADA don't care all that much in the first place, and they're not willing to make the investment to fight a defendant with enough resources to bury them both. More and more often they'll refrain from pursuing even apparently slam-dunk cases, just in case they actually lose. Or they'll only dare to do it against nobodies who can't put up much of a fight.

They would care all right. The bribes had to be very big with the expected fall out that will surely come. And again Cycling rules the world for perceived corruption. Can you imagine the papers tomorrow?

There is no hope. If it makes you feel better to think there were bribes nobody will change your mind. We could discuss them. How much were they? Who paid. Where's the money now?

not quite sure you've got the whole idea of bribes...they are, what an accountant might call......er.....off balance sheet.........please ensure you don't involve yourself in any bribing activity...you may get caught

So you'll never know. Good luck with that allegation. Should run well and become the new conspiracy theory.

it's not my allegation...I'm just pointing out that bribes, by their nature, tend to be done away from publicity....

 

[rick james]

Really the hurt on here is unreal....on the plus side of all the people that keep shouting they are done with cycling actually do walk away the clinic might become a better place...

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

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.

No argument there :lol:

 

[GraftPunk]

Re:

Wrinklyvet will be doing this shift and hand over to another fanboi and round and round it goes. Probably best to ignore the fanbois.

This is probably the best idea, the idea of 'you can lead a horse to water' thing. They'll eventually get it figured out, but until then...