Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1298 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Hi guys. What an absolutely shameful joke our sport has become. A laughing stock for other sports to point fingers at and snicker.

We hold races, then months later determine who actually won. Er, who we think should have won, or who we're calling the winner. And we'll even be open minded to interpretations of rules, so if someone has powerful enough attorneys and enough cash, we'll take any and all considerations into hand if you break those rules, even turn around and say you never broke them in the first place.

Ross Tucker is right, what's the point in even testing at this point?
 
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Hi guys. What an absolutely shameful joke our sport has become. A laughing stock for other sports to point fingers at and snicker.

We hold races, then months later determine who actually won. Er, who we think should have won, or who we're calling the winner. And we'll even be open minded to interpretations of rules, so if someone has powerful enough attorneys and enough cash, we'll take any and all considerations into hand if you break those rules, even turn around and say you never broke them in the first place.

Ross Tucker is right, what's the point in even testing at this point?
It was a very quick decision in the end and my sense is they didn’t want to go the appeal on Tuesday. That would have revealed too much about the case. This was going to be annouced post Tour but the hand was forced by ASO. WADA did the rest with Reedie giving one for the lads of the U.K. Well done!
 
Re: Re:

lartiste said:
armchairclimber said:
Koronin said:
armchairclimber said:
Koronin said:
The UCI has no proven that it's anti doping is a 100% farce. They may as well just stop doping tests because they just proved it's useless. Also they have proved that the peloton today is just as dirty if not dirtier than it was when Lance was racing. That is the only this proves.
Reinstate Lance, and give all riders who have ever lost results their results back and give them all an apology. As of NOW Lance is again a 7 time Tour winner and Contador IS a 9 time GT winner.
Well actually, all that has been proved is that their salbutamol regime was useless. No free pass for Lance, Contador or the likes of Valverde on those grounds ... no matter how much you might want there to be.

Except Valverde has never failed an anti doping test, while Froome actually has and gets off. Sorry, but the UCI today proved that their anti doping is a complete farce and that certain people can cheat and get away with it and they won't do anything to them. That is what has been proven. We've also learned the peloton has not cleaned up at all. So reinstate Lance, and give everyone back their results, then just eliminate anti doping tests because they really don't care what they say.
Froome has not failed a test. There was no AAF. I know you don't like that, but it is fact. No failed test. And Jeez, don't pretend Valverde is or ever was clean. Iam. as you know, a Valverde fan (now). But he is no cleaner than Froome.
He failed test, but and escaped from the punishment with some illegal acts, we can only doubt what kind :razz: . I understand, that it is difficult to admit he is fraud, but he is.

This. He FAILED the test rather you like it or not. He IS a doping and will always be from now on, nothing he can do to change that. He failed and SHOULD have been punished. The only question is how much money did it take to get him off?

I agree with Alpe d'Huez, why even bother testing anymore because this case just proved they don't care and are more than willing to change the rules at a moments notice actually like NASCAR does. Oh and NASCAR is currently in major trouble due to all the ridiculous rule changes.
 
samhocking said:
From what I gather, his typical inhaler use is actually relatively low most of the time, but during the last week of Vuelta it was significantly higher than in the past with a combination of chest infection triggering asthma, anti-biotics and the last week which hadn't really occurred in that combination before in his career and the last time it happened so badly he had a TUE obviously, so his asthma was medically under control then so not leaning so heavy on Salbutomol to deal with the asthma from the chest infection.
He had a TUE in both 2013 and 2014, so it sounds as though this severe bout of symptoms has not been that uncommon. The explanation has to be that after 2014 there was never a problem again until four years later, though he was riding two GTs a year throughout that period (crashed out of the Vuelta once). And even if that’s true, then his levels throughout the last week should have been very high. Yet it was reported that they were not > 600 except that one day. So did he just have severe symptoms that one day?

And if they were so severe, wouldn't he have had to use the inhaler earlier in the race, maybe before the race began? I understand Froome said before he only needs to inhale during great efforts, but if that was the case during this stage, it doesn't sound as though the symptoms were that severe. Froome has to argue he was fine until the last hour or two of the race, then needed all of the salbutamol. He even said he puffed after the stage was over, though he wasn't making great efforts at that time. It really doesn't add up to me.

But even if one accepts all this, the fact remains, as I’ve pointed out several times, that several studies have failed to replicate the prediction of Heuberger’s model. They haven’t found such high levels when samples are provided right after 800 ug. Even the model itself, dog data and all, predicts Froome’s levels would be quite uncommon. You could have a very good argument that even if you swallowed Heuberger hook-line-and-sinker, and completely ignored all the other literature, the case for exoneration still isn't strong enough.

Bottom line, there are several obstacles that have to be overcome for Froome’s defense to be plausible, and arguing that it might be possible to get by the first doesn’t begin to provide an answer.

bigcog said:
The case was dropped because he didn't have a case to answer. If that isn't proving yourself 'clean' in this context I don't know what is.
Nope. NCA has a specific meaning, and it doesn’t apply to Froome’s case.

brownbobby said:
Genuine question MI......do you really think or have any information that suggests the Heuberger report was key?

If so, that is something I would find very surprising given the flaws in the study previously discussed
It was very strongly implied in the statement quoted in VN, which I mentioned in the salbutamol thread:

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,”
Two key phrases here: 1) short period prior to the doping control; and 2) demonstrated within-subject variability.

Only Heuberger, AFAIK, has emphasized the importance of taking samples very soon after inhalation. That is one of the key points of the paper. They also emphasize the great variability. Others have commented on this, too, and have provided empirical support for it, but none I'm aware of has shown that the variability accounts for Froome's level assuming 800 ug.

The latter is one of the immediate criticisms I expect to hear if/when the details are released. Frankly, the decision seems like a gigantic raised middle finger to a lot of salbutamol researchers. I know there are some researchers who have been arguing for years that the variability is so great that the threshold level is unfair, but the actual data that are available don't support Froome's case.

The truth is rarely immediately accompanied by clarity
But announcements of decisions are usually accompanied by details.

armchairclimber said:
Froome has not failed a test. There was no AAF. I know you don't like that, but it is fact. No failed test. And Jeez, don't pretend Valverde is or ever was clean. Iam. as you know, a Valverde fan (now). But he is no cleaner than Froome.
Yes, there was an AAF. Hard to believe that after all this time, there are posters who don’t even understand what an AAF is.
 
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.
 
When enough money is thrown at the anti-doping system, the flaws become evident -
http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/expert-froome-case-shows-system-unequal_471254
VN: From what we can see, it seems Froome’s lawyers were going after the validity of the testing process; how important is this decision in that context?

Ross Tucker: The burden of proof is getting turned around in this case. Instead of an athlete having to prove their innocence, the argument now is that you, the authorities, have to prove to me, the athlete, that the test is credible and robust. Can you be confident that the test is not going to throw up a false positive?

Previously, the entire anti-doping system was built on the concept of strict liability, in which the burden of proof after a test result was on the athlete. I have not seen the full decision, but this turns the argument 180 degrees. Despite the tests, the authorities still have to stand behind their science and prove it. I have grave concerns about this type of legal challenge for other drugs that are controlled by anti-doping because frankly, there are not many drugs for which the evidence is strong enough to withstand a really robust, well-aimed challenge.

VN: So this could be seen as a challenge to the entire underpinnings of anti-doping authority?

RT: Very rarely do positive tests get challenged to this extent. There is a fairly vocal community that has argued for some time now, that the anti-doping system is unfit for that reason. A lot of the science behind some of the anti-doping controls is still debatable. It’s not like a DNA analysis in a murder case. There are so many factors that can affect an anti-doping control. That’s long been an ominous concern, and this case brings to light that reality.

The way this plays out most often is when we debate whether a drug has any proven performance enhancing effects? It’s on the banned list, then people question why? And in that instance, what you would think is one of the basic tenets of anti-doping, there are rarely clear answers.

The same concept is true as regards testing, and not just for the threshold drugs like salbutamol. The risk of false positives and false negatives is not well-known, and concepts like the biological passport are also reliant on ‘thresholds’ or upper and lower limits for how much these complex blood variables change.

In all these instances, there are challenges just waiting to happen, but it’s just that they are rarely made. It takes the right athlete, with the right drug, to challenge WADA, and then they back off really quickly. Look again at that statement where the UCI writes: “In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime” – what that means is that WADA, who authored the current salbutamol guidelines, were presented with a ton of information undermining their work, and they backed off. They said, ‘We can’t defend this.’ Proceedings closed.
 
Re:

wrinklyvet said:
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.

The question is: How much money does it take to get that decision?
 
Re:

roundabout said:
I think variability refers to Froome's test results within that Vuelta, so it was probably more than a theoretical model
To repeat, it was reported that none of his other samples exceeded 600. So there was no evidence of great variability in the Vuelta, other than that one stage. Now maybe the report was wrong, but the variability could not have been that great, because clearly no other sample exceeded the threshold level, or at least the decision level. I don't see how the reference to variability can refer to anything other than the theoretical model. In fact, in that same passage quoted by VN, they note the role of illness. Why? Because Froome's defense was that because of illness, he took much more salbutamol than usual. That is his explanation, as Sam tried to argue, for why one sample could be so much higher than the others.

In theory, you might argue that Froome's other samples showed great variability among themselves, given that he took much less salbutamol, and the highest levels would not be close to the threshold. But given all the other possible factors involved, that would be very hard to argue. Maybe this is what they have meant when they said the case is very complicated, but I don't think the data exist to start that complicated case. You would have to know how much salbutamol Froome took each stage, and when, and if/when he urinated. I think it would be extremely difficult to come to a precise enough conclusion from all that to show that his stage 18 level was consistent with his general physiology when inhaling less. But we will see.

wrinklyvet said:
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.
There was an AAF. That is a fact. It goes into the database. Not all AAFs turn into ADRVs, but that fact does not mean that after a rider is resolved, the AAF disappears as a piece of data. When WADA publishes its stats for 2017, Froome's AAF will be included, though it will not be identified as such or associated with him. If this were not the case, if AAFs were simply deleted when a rider was exonerated, the stats would be useless. (They may be deleted after ten years from ADAMS, but that is another matter).

AFAIK, the only way for it not to be an AAF is if there was some lab mistake in analysis. But nothing in the announcement indicates that was the basis for the decision.
 
Re:

wrinklyvet said:
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.
According to WADA rules Froome's test in Vuelta was an AAF. WADA then breaks its own rules and says it's not an AAF based on the specifics of the case. So basically WADA dismissed its own rules, procedures and testing.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
When enough money is thrown at the anti-doping system, the flaws become evident -
http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/expert-froome-case-shows-system-unequal_471254
VN: From what we can see, it seems Froome’s lawyers were going after the validity of the testing process; how important is this decision in that context?

Ross Tucker: The burden of proof is getting turned around in this case. Instead of an athlete having to prove their innocence, the argument now is that you, the authorities, have to prove to me, the athlete, that the test is credible and robust. Can you be confident that the test is not going to throw up a false positive?

Previously, the entire anti-doping system was built on the concept of strict liability, in which the burden of proof after a test result was on the athlete. I have not seen the full decision, but this turns the argument 180 degrees. Despite the tests, the authorities still have to stand behind their science and prove it. I have grave concerns about this type of legal challenge for other drugs that are controlled by anti-doping because frankly, there are not many drugs for which the evidence is strong enough to withstand a really robust, well-aimed challenge.

VN: So this could be seen as a challenge to the entire underpinnings of anti-doping authority?

RT: Very rarely do positive tests get challenged to this extent. There is a fairly vocal community that has argued for some time now, that the anti-doping system is unfit for that reason. A lot of the science behind some of the anti-doping controls is still debatable. It’s not like a DNA analysis in a murder case. There are so many factors that can affect an anti-doping control. That’s long been an ominous concern, and this case brings to light that reality.

The way this plays out most often is when we debate whether a drug has any proven performance enhancing effects? It’s on the banned list, then people question why? And in that instance, what you would think is one of the basic tenets of anti-doping, there are rarely clear answers.

The same concept is true as regards testing, and not just for the threshold drugs like salbutamol. The risk of false positives and false negatives is not well-known, and concepts like the biological passport are also reliant on ‘thresholds’ or upper and lower limits for how much these complex blood variables change.

In all these instances, there are challenges just waiting to happen, but it’s just that they are rarely made. It takes the right athlete, with the right drug, to challenge WADA, and then they back off really quickly. Look again at that statement where the UCI writes: “In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime” – what that means is that WADA, who authored the current salbutamol guidelines, were presented with a ton of information undermining their work, and they backed off. They said, ‘We can’t defend this.’ Proceedings closed.
Yes, you are right. There is inequality or inequity but that's no reason why someone who can afford it should not challenge defective WADA rules.

Look again at this, with hindsight if you like - "The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above."

The bald statement that such an excess is not consistent with therapeutic use stands out as being open to challenge. How was the line drawn in the first place and with what justification? The elements of the defence by controlled pharmacokinetic study are clearly not open to a Grand Tour rider - how could you conduct it?

The good to come from this is that this will all be looked at again to redraft provisions that could operate in the real world and be supportable.
 
I am aware of what was reported, thank you very much.

I can only guess that variability refers to his test results vs the amount of salbutamol taken. This theory would though probably require Froome to usually take less than the maximum amount and I don't know how likely that is.

Edit: what the second paragraph says in response to my post. I would say that this to me would still be the most likely way to proceed.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
samhocking said:
From what I gather, his typical inhaler use is actually relatively low most of the time, but during the last week of Vuelta it was significantly higher than in the past with a combination of chest infection triggering asthma, anti-biotics and the last week which hadn't really occurred in that combination before in his career and the last time it happened so badly he had a TUE obviously, so his asthma was medically under control then so not leaning so heavy on Salbutomol to deal with the asthma from the chest infection.
He had a TUE in both 2013 and 2014, so it sounds as though this severe bout of symptoms has not been that uncommon. The explanation has to be that after 2014 there was never a problem again until four years later, though he was riding two GTs a year throughout that period (crashed out of the Vuelta once). And even if that’s true, then his levels throughout the last week should have been very high. Yet it was reported that they were not > 600 except that one day. So did he just have severe symptoms that one day?

And if they were so severe, wouldn't he have had to use the inhaler earlier in the race, maybe before the race began? I understand Froome said before he only needs to inhale during great efforts, but if that was the case during this stage, it doesn't sound as though the symptoms were that severe. Froome has to argue he was fine until the last hour or two of the race, then needed all of the salbutamol. He even said he puffed after the stage was over, though he wasn't making great efforts at that time. It really doesn't add up to me.

But even if one accepts all this, the fact remains, as I’ve pointed out several times, that several studies have failed to replicate the prediction of Heuberger’s model. They haven’t found such high levels when samples are provided right after 800 ug. Even the model itself, dog data and all, predicts Froome’s levels would be quite uncommon. You could have a very good argument that even if you swallowed Heuberger hook-line-and-sinker, and completely ignored all the other literature, the case for exoneration still isn't strong enough.

Bottom line, there are several obstacles that have to be overcome for Froome’s defense to be plausible, and arguing that it might be possible to get by the first doesn’t begin to provide an answer.

bigcog said:
The case was dropped because he didn't have a case to answer. If that isn't proving yourself 'clean' in this context I don't know what is.
Nope. NCA has a specific meaning, and it doesn’t apply to Froome’s case.

brownbobby said:
Genuine question MI......do you really think or have any information that suggests the Heuberger report was key?

If so, that is something I would find very surprising given the flaws in the study previously discussed
It was very strongly implied in the statement quoted in VN, which I mentioned in the salbutamol thread:

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,”
Two key phrases here: 1) short period prior to the doping control; and 2) demonstrated within-subject variability.

Only Heuberger, AFAIK, has emphasized the importance of taking samples very soon after inhalation. That is one of the key points of the paper. They also emphasize the great variability. Others have commented on this, too, and have provided empirical support for it, but none I'm aware of has shown that the variability accounts for Froome's level assuming 800 ug.

The latter is one of the immediate criticisms I expect to hear if/when the details are released. Frankly, the decision seems like a gigantic raised middle finger to a lot of salbutamol researchers. I know there are some researchers who have been arguing for years that the variability is so great that the threshold level is unfair, but the actual data that are available don't support Froome's case.

The truth is rarely immediately accompanied by clarity
But announcements of decisions are usually accompanied by details.

armchairclimber said:
Froome has not failed a test. There was no AAF. I know you don't like that, but it is fact. No failed test. And Jeez, don't pretend Valverde is or ever was clean. Iam. as you know, a Valverde fan (now). But he is no cleaner than Froome.
Yes, there was an AAF. Hard to believe that after all this time, there are posters who don’t even understand what an AAF is.
I do understand. I have been around a long time and I'm no fan of Froome, but the whole concept of an AAF is defined by WADA and they say, without equivocation, that he did not have an AAF. You are one of the best posters on here ... come on.
 
Re:

wrinklyvet said:
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.
You cannot believe that some people don't believe the uci?
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
wrinklyvet said:
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.
According to WADA rules Froome's test in Vuelta was an AAF. WADA then breaks its own rules and says it's not an AAF based on the specifics of the case. So basically WADA dismissed its own rules, procedures and testing.
Yes, nobody suggests it did not appear to be an AAF and it may well have been recorded and spoken of as such, but the outcome as declared by the UCI was that they said after all it was not an AAF. That's what they said, as reported. No need to argue round and round over it, is there?
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
wrinklyvet said:
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.
You cannot believe that some people don't believe the uci?
Is there reason to doubt that this happened, "WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF"?
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
roundabout said:
I think variability refers to Froome's test results within that Vuelta, so it was probably more than a theoretical model
To repeat, it was reported that none of his other samples exceeded 600. So there was no evidence of great variability in the Vuelta, other than that one stage. Now maybe the report was wrong, but the variability could not have been that great, because clearly no other sample exceeded the threshold level, or at least the decision level. I don't see how the reference to variability can refer to anything other than the theoretical model. In fact, in that same passage quoted by VN, they note the role of illness. Why? Because Froome's defense was that because of illness, he took much more salbutamol than usual. That is his explanation, as Sam tried to argue, for why one sample could be so much higher than the others.

In theory, you might argue that Froome's other samples showed great variability among themselves, given that he took much less salbutamol, and the highest levels would not be close to the threshold. But given all the other possible factors involved, that would be very hard to argue. Maybe this is what they have meant when they said the case is very complicated, but I don't think the data exist to start that complicated case. You would have to know how much salbutamol Froome took each stage, and when, and if/when he urinated. I think it would be extremely difficult to come to a precise enough conclusion from all that to show that his stage 18 level was consistent with his general physiology when inhaling less. But we will see.

wrinklyvet said:
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.
There was an AAF. That is a fact. It goes into the database. Not all AAFs turn into ADRVs, but that fact does not mean that after a rider is resolved, the AAF disappears as a piece of data. When WADA publishes its stats for 2017, Froome's AAF will be included, though it will not be identified as such or associated with him. If this were not the case, if AAFs were simply deleted when a rider was exonerated, the stats would be useless. (They may be deleted after ten years from ADAMS, but that is another matter).

AFAIK, the only way for it not to be an AAF is if there was some lab mistake in analysis. But nothing in the announcement indicates that was the basis for the decision.
Brailsford at http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-salbutamol-case-decision-is-a-big-moment-for-cycling/
“Chris’s elevated Salbutamol urine reading from Stage 18 of the Vuelta was treated as a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) by the UCI and WADA, which triggered a requirement for us to provide further information. After a comprehensive review of that information, relevant data and scientific research, the UCI and WADA have concluded that there was, in fact, no AAF and that no rule has been broken,” Brailsford said.

“We said at the outset that there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol. This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled.

“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.”
 
Chris’s elevated Salbutamol urine reading from Stage 18 of the Vuelta was treated as a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) by the UCI and WADA,
LOL, I've followed this case since it broke and I never, ever, once, heard the test result described as a "presumed" AAF until today. Let the white-washing begin.

This is from the WADA site:

Decision Limit is a concentration, accounting for the maximum permitted combined uncertainty, above which a WADA-accredited laboratory shall report an AAF.
So there was an AAF. You can’t rewrite history.

will be considered as an AAF unless the athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS), that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.”
Even if Froome had taken and passed that study—he didn’t—there still would have been an AAF. I don’t care what WADA says now, there was an AAF, and while they may say Froome’s sample is no longer an AAF, it does go into the database. Other parts of the WADA website make this very clear, when they list the number of AAFs, along with % that are disposed of in various ways. Even when a rider is cleared, that AAF still exists in the record.

If you will look at the WADA Code, 7.2 and 7.3, it’s clear that as soon as a sample is tested above the decision limit, it becomes an AAF. This is before the rider is even notified, let alone could pass a lab study, so while passing such study might allow him to claim that he no longer has an AAF, obviously he did have one originally.

Now granted, this is just definitions, it doesn't bear on the actual decision, but why misrepresent what it says in your own code? Froome did have an AAF, it wasn't presumed. An AAF by definition is something tentative, it doesn't necessarily mean an ADRV, so there is no need to preface it with "presumed". That's just silly, and shows how much someone is trying to restore his reputation.

Frankly, WADA’s claim that this wasn’t an AAF makes what was already a very fishy situation even worse. They really seem to be trying to revise history.
 
OK, history was re-written if you say so. I'll let this run without further contribution on the point, as it seems to be so important to have it one way rather than the way it was reported by the UCI.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Chris’s elevated Salbutamol urine reading from Stage 18 of the Vuelta was treated as a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) by the UCI and WADA,
LOL, I've followed this case since it broke and I never, ever, once, heard the test result described as a "presumed" AAF until today. Let the white-washing begin.

This is from the WADA site:

Decision Limit is a concentration, accounting for the maximum permitted combined uncertainty, above which a WADA-accredited laboratory shall report an AAF.
So there was an AAF. You can’t rewrite history.

will be considered as an AAF unless the athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS), that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.”
Even if Froome had taken and passed that study—he didn’t—there still would have been an AAF. I don’t care what WADA says now, there was an AAF, and while they may say Froome’s sample is no longer an AAF, it does go into the database. Other parts of the WADA website make this very clear, when they list the number of AAFs, along with % that are disposed of in various ways. Even when a rider is cleared, that AAF still exists in the record.

If you will look at the WADA Code, 7.2 and 7.3, it’s clear that as soon as a sample is tested above the decision limit, it becomes an AAF. This is before the rider is even notified, let alone could pass a lab study, so while passing such study might allow him to claim that he no longer has an AAF, obviously he did have one originally.

Now granted, this is just definitions, it doesn't bear on the actual decision, but why misrepresent what it says in your own code? Froome did have an AAF, it wasn't presumed. An AAF by definition is something tentative, it doesn't necessarily mean an ADRV, so there is no need to preface it with "presumed". That's just silly, and shows how much someone is trying to restore his reputation.

Frankly, WADA’s claim that this wasn’t an AAF makes what was already a very fishy situation even worse. They really seem to be trying to revise history.
Well, you are getting there. Now when you let go of the idea that you have to be right, you might get to where reality is. There is no AAF. FFS move on ... there are bigger fish to fry than Froome and his Salbutamol. Ask questions about Froome's out of competition prednisolone use instead.
 
I read 'presumed' to be in the past-tense of when the AAF was announced it was 'presumed' to be an AAF (by WADA), but now today where WADA have said "the sample may be considered not to be an AAF" it is no longer presumed, because they say it is not an AAF now. Probably looking too deeply into it, it doesn't mean anything much anyway to anything.
 
Mar 15, 2009
349
0
0
Well I'm done with cycling, I've just torched all the recording rules in my DVR.

But I think the real victims of this will be the poor conti and pro-conti guys who will get hammered by the UCI for rest of the season to prove their not weak on doping.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
wrinklyvet said:
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.
You cannot believe that some people don't believe the uci?
:lol:

I don't know who to believe more, if FIFA or the UCI?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY