Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1372 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
All of what we know about whether it's effective is done with certain doses under specific conditions, not always useful in determining if it will work on elite athletes at high doses for supra-maximal effort and such long-duration efforts. So we really don't know it's effective. The Froome positive seemed quite likely a very large dose that hadn't yet cleared by morning. We have no idea how much he actually took, we only know that a very large amount was left in his system at the time of testing. He could have and probably did take way more the night before.

Guys do not take stuff at that level without reason and without it having been tested OOC. Sky and attention to detail, remember? Or is that line conveniently ignored when it doesn't suit those defending him?

He took a very large dose of it on a day he needed to recover, when he'd lost time at the end of a hard stage. Why? In tests with non-elite athletes under sub threshold conditions it showed increased time to exhaustion. Exactly what he needed. Is that the reason? I can't say. But I don't believe for a second they gave it to him for no reason, and the official explanation is laughable.
You're wrong on several counts there based on what is now known. Froome's daily salbutomol record on his Vuelta notes and that read in his labs urine levels showed his increasing dependence of Salbutomol due to worsening illness leading up to the AAF & not a sudden one-off amount of Salbutomol taken on the day you assume he did. That daily use with corresponding urine levels was modelled by Dr Darren Austin of Glaxo who said Froomes inhalation record despite being ramped up within WADA's rules proved the high level in the urine found could be expected. This modelling also proved 10% taking a maximum permitted inhalation amount will AAF under WADA's Salbutomol regime too. Given Glaxo doing this modelling invented Salbutomol & Dr Austin is one of the Worlds leading experts in human pharmacology, in fact Glaxo's Senior Director of Clinical Pharmacology and is telling WADA their regime is broken, doesn't really give WADA or UCI any doubt Froome is innocent, especially when before this model, WADA's own inventor of the Salbutomol regime said he messed up the testing and protocol because it only ever considered short 1 hour time frame of swimmers with full bladders not 3 week bike racing and daily inhalation.
 
You're wrong on several counts there based on what is now known. Froome's daily salbutomol record on his Vuelta notes and that read in his labs urine levels showed his increasing dependence of Salbutomol due to worsening illness leading up to the AAF & not a sudden one-off amount of Salbutomol taken on the day you assume he did. That daily use with corresponding urine levels was modelled by Dr Darren Austin of Glaxo who said Froomes inhalation record despite being ramped up within WADA's rules proved the high level in the urine found could be expected. This modelling also proved 10% taking a maximum permitted inhalation amount will AAF under WADA's Salbutomol regime too. Given Glaxo doing this modelling invented Salbutomol & Dr Austin is one of the Worlds leading experts in human pharmacology, in fact Glaxo's Senior Director of Clinical Pharmacology and is telling WADA their regime is broken, doesn't really give WADA or UCI any doubt Froome is innocent, especially when before this model, WADA's own inventor of the Salbutomol regime said he messed up the testing and protocol because it only ever considered short 1 hour time frame of swimmers with full bladders not 3 week bike racing and daily inhalation.
his self reported daily record?
 
I'm sorry, I don't know whether to laugh or put on a more serious face when I see super-duper sicknotes inhaling millions of times & wailing about their illnesses... whilst blowing watts records to pieces & winning grand tours in cycling.

You're wrong on several counts there based on what is now known. Froome's daily salbutomol record on his Vuelta notes and that read in his labs urine levels showed his increasing dependence of Salbutomol due to worsening illness leading up to the AAF & not a sudden one-off amount of Salbutomol taken on the day you assume he did. That daily use with corresponding urine levels was modelled by Dr Darren Austin of Glaxo who said Froomes inhalation record despite being ramped up within WADA's rules proved the high level in the urine found could be expected. This modelling also proved 10% taking a maximum permitted inhalation amount will AAF under WADA's Salbutomol regime too. Given Glaxo doing this modelling invented Salbutomol & Dr Austin is one of the Worlds leading experts in human pharmacology, in fact Glaxo's Senior Director of Clinical Pharmacology and is telling WADA their regime is broken, doesn't really give WADA or UCI any doubt Froome is innocent, especially when before this model, WADA's own inventor of the Salbutomol regime said he messed up the testing and protocol because it only ever considered short 1 hour time frame of swimmers with full bladders not 3 week bike racing and daily inhalation.
Men with severe illness don't win the Vuelta.
 
You're wrong on several counts there based on what is now known. Froome's daily salbutomol record on his Vuelta notes and that read in his labs urine levels showed his increasing dependence of Salbutomol due to worsening illness leading up to the AAF & not a sudden one-off amount of Salbutomol taken on the day you assume he did. That daily use with corresponding urine levels was modelled by Dr Darren Austin of Glaxo who said Froomes inhalation record despite being ramped up within WADA's rules proved the high level in the urine found could be expected. This modelling also proved 10% taking a maximum permitted inhalation amount will AAF under WADA's Salbutomol regime too. Given Glaxo doing this modelling invented Salbutomol & Dr Austin is one of the Worlds leading experts in human pharmacology, in fact Glaxo's Senior Director of Clinical Pharmacology and is telling WADA their regime is broken, doesn't really give WADA or UCI any doubt Froome is innocent, especially when before this model, WADA's own inventor of the Salbutomol regime said he messed up the testing and protocol because it only ever considered short 1 hour time frame of swimmers with full bladders not 3 week bike racing and daily inhalation.
You're basically summarizing one point of view. There are other opinions on this. It is also flawed, as it is still relying on subjective information from the already identified serial liar
 
You're wrong on several counts there based on what is now known. Froome's daily salbutomol record on his Vuelta notes and that read in his labs urine levels showed his increasing dependence of Salbutomol due to worsening illness leading up to the AAF & not a sudden one-off amount of Salbutomol taken on the day you assume he did. That daily use with corresponding urine levels was modelled by Dr Darren Austin of Glaxo who said Froomes inhalation record despite being ramped up within WADA's rules proved the high level in the urine found could be expected. This modelling also proved 10% taking a maximum permitted inhalation amount will AAF under WADA's Salbutomol regime too. Given Glaxo doing this modelling invented Salbutomol & Dr Austin is one of the Worlds leading experts in human pharmacology, in fact Glaxo's Senior Director of Clinical Pharmacology and is telling WADA their regime is broken, doesn't really give WADA or UCI any doubt Froome is innocent, especially when before this model, WADA's own inventor of the Salbutomol regime said he messed up the testing and protocol because it only ever considered short 1 hour time frame of swimmers with full bladders not 3 week bike racing and daily inhalation.
Have the values from Froome’s other tests during the 2017 Vuelta been made available?
 
Have the values from Froome’s other tests during the 2017 Vuelta been made available?
To Froome, UCI, WADA & Glaxo of course, that's what they used to determine the PK Study wouldn't be useful as his declared Salbutomol use was not just one day like a swimmer. We know how many times he was urine tested, because he was race leader stage 3-21 and CADF test the leader of the race after every stage. So Froome has a 'known' continuous daily record of 19 doping controls in La Vuelta with a corresponding declaration of medication and amounts attached to them. All controls will be urine with a beta-2 level, blood & bio passport in addition on some days too.

Reading the comments above on his inhalation record could just be fabricated, while true to some extent, Froome (or his Dr) does have to declare his beta-2 use & the amounts taken on his doping control form each of the 19 days of controls. It's pretty clear those assumptions above by red_flanders are made not having any idea of how a doping control form works or what is filled in by the athlete/his doctor in reality. We can however, at least assume that at the time of giving his beta-2 declaration (if Salbutomol used that day) existed 19 times in a row, Froome doesn't know he would AAF on one of them. He can't possibly know what his corresponding urine level reading would be against that declaration either as he's only just finished the stage. It would be extremely easy to determine his declared use didn't match the levels found in his urine across those 19 days or had consistency to catch Froome out imo. This was the weakness in Ulissi's case - he didn't declare use and he didn't know how much he inhaled either, although his use was only one day only iirc, so PK Study was used.

Doping Control Form
3. INFORMATION FOR ANALYSIS
DECLARATION OF MEDICATION USE AND BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS: LIST ANY PRESCRIPTION / NON-PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTS, FOR E.G. BETA-2 AGONISTS AND GLUCOCORTICOIDS, TAKEN OVER THE PAST 7 DAYS (INCLUDE DOSAGE AND DATE LAST TAKEN WHERE POSSIBLE) AND (IF A BLOOD SAMPLE IS COLLECTED) ANY BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS RECEIVED OVER THE LAST THREE MONTHS.

So we can safely assume he has a complete inhalation record with corresponding urine level 'known' by WADA, UCI, himself & Glaxo and this is what Dr Austin said he modelled against known human pharmacology for Salbutomol use.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: pastronef
To Froome, UCI, WADA & Glaxo of course, that's what they used to determine the PK Study wouldn't be useful as his declared Salbutomol use was not just one day like a swimmer. We know how many times he was urine tested, because he was race leader stage 3-21 and CADF test the leader of the race after every stage. So Froome has a 'known' continuous daily record of 19 doping controls in La Vuelta with a corresponding declaration of medication and amounts attached to them. All controls will be urine with a beta-2 level, blood & bio passport in addition on some days too.

Reading the comments above on his inhalation record could just be fabricated, while true to some extent, Froome (or his Dr) does have to declare his beta-2 use & the amounts taken on his doping control form each of the 19 days of controls. It's pretty clear those assumptions above by red_flanders are made not having any idea of how a doping control form works or what is filled in by the athlete/his doctor in reality. We can however, at least assume that at the time of giving his beta-2 declaration (if Salbutomol used that day) existed 19 times in a row, Froome doesn't know he would AAF on one of them. He can't possibly know what his corresponding urine level reading would be against that declaration either as he's only just finished the stage. It would be extremely easy to determine his declared use didn't match the levels found in his urine across those 19 days or had consistency to catch Froome out imo. This was the weakness in Ulissi's case - he didn't declare use and he didn't know how much he inhaled either, although his use was only one day only iirc, so PK Study was used.




So we can safely assume he has a complete inhalation record with corresponding urine level 'known' by WADA, UCI, himself & Glaxo and this is what Dr Austin said he modelled against known human pharmacology for Salbutomol use.
All true of course, but there are some assumptions included in this. The AAF is only for one test on one stage is my understanding. If that is the case, then it seems safe to assume that the value returned on the test that yielded an AAF diverged significantly from the values on previous stages’ tests. That is the anomaly that makes the Glaxo and Froome team explanations subject to question. The trend on the values may have been an upward one, but what was the difference on the values of the one stage that yielded an AAF versus the preceding stages. In the absence of those values being available, I think there is reason to ask questions.
 
All true of course, but there are some assumptions included in this. The AAF is only for one test on one stage is my understanding. If that is the case, then it seems safe to assume that the value returned on the test that yielded an AAF diverged significantly from the values on previous stages’ tests. That is the anomaly that makes the Glaxo and Froome team explanations subject to question. The trend on the values may have been an upward one, but what was the difference on the values of the one stage that yielded an AAF versus the preceding stages. In the absence of those values being available, I think there is reason to ask questions.
Well, the anomaly on that / by that day of the AAF is the outcome of the work Dr Austin concluded also. With Professor Fitch, who set the parameters of WADA's Salbutomol regime admitting his study was flawed, he made a grave error etc, I think it's safe to say Froome had AAFd within the limits of the regime just as Professor Fitch had argued Pettachi had too and was innocent.
 
Well, the anomaly on that / by that day of the AAF is the outcome of the work Dr Austin concluded also. With Professor Fitch, who set the parameters of WADA's Salbutomol regime admitting his study was flawed, he made a grave error etc, I think it's safe to say Froome had AAFd within the limits of the regime just as Professor Fitch had argued Pettachi had too and was innocent.
That is where we are left at this point, but Fitch’s argument seems fairly unconvincing on this, as his point was that the threshold was too low for cyclists. Quite reasonable to say so, but if that is the case, why weren’t more cyclists coming back with AAF results? I think it is widely conceded that salbutamol usage in the peloton is widespread, so why was Froome particularly prone to this, and only on one stage? If it is the accumulation of multiple days of usage, that would go toward an explanation, yes, but it becomes even more important to have values for previous tests, since Froome would seem to be even more of an outlier if the peloton as a whole so rarely exceeded the threshold that Fitch states is unfairly low.
 
Reactions: Ripper
That is where we are left at this point, but Fitch’s argument seems fairly unconvincing on this,
Because he is one expert providing a one sided opinion?
as his point was that the threshold was too low for cyclists. Quite reasonable to say so, but if that is the case, why weren’t more cyclists coming back with AAF results?
Because they would all be practically overdosing!! The amount is quite high. At this point, it is no longer therapeutic.
I think it is widely conceded that salbutamol usage in the peloton is widespread, so why was Froome particularly prone to this, and only on one stage?
Because it is BS
If it is the accumulation of multiple days of usage, that would go toward an explanation, yes, but it becomes even more important to have values for previous tests, since Froome would seem to be even more of an outlier if the peloton as a whole so rarely exceeded the threshold that Fitch states is unfairly low.
Good points. See comments above!



*Edited by King Boonen for clarity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is where we are left at this point, but Fitch’s argument seems fairly unconvincing on this, as his point was that the threshold was too low for cyclists. Quite reasonable to say so, but if that is the case, why weren’t more cyclists coming back with AAF results? I think it is widely conceded that salbutamol usage in the peloton is widespread, so why was Froome particularly prone to this, and only on one stage? If it is the accumulation of multiple days of usage, that would go toward an explanation, yes, but it becomes even more important to have values for previous tests, since Froome would seem to be even more of an outlier if the peloton as a whole so rarely exceeded the threshold that Fitch states is unfairly low.
Well we don't know how many riders were also aquitted like Froome for Salbutomol because aquittals generally are not announced and so resolve silently as the AAF doesn't usually get confirmed. We do know however that from 2013-17, 20% of all AAFs for Salbutomol resulted in aquittal and Froome's joined that 20% as the 9th athlete aquitted in 5 years.
 
Well we don't know how many riders were also aquitted like Froome for Salbutomol because aquittals generally are not announced and so resolve silently as the AAF doesn't usually get confirmed. We do know however that from 2013-17, 20% of all AAFs for Salbutomol resulted in aquittal and Froome's joined that 20% as the 9th athlete aquitted in 5 years.
How many were as out of the range as Froome?
How many were on a corrupt team?
How many had a shocking, 180, transformation?
How many had teammates that transformed?
How many had a ride close too improbable in our clean times after not showing that form, recovering from crashes, and quite possibly not be able to pull it off in his prime.
 
Last edited:
How many were as out of the range as Froome?
How many were on a corrupt team?
How many had a shocking, 180, transformation?
How many had teammates that transformed?
How many had a ride close too improbable in our clean times after not showing that form, recovering from crashes, and quite possibly not be able to pull it off in his prime.
Why ask me? The 20% of Salbutomol AAFs resulting in aquittal won't ever be known like Froome's was because the AAF never got leaked to the press before the tribunal!
 
Reactions: pastronef
Then how do we know those acquittals actually happened?
Well, WADA decided to go into a lot of depth about the 98 AAFs for Salbutomol 2013-17 to justify Froome's and even stated it is not unusual for cases involving salbutamol to be concluded without a sanction.
Of course if we want to be selective in what WADA say actually happened, then any argument for or against Froome can be made using WADA figures. Clearly around 20% of AAFs are acquitted, 25% have no case to answer, 50% are sanctioned, nobody has debated this is untrue. I would be surprised if WADA are purposefully falsifying athletes not being sanctioned for Froome/UCI's benefit.
 
Well, WADA decided to go into a lot of depth about the 98 AAFs for Salbutomol 2013-17 to justify Froome's and even stated it is not unusual for cases involving salbutamol to be concluded without a sanction.
Of course if we want to be selective in what WADA say actually happened, then any argument for or against Froome can be made using WADA figures. Clearly around 20% of AAFs are acquitted, 25% have no case to answer, 50% are sanctioned, nobody has debated this is untrue. I would be surprised if WADA are purposefully falsifying athletes not being sanctioned for Froome/UCI's benefit.
Oh I think we can all agree that WADA won't fudge their numbers. But they have turned an eye to a big star, Armstrong. Someone who only got seriously investigated from Landis and the US Government because of US Postal. Something Sky doesn't have.

Froome wasn't just over by a little, he was over by a lot. A rider who unfortunately didn't show to be a top 20 contender, let alone a winner. And there is a lot of differebt riders that get into the top 20 of a GT. Now the common theory is he took something by himself, without Sky as he wasn't deemed a talent. Now we can argue, Sky was rising in favor and power but their riders showed a clear improvement and edge like US Postal.

Turn a different page to a rider comparable to Froome, Contador. Before we start, he is well liked now but that started around 2013. Before he was not liked like he is now. Contador was convicted for a minuscule amount of clenbuterol. Something that is very comparable to albuterol. Both are bronchodilators to helo open the airways. Contador is theorized to have blood doped and the clenbuterol was leftover in the bag. Now they couldn't prove the blood doping and Contador raised some good points to defend himself. But he was convicted, not for doping but for not taking better care of his body and watching what goes in.

Back to Froome. He unlike Contador had a very high amount. I think the stance on this would be different if he was a little over. Now I don't go in this side of the forum a lot, maybe once a week and read a little, but something I haven't seen is Froome pulling a blood bag. With him potentially using albuterol when the bag was taken to help with weight. Then taking more that day to help his ride and opening the airways more. Refueled from more blood and opened airways able to perform at a higher, longer level. Potentially even covering something else.
 
Jul 20, 2020
6
5
45
Well we don't know how many riders were also aquitted like Froome for Salbutomol because aquittals generally are not announced and so resolve silently as the AAF doesn't usually get confirmed. We do know however that from 2013-17, 20% of all AAFs for Salbutomol resulted in aquittal and Froome's joined that 20% as the 9th athlete aquitted in 5 years.
Froome is the Outlier of Outliers
 
Jul 20, 2020
6
5
45
Oh I think we can all agree that WADA won't fudge their numbers. But they have turned an eye to a big star, Armstrong. Someone who only got seriously investigated from Landis and the US Government because of US Postal. Something Sky doesn't have.

Froome wasn't just over by a little, he was over by a lot. A rider who unfortunately didn't show to be a top 20 contender, let alone a winner. And there is a lot of differebt riders that get into the top 20 of a GT. Now the common theory is he took something by himself, without Sky as he wasn't deemed a talent. Now we can argue, Sky was rising in favor and power but their riders showed a clear improvement and edge like US Postal.

Turn a different page to a rider comparable to Froome, Contador. Before we start, he is well liked now but that started around 2013. Before he was not liked like he is now. Contador was convicted for a minuscule amount of clenbuterol. Something that is very comparable to albuterol. Both are bronchodilators to helo open the airways. Contador is theorized to have blood doped and the clenbuterol was leftover in the bag. Now they couldn't prove the blood doping and Contador raised some good points to defend himself. But he was convicted, not for doping but for not taking better care of his body and watching what goes in.

Back to Froome. He unlike Contador had a very high amount. I think the stance on this would be different if he was a little over. Now I don't go in this side of the forum a lot, maybe once a week and read a little, but something I haven't seen is Froome pulling a blood bag. With him potentially using albuterol when the bag was taken to help with weight. Then taking more that day to help his ride and opening the airways more. Refueled from more blood and opened airways able to perform at a higher, longer level. Potentially even covering something else.
Pardon my ignorance but Contador gets nailed for miniscule sh!t and Froome gets free for a very high amount.
 
How many were as out of the range as Froome?
How many were on a corrupt team?
How many had a shocking, 180, transformation?
How many had teammates that transformed?
How many had a ride close too improbable in our clean times after not showing that form, recovering from crashes, and quite possibly not be able to pull it off in his prime.
anti-doping is a LEGAL matter
and the law doesnt *** care is a rider is likeable or what team he rides for of if team mates are strong or wesk or if he shook your firm certainties on the peloton and what´s right or wrong in the wild world of pro cycling.
check my signature quote
 
anti-doping is a LEGAL matter
and the law doesnt *** care is a rider is likeable or what team he rides for of if team mates are strong or wesk or if he shook your firm certainties on the peloton and what´s right or wrong in the wild world of pro cycling.
check my signature quote
I never said anything about Froome being liked or not in this. A lot of his fans say Froome gets hate because he is British, which isn't true (for the most part as there are some).
The law as you put it actually would care if the team had riders performing at a level several notches above what they have before and not showing that same form elsewhere.
 
Reactions: Koronin
anti-doping is a LEGAL matter
and the law doesnt *** care is a rider is likeable or what team he rides for of if team mates are strong or wesk or if he shook your firm certainties on the peloton and what´s right or wrong in the wild world of pro cycling.
check my signature quote
If you think laws and regulations are applied equally to everyone then I have a few bridges to sell you
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts