Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1296 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
As with everything context is key. How come Froome almost dying from atshma and what not can take a few puffs to get double the score of the allowed limit, and yet. Just absolutely destroys his competitors in the very same days. How that isn't abuse of performance enhancing drugs should be a mistery to any logical thinking person.
 
Re: Re:

An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:[/quote]

Well... actually you don't know whether he did or not.

The details are not there to be judged whether they managed to explain anything or did they just point out to measurement errors that will be dealt in court for the next 2-3 years. Or something else. Actually none of us knows jack **** about why exactly it was whitdrawn.[/quote]

You beat me to it. Exactly my point :)[/quote]

Oh i see, this thing only works one way...we can happily jump to conclusions about bribes, pay offs and cover ups...but we cant suggest that the reason the case was dropped was because he explained the readings to the satisfaction of the people that matter. Ive got it :cool:[/quote]

No it works both ways. You can suggest that the case was dropped because he explained the test results in a satisfactory way. And it might true.

What I stated in my other post, and what Bambino is suggesting here (correct me if I am wrong) is that there are certainly very reasonable possibilities for this outcome other than a satisfactory explanation from Froome to the test results.
But we simply do not know, and we need more information.
Edit: Which it seems from the latest Sky statement, we will not be getting.[/quote]


If we don't get that info then a large portion of the fan base will consider Froome and Sky guilty regardless of anything else. It doesn't matter what is said without actual concrete proof that they do not want to provide, thus leading many to believe it does not actually exist.[/quote]

Of course; but everything I've read so far, including the latest statement from Froome, points towards a decision based on science and numbers, rather than loopholes being exploited.

And Sky didnt really say they wouldn't release any details; that's what the click bait headlines wanted you to think....the point was the data that decided the case belonged to Wada, it's for them to release. Sky say they hope it is released. So do I.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
That is classic Brailsford/SKY bobby.

Muddy the waters, give conflicting/unclear statements whenever its about bad publicity; always cover all bases. They live of the confusion because the casual viewer cant find head or tails.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Escarabajo said:
So actual value should have been 1190 ng/ml.

http://www.revistamundociclistico.com/ruta/25745-caso-froome-el-valor-correcto-del-salbutamol-encontrado-en-la-muestra-era-de-1190ngml-y-no-2000-como-siempre-se-afirmo-ama.html

I guess the correction for dehydration is a standard procedure. So for Ulissi and Petachi they corrected the values before they evaluated their cases for sanctioning?
Without the other data from people who have gotten off it is hard to compare.
Ross Tucker has a fifteen minute video summarizing his thoughts on the decision. I think his most important point is that Froome has managed to reverse the AD process. It used to be that the athlete had to prove why his test result should not result in a sanction. But WADA's dropping the case indicates that it became a matter of WADA/UCI's having to prove that he should be sanctioned. And Tucker points out cases of athletes who probably would have gotten off if they had had the money to push WADA the same way.
The above from Tucker is how this looks to me at the moment as well, based on the various interviews. If that is true, it will set very dangerous precedent. In case true, I could imagine the last thing WADA and UCI wants is the details published.
 
Re:

mrhender said:
That is classic Brailsford/SKY bobby.

Muddy the waters, give conflicting/unclear statements whenever its about bad publicity; always cover all bases. They live of the confusion because the casual viewer cant find head or tails.
Aren't Wada/UCI obliged to release the details if both parties agree...Brailsford has gone in print now as saying he really hopes they do?

It would be a spectacular and indefensible u turn if he did try to block it now
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
mrhender said:
That is classic Brailsford/SKY bobby.

Muddy the waters, give conflicting/unclear statements whenever its about bad publicity; always cover all bases. They live of the confusion because the casual viewer cant find head or tails.
Aren't Wada/UCI obliged to release the details if both parties agree...Brailsford has gone in print now as saying he really hopes they do?

It would be a spectacular and indefensible u turn if he did try to block it now
You think WADA would release sensitive details about Froome just because his manager hints it may be ok in an article?

WADA might be a sinking ship, but not that stupid.
 
Re: Re:

mrhender said:
brownbobby said:
mrhender said:
That is classic Brailsford/SKY bobby.

Muddy the waters, give conflicting/unclear statements whenever its about bad publicity; always cover all bases. They live of the confusion because the casual viewer cant find head or tails.
Aren't Wada/UCI obliged to release the details if both parties agree...Brailsford has gone in print now as saying he really hopes they do?

It would be a spectacular and indefensible u turn if he did try to block it now
You think WADA would release sensitive details about Froome just because his manager hints it may be ok in an article?

WADA might be a sinking ship, but not that stupid.
I thought that was the deal in anti doping cases....full details get released unless the defendant is cleared in which case they have a right to keep them private?

But Froome and Sky have both gone on record saying they want details releasing
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Yes, we all eagerly await the formal request from SKY/Froome to have this done. Seriously do you beleive that is on the doorstep anytime soon?

This is nothing but PR machinery in the working.
Like usual with these good lads.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Basically their the types pointing fingers laughing at the boy falling in the school yard all bruised up and all. Each to his pleasure.
 
Re:

mrhender said:
Yes, we all eagerly await the formal request from SKY/Froome to have this done. Seriously do you beleive that is on the doorstep anytime soon?

This is nothing but PR machinery in the working.
Like usual with these good lads.
I know your question was part rhetorical but I'll answer anyway....yes I do think we'll see details released, soon

I don't think a formal request is required. The question is will they block it.

I don't think so this time. We'll see soon enough I guess
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
In any case. Froome is a world beater. (Thats what you really want to hear no?)No denying it. So what is the history with world beaters in cycling again?
We might be facing a paradigm shift in which anti-doping will become more and more irrelevant, because the big fish has to be done by other means than testing. Some will argue its basically like that for a long time. This was just the ultimate expression for everyone to see live. Government authorities wont be making much effort since they have real crimes and global dissaray to handle. Meanwhile in europe its a turmoil with brexit and each to his own, so the will to work interlinked about a few sports stars seems moot when you have tons of steroids and other drugs harming the regular citizens where some actually dont scate taxes living in monaco. There is little political charm to stamp national heros. Even if their sucking you dry.
 
Re:

mrhender said:
In any case. Froome is a world beater. (Thats what you really want to hear no?)No denying it. So what is the history with world beaters in cycling again?
We might be facing a paradigm shift in which anti-doping will become more and more irrelevant, because the big fish has to done by other means than testing. Some will argue its basically like that for a long time. This was just the ultimate expression for everyone to see live. Government authorities wont be making much effort since they have real crimes and global dissaray to handle. Meanwhile in europe its a turmoil with brexit and each to his own, so the will to work interlinked about a few sports stars seems moot when you have tons of steroids and other drugs harming the regular citizens where some actually dont scate taxes living in monaco. There is little political charm to stamp national heros. Even if their sucking you dry.
To the first bit....why would I need to hear that? It's already a recorded fact.

To the rest of your rant, I'll leave you to it.

It's just sport to me. A means of entertainment.

The apocalypse can wait
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Just a sense in your postings.

Fair enough its just sports/entertsimment for you. A wondering persona would ask then - why you need to confirm your heros status in the clinic and not just the PRR. Looks to me like you want it one way only, ignoring the real truth that you spoke so highly of yesterday.
 
Re:

mrhender said:
Just a sense in your postings.

Fair enough its just sports/entertsimment for you. A wondering persona would ask then - why you need to confirm your heros status in the clinic and not just the PRR. Looks to me like you want it one way only, ignoring the real truth that you spoke so highly of yesterday.
I enjoy the debate in the Clinic. Just another form of entertainment. Simples.

Anyway, I have to now join my nation in celebrating our great footballists :D

Have a good evening Sir.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
brownbobby said:
Pantani_lives said:
He had an inexplicable dose of salbutamol in his body. He failed to proof that his body can miraculously produce these levels by just taking a few puffs. The only acceptable decision would have been to ban and disqualify him. WADA and UCI aren't following their own rules. It's class justice.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
Well... actually you don't know whether he did or not.

The details are not there to be judged whether they managed to explain anything or did they just point out to measurement errors that will be dealt in court for the next 2-3 years. Or something else. Actually none of us knows jack **** about why exactly it was whitdrawn.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

Using The Times previously reported corrected salbutamol level of 1429ng/mL and WADA's formula for correcting the Decision Limit (DL): (adjusted DL= (measured specific gravity - 1)/ (1-1.020) * 1200), it can be concluded that Froome's sample had a specific gravity of 1.028. The normal range for adults with normally functioning kidneys is 1.005-1.030, meaning he was dehydrated after a 169km Grand Tour stage in Spain.
 
Re:

mrhender said:
In any case. Froome is a world beater. (Thats what you really want to hear no?)No denying it. So what is the history with world beaters in cycling again?
We might be facing a paradigm shift in which anti-doping will become more and more irrelevant, because the big fish has to be done by other means than testing. Some will argue its basically like that for a long time. This was just the ultimate expression for everyone to see live. Government authorities wont be making much effort since they have real crimes and global dissaray to handle. Meanwhile in europe its a turmoil with brexit and each to his own, so the will to work interlinked about a few sports stars seems moot when you have tons of steroids and other drugs harming the regular citizens where some actually dont scate taxes living in monaco. There is little political charm to stamp national heros. Even if their sucking you dry.
Historically that's how they have done it.
You can argue the Contador case would have gone un-noticed if it wasn't for the leak. But police raids and riders spilling the beans is how to get the big guys.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
bambino said:
brownbobby said:
Pantani_lives said:
He had an inexplicable dose of salbutamol in his body. He failed to proof that his body can miraculously produce these levels by just taking a few puffs. The only acceptable decision would have been to ban and disqualify him. WADA and UCI aren't following their own rules. It's class justice.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
Well... actually you don't know whether he did or not.

The details are not there to be judged whether they managed to explain anything or did they just point out to measurement errors that will be dealt in court for the next 2-3 years. Or something else. Actually none of us knows jack **** about why exactly it was whitdrawn.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

Using The Times previously reported corrected salbutamol level of 1429ng/mL and WADA's formula for correcting the Decision Limit (DL): (adjusted DL= (measured specific gravity - 1)/ (1-1.020) * 1200), it can be concluded that Froome's sample had a specific gravity of 1.028. The normal range for adults with normally functioning kidneys is 1.005-1.030, meaning he was dehydrated after a 169km Grand Tour stage in Spain.

Still higher than Petacchi's unadjusted level that he was given a ban for.
 
Aug 20, 2017
1,397
0
0
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
bambino said:
brownbobby said:
Pantani_lives said:
He had an inexplicable dose of salbutamol in his body. He failed to proof that his body can miraculously produce these levels by just taking a few puffs. The only acceptable decision would have been to ban and disqualify him. WADA and UCI aren't following their own rules. It's class justice.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
Well... actually you don't know whether he did or not.

The details are not there to be judged whether they managed to explain anything or did they just point out to measurement errors that will be dealt in court for the next 2-3 years. Or something else. Actually none of us knows jack **** about why exactly it was whitdrawn.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

Using The Times previously reported corrected salbutamol level of 1429ng/mL and WADA's formula for correcting the Decision Limit (DL): (adjusted DL= (measured specific gravity - 1)/ (1-1.020) * 1200), it can be concluded that Froome's sample had a specific gravity of 1.028. The normal range for adults with normally functioning kidneys is 1.005-1.030, meaning he was dehydrated after a 169km Grand Tour stage in Spain.
Oh, my God, that can't be true! :lol:
 
I know there's much that is inconsistent about this comparison, but it has to be deployed: this reminds me so much of Armstrong's positive test that was 'made to go away' with a backdated TUE and 'generous donation.'

The common denominator is: money, power and brand value.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
pastronef said:
bambino said:
brownbobby said:
Pantani_lives said:
He had an inexplicable dose of salbutamol in his body. He failed to proof that his body can miraculously produce these levels by just taking a few puffs. The only acceptable decision would have been to ban and disqualify him. WADA and UCI aren't following their own rules. It's class justice.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
Well... actually you don't know whether he did or not.

The details are not there to be judged whether they managed to explain anything or did they just point out to measurement errors that will be dealt in court for the next 2-3 years. Or something else. Actually none of us knows jack **** about why exactly it was whitdrawn.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

Using The Times previously reported corrected salbutamol level of 1429ng/mL and WADA's formula for correcting the Decision Limit (DL): (adjusted DL= (measured specific gravity - 1)/ (1-1.020) * 1200), it can be concluded that Froome's sample had a specific gravity of 1.028. The normal range for adults with normally functioning kidneys is 1.005-1.030, meaning he was dehydrated after a 169km Grand Tour stage in Spain.

Still higher than Petacchi's unadjusted level that he was given a ban for.
It's not just the level though is it that determines whether it is an AAF ;)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Forever The Best said:
Haha, still can't believe he got away easily.
'But the sport is clean now, the dark era is over' etc. etc.
Didn’t realise that asthma treatment = dark era


Give me riders getting popped for asthma treatment over EPO any day do the week
Riders who are so sick they should be hospitalised the amount of asthma medication they are taking.

Never mind all the other ailments they claimed to have had and cured!

But no i jest, cant beat a drop of pineapple juice in the bidon to beat a dirty doper!!!
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
rick james said:
Forever The Best said:
Haha, still can't believe he got away easily.
'But the sport is clean now, the dark era is over' etc. etc.
Didn’t realise that asthma treatment = dark era


Give me riders getting popped for asthma treatment over EPO any day do the week
Riders who are so sick they should be hospitalised the amount of asthma medication they are taking.

Never mind all the other ailments they claimed to have had and cured!

But no i jest, cant beat a drop of pineapple juice in the bidon to beat a dirty doper!!!

How do you know how sick they are and how much asthma treatment they are taking??

Guessing their dosage doesn’t make you a doctor you know
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS