• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1309 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I'm talking about the 26 Salbutomol AAFs that exited WADA results management at the explanation stage out of the thousands of AAFs. Froomes AAF was leaked at the presumed stage, not the confirmed stage. The reason a rider is allowed to race with an AAF for Salburtomol, is because there is a high risk of False Positives for Salbutomol (26 in 5 years) according to WADA and so to make an AAF public for those 26 false positives would not protect the rights of those athletes would it. Therefore, just like EPO gets confirmed by the B Sample or athlete accepting the A sample AAF, Salbutomol AAFs have to be confirmed too before made public. That confirmation first involves explanation. If explanation is not believed (26 others were though), THEN the AAF is announced by UCI and rider invited to CPKS to prove his innocence and if still not explained, suspended and sanctioned.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I'm talking about the 26 Salbutomol AAFs that exited WADA results management at the explanation stage out of the thousands of AAFs. Froomes AAF was leaked at the presumed stage, not the confirmed stage. The reason a rider is allowed to race with an AAF for Salburtomol, is because there is a high risk of False Positives for Salbutomol (26 in 5 years) according to WADA and so to make an AAF public for those 26 false positives would not protect the rights of those athletes would it. Therefore, just like EPO gets confirmed by the B Sample or athlete accepting the A sample AAF, Salbutomol AAFs have to be confirmed too until rider gets suspended. That confirmation first involves explanation. If explanation is not believed (26 others were too), THEN the AAF is announced by UCI and rider invited to CPKS to prove his innocence and if still not explained, suspended and sanctioned.
Sam,
the elephant in your room is
in the phrase self-reporting
its just not credible
unless you are
credulous - but you aren't right?
 
Are you honestly arguing WADA Results Management does not allow self-reporting lol? What else does 'Athlete Explanation' mean to you if not self-reporting?
Honestly, you assumed an AAF goes straight to CPKS because that is your previous experience of AAFs for Salbutomol. The early leak however, has now revealed WADA's 'actual' process involves a presumed and confirmation step, just like all other AAFs for all other substances (surprise surprise, WADA uses a confirmation process to protect innocent athletes with Salbutomol AAFs, the same as they do for EPO and 26 others walked free after 'self-reporting'). Froomes case matches their Results Management 'exactly' and you are frustrated, that's all.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Are you honestly arguing WADA Results Management does not allow self-reporting lol? What else does 'Athlete Explanation' mean to you if not self-reporting?
Honestly, you assumed an AAF goes straight to CPKS because that is your previous experience of AAFs for Salbutomol. The early leak however, has now revealed WADA's 'actual' process involves a presumed and confirmation step, just like all other AAFs for all other substances (surprise surprise, WADA uses a confirmation process to protect innocent athletes with Salbutomol AAFs, the same as they do for EPO and 26 others walked free after 'self-reporting') used for Froomes case matches their Results Management 'exactly' and you are frustrated, that's all.

its like groundhog day..................

the explanation bit is to try and get you off...either guilty or innocent...it's not the self-reporting being discussed ( I sense you actually know this)

in doing that you may use evidence

it is the evidence part of this that is being questioned...evidence which relies on self reporting by somebody with millions of pounds worth of incentive to come up with the right number may call into question that evidence...no?

WADA did not think so at least...those with any sense of propriety stand back and say....WTF just happened there!?!?!?!?!????!
 
WADA don't have to believe their 'self-reporting' gillan. What's the problem? You think WADA accepted it at face value? You think it took 9 months to take a hunch and run with it lol. Obviously there is way more to them making a decision than simply how much Froome claims he took, If you don't think WADA would expect anyone to say they took less than the allowed amount you're naive.
Froome has not decided this process, WADA & UCI have. UCI request explanation, Froome gives explanation, UCI ask for more explanation, Froome gives it. UCI ask for WADA to see if there's an AAF here or not, WADA look at everything and say NO, there's no AAF here.

Who do you think needs to show their working out?
 
samhocking said:
His AAF didn't get to the pharmo test though. They didn't even need to prove his dose from what WADA have admitted is wrong with the rules.
Seem like the people that need to be transparent are UCI & WADA. Froome saying what his inhalation record was, clearly wouldn't change their decision would it, if their rules are broken.

I thought he never had an AAF?

Of course they need to prove his dose. Do you understand how the simulation works? The urine values are useless if one doesn’t know how much he inhaled. The whole point of the exercise is to show that a maximally-allowed dose of 800 ug could result in a urinary level above the limit. You can’t simulate that without knowing the dose-level relationship at other values.

And by the way, running simulations based on drug levels is pharmacology.

You're missing the point that the management of an AAF result doesn't require the CPKS. That is only required, if WADA don't believe your initial explanation.

WADA wasn’t involved at that stage, or if they were, they were subordinate to UCI. UCI has responsibility for pursuing the case, not WADA. And UCI clearly did not accept the explanation, that’s why this went on for so many months, and why UCI proposed a sanction, and it went to the Tribunal. When a judge is appointed, it’s way beyond the explanation stage.

The only thing missing for you, is you don't believe WADA considered Froomes explanation and those experts being truthful, therefore YOU require WADA to explain why they were to reach their decision.

Scientific explanations are almost always challenged by other scientists, not because they think they’re not truthful, but because they think they’re wrong.

I'm talking about the 26 Salbutomol AAFs that exited WADA results management at the explanation stage out of the thousands of AAFs. Froomes AAF was leaked at the presumed stage, not the confirmed stage. The reason a rider is allowed to race with an AAF for Salburtomol, is because there is a high risk of False Positives for Salbutomol (26 in 5 years)

According to CN, who asked WADA, there were only eight salbutamol AAFs that were exonerated in that five year period. There were 57 AAFs, and thirty sanctions, but most of the non-sanctioned cases involved TUEs. WADA Code 7.2 spells it out. As soon as the A sample is found to be over the limit, an AAF is recorded. Before the athlete is notified and allowed to have a B sample test, though, a check for a TUE is run. If there is a TUE, the case is dropped then, without even notifying the athlete. It does not go on to the explanation stage.

So eight AAFs that were cleared, out of 38 AAFs not involving TUEs, which in turn resulted from the testing of about 50-75,000 samples of athletes with asthma. I wouldn’t call that a high risk of false positives. Less than 1 in 1000 samples was an AAF, and only 20% of AAFs not involving TUEs were cleared. And we don’t know why they were cleared. Maybe they were able to claim a lab error, or some other technicality.
 
Merckx, UCI Results Management Process follows WADAs. It has its own process within that Explanation process just as other NGBs do too. As we now know CPKS isn't required as part of explanation.

End of the day, pluck all the figures out you want it doesn't mean much. We had 1500 pages of explanation originally, now confirmed as 160, this many AAFs here, that many there, nobody actually knows anything? Clearly nobody knows anything because UCI & WADA don't clearly explain it. One thing I do know, is it's up to WADA & UCI to explain their decision, not Froome and if we still don;t understand how the decision was made, we ask them again until we do as Brailsford says.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
samhocking said:
His AAF didn't get to the pharmo test though. They didn't even need to prove his dose from what WADA have admitted is wrong with the rules.
Seem like the people that need to be transparent are UCI & WADA. Froome saying what his inhalation record was, clearly wouldn't change their decision would it, if their rules are broken.

I thought he never had an AAF?

Of course they need to prove his dose. Do you understand how the simulation works? The urine values are useless if one doesn’t know how much he inhaled. The whole point of the exercise is to show that a maximally-allowed dose of 800 ug could result in a urinary level above the limit. You can’t simulate that without knowing the dose-level relationship at other values.

And by the way, running simulations based on drug levels is pharmacology.

You're missing the point that the management of an AAF result doesn't require the CPKS. That is only required, if WADA don't believe your initial explanation.

WADA wasn’t involved at that stage, or if they were, they were subordinate to UCI. UCI has responsibility for pursuing the case, not WADA. And UCI clearly did not accept the explanation, that’s why this went on for so many months, and why UCI proposed a sanction, and it went to the Tribunal. When a judge is appointed, it’s way beyond the explanation stage.

The only thing missing for you, is you don't believe WADA considered Froomes explanation and those experts being truthful, therefore YOU require WADA to explain why they were to reach their decision.

Scientific explanations are almost always challenged by other scientists, not because they think they’re not truthful, but because they think they’re wrong.

I'm talking about the 26 Salbutomol AAFs that exited WADA results management at the explanation stage out of the thousands of AAFs. Froomes AAF was leaked at the presumed stage, not the confirmed stage. The reason a rider is allowed to race with an AAF for Salburtomol, is because there is a high risk of False Positives for Salbutomol (26 in 5 years)

According to CN, who asked WADA, there were only eight salbutamol AAFs that were exonerated in that five year period. There were 57 AAFs, and thirty sanctions, but most of the non-sanctioned cases involved TUEs. WADA Code 7.2 spells it out. As soon as the A sample is found to be over the limit, an AAF is recorded. Before the athlete is notified and allowed to have a B sample test, though, a check for a TUE is run. If there is a TUE, the case is dropped then, without even notifying the athlete. It does not go on to the explanation stage.

So eight AAFs that were cleared, out of 38 AAFs not involving TUEs, which in turn resulted from the testing of about 50-75,000 samples of athletes with asthma. I wouldn’t call that a high risk of false positives. Less than 1 in 1000 samples was an AAF, and only 20% of AAFs not involving TUEs were cleared. And we don’t know why they were cleared. Maybe they were able to claim a lab error, or some other technicality.

I keep seeing reference to TUE's when referring to previous cases in the past 5 years...but i thought TUE's for Salbutamol were done away with post 2010....or is it the case that you can still apply for a TUE and take more than the threshold doseage?
 
according to the rules UCI shall have IC and OOC Testing authorities over all riders who are subject to its rules, they could ask to their WCC satellite centre in South Africa to do the testing (to ask Froome to provide a sample). Satellite center by the way isn't far away where he lived during his time is SA. Doing the testing and analyzing are 2 differents things.
 
Re:

CTQ said:
according to the rules UCI shall have IC and OOC Testing authorities over all riders who are subject to its rules, they could ask to their WCC satellite centre in South Africa to do the testing (to ask Froome to provide a sample). Satellite center by the way isn't far away where he lived during his time is SA. Doing the testing and analyzing are 2 differents things.
Is the WCC satellite centre in South Africa a WADA accredited lab or is there just the faint possibility that you don't actually understand the issue being discussed?
 
JosephK said:
Froome single-handedly dragging Sky to a top TTT time. Giro? What Giro? lol. Dude is glowing with power. :lol:

Doooode did look strong. Wednesday and Thursday we’ll see how strong he is. Time lost on stage one means Dawg will have to go FR to win this race. Things could get ridiculous :cool:
 
Robert5091 said:
thehog said:
JosephK said:
Froome single-handedly dragging Sky to a top TTT time. Giro? What Giro? lol. Dude is glowing with power. :lol:

Doooode did look strong. Wednesday and Thursday we’ll see how strong he is. Time lost on stage one means Dawg will have to go FR to win this race. Things could get ridiculous :cool:

"Things could get ridiculous"? Did you watch the Giro? :D

True! Would you believe even more ridiculous? :cool:
 

TRENDING THREADS