Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 957 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

sniper said:
To my knowledge (correct me if wrong) UCI under Cookson have systematically ignored the Cologne lab sending their samples to Malabry and Lausanne instead.
Are we really back to this canard? I really think that if people are going to claim that the UCI is not using the Cologne lab - or are using the Cologne lap less under Cookson than under previous presidents - they really should provide some evidence to support the assertion. So what have you got sniper: chapter and verse from the WADA lab reports? Citations from the CADF's reports? Or just anecdotal evidence: you heard another repeat this little piece of BS on this board and reckon that's evidence enough to pass your notoriously low threshold for truthfulness?
 
Aug 17, 2016
56
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
sniper said:
Last time I checked there is a complex urine test for Aicar, approved since 2013.
So no problem for Froome 2011+2012.
Moreover, the only lab doing the tests is Cologne.
To my knowledge (correct me if wrong) UCI under Cookson have systematically ignored the Cologne lab sending their samples to Malabry and Lausanne instead.
So no problem for Froome 2013-present either.
Exactly. Clear that is was used the 2011 and 2012, perhaps in 2013. The change in body shape especially 2012 was astounding. 2013 I see a mix pre-Tour and a motor used on Ventoux.
WALOFS!

Please to be producing any evidence of a motor on a TDF bike. Especially one that doesn't require batteries. Doesn't produce excess heat. Doesn't produce radio interference. Doesn't weigh anything. And can be guaranteed to work without jamming your bottom bracket and causing a nasty crash.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
I'm having Froome on a motor already in 2011, when Blem joins Sky, Julich is there (CSC->Riis->motors), and Froome moves to Monaco (->home of Typhoon, amongst other e-bike sellers). All stars aligned for high end motorization.
That said, I still think PEDs including AICAR and the more traditional stuff were crucial, if only to maximize the effect of a motor.
 
Re:

sniper said:
Last time I checked there is a complex urine test for Aicar, approved since 2013.
So no problem for Froome 2011+2012.
Moreover, the only lab doing the tests is Cologne.
To my knowledge (correct me if wrong) UCI under Cookson have systematically ignored the Cologne lab sending their samples to Malabry and Lausanne instead.
So no problem for Froome 2013-present either.
Funny thing is, Ive never seen one tenth of the kind of research and doping knowledge and awereness, that sniper put into this 1 post, in any of the posts, speeches, articles, press conferences in defense of Sky.

They all just repeat clichés like "you don't know hes doping", "tests catch riders", "trains harder".

But isn't it funny that every single person who like sniper has researched doping, knows a little about how the tests work, where the are sent, knows a little bit about doping history, believes that the top of cycling (and all sport), is still rife with doping. Very few of the people in this group, are amongst those that follow the wishful logic that Bolt/ Radcliffe/ Froome, were ubermensch who through hard work and all round morality beat all the bad guys.

For those who choose to remain ignorant about doping, but remain adamant that Froome is clean cos he rides for their favourite country, that should be a bit disheartening (if you care about the truth at least)
 
Re:

sniper said:
Last time I checked there is a complex urine test for Aicar, approved since 2013.
So no problem for Froome 2011+2012.
Moreover, the only lab doing the tests is Cologne.
From the CN report on that new test:
Researchers in Cologne, Germany have developed a test for the 'fitness in a pill' drug called AICAR, Deutschlandfunk.de reported today. [...] Because there is already an existing test approved by WADA for testosterone, it stands to reason that the AICAR version of the test would be easily implemented in WADA-approved laboratories.
Seeing as sniper doesn't do the evidence thing, could someone else please point me to where sniper's extensive research would have showed that only one lab on the whole planet - Cologne - was able to test for AICAR? TIA.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Ive never seen one tenth of the kind of research and doping knowledge and awereness, that sniper put into this 1 post, in any of the posts, speeches, articles, press conferences in defense of Sky.
What some people laughingly call research and knowledge others laugh and say, okay, you know what, I sooo agree with this I'm going to make a total ass of myself praising it sky high.

But hey, you know what they say about a rose by any other name ... it still smells of the manure that nurtured it.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

Thanks Hitch.

I love how every now and then you take the time to tackle some of the recurring motives (or rather: deflections disguised as motives) in fanboyistic commentary.

Loved this post too. Most of us would sigh and pull hairs out of our heads, but you just pick it apart:

The Hitch said:
...
What are you? Some comic book super hero mind reader who has hacked into bennotis brain through the internet? No? Then the above quote is totally false.

You do not in fact know what information bennoti has or does not have. You probably don't know who he is. You also do not know how intelligent he his and whether he is able to process and different parts of information in a better or worse way than you (though judging by your claim to omniscience, I would bet on the latter).
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
sniper said:
Last time I checked there is a complex urine test for Aicar, approved since 2013.
So no problem for Froome 2011+2012.
Moreover, the only lab doing the tests is Cologne.
From the CN report on that new test:
Researchers in Cologne, Germany have developed a test for the 'fitness in a pill' drug called AICAR, Deutschlandfunk.de reported today. [...] Because there is already an existing test approved by WADA for testosterone, it stands to reason that the AICAR version of the test would be easily implemented in WADA-approved laboratories.
Seeing as sniper doesn't do the evidence thing, could someone else please point me to where sniper's extensive research would have showed that only one lab on the whole planet - Cologne - was able to test for AICAR? TIA.
what part of "correct me if wrong" don't you understand?
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
what part of "correct me if wrong" don't you understand?
Which part of could you please, please, please stop posting the first nonsense that comes into your head don't you understand? It's not for others to do your "research" for you - learn to do it yourself and get things right before you post them.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
sniper said:
what part of "correct me if wrong" don't you understand?
Which part of could you please, please, please stop posting the first nonsense that comes into your head don't you understand? It's not for others to do your "research" for you - learn to do it yourself and get things right before you post them.
And are the DCMS "back" already? :lol: :rolleyes:

Have a look in the mirror before you preach fmk.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
fmk_RoI said:
sniper said:
what part of "correct me if wrong" don't you understand?
Which part of could you please, please, please stop posting the first nonsense that comes into your head don't you understand? It's not for others to do your "research" for you - learn to do it yourself and get things right before you post them.
And are the DCMS "back" already? :lol: :rolleyes:

Have a look in the mirror before you preach fmk.

And still waiting for you to show I didn't get it right re AICAR/Cologne.
??? What's the DCMS got to do with this?

It isn't for me to show you got it wrong with AICAR/Cologne - you made the statements, you ought be able to support them. Can you do that?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
going well this 'conversation'.
ask me a normal question and we can talk.
or talk to me like you're talking to your girl-/boyfriend if you want, but then we'd better move on because it's only going to clog the thread.
 
Re:

sniper said:
going well this 'conversation'.
ask me a normal question and we can talk.
or talk to me like you're talking to your girl-/boyfriend if you want, but then we'd better move on because it's only going to clog the thread.
A normal question? 1) What has the DCMS - which you introduced - got to do with this? 2) What is the evidence that only the Cologne lab can test for AICAR? 3) What is the evidence that the UCI has stopped using the Cologne lab under Coookson? These are all things you have raised, are you willing to defend any of them by answering questions about them?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Right. So I did a quick check.

According to UCI, they did use the Cologne lab in 2013.
Iirc, Cookson wasn't there yet.
http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/tour-de-france/2013/no-positive-tests-in-2013-tour-de-france-uci_sto3889820/story.shtml

Then in 2014 and 2015 it seems to be only Malabry and Lausanne:
2014: http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/tour-france-2014-anti-doping-test-results/
2015: http://cadf.prezenz.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CADF-Publication-of-the-number-of-anti-doping-controls-2015-TdF.pdf

Not finding data for 2016 and 2017.
Would be happy for anybody to fill me in on that.

Anyhow, seems like 2013 may have been a risky year for AICAr users after all, assuming UCI did indeed send usable samples to Cologne that year, which we only have UCI's word for.
And the question is why does UCI, under Cookson, subsequently stop using Cologne (at least in 14&15)

All afaict.
Happy to be corrected or complemented on any or all of the above.


edit: On a side, last time I read up on AICAR, I remember reading there were several problems with the reliability of the test/threshold problems mainly. So that would make the whole point about UCI using or not using Cologne moot anyways. No time to look this up though.
 
Re:

sniper said:
It would have been a lot easier if you'd done this checking before posting the claim. But, entirely unexpectedly (not), you produce evidence solely relating to the Tour de France, and not overall testing at other events, out of competition testing, or any re-testing. So, in a nutshell, not really supporting the claim that the UCI doesn't use Cologne any more, is it?
sniper said:
Would be happy for anybody to fill me in on whether UCI used Cologne in 2016/17.
Anyhow, seems like 2013 may have been a risky year for AICAr users after all (assuming UCI did indeed send usable samples to Cologne that year, which we only have UCI's word for.)
A rather wild assumption. But par for the course, with you.
sniper said:
Happy to be corrected or complemented on any or all of the above.
If you're so happy to be corrected why make such a song and dance about it when faced with questions?

And can we get back to the other two questions now, the DCMS and Cologne being the only lab that can test for AICAR? TIA.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
link to potential problems with AICAR test:

"The Aicar Test
Kaykov has been caught [for GW1516] by the WADA Accredited Cologne laboratory, a place with equipment so finely calibrated it caught Alberto Contador in 2010. This matters because the German lab has been testing for Aicar. This substance first appeared in cycling circles when police found traces in waste dumped during the 2009 Tour de France. It has now perfected an Aicar test in that it can detect levels in anti-doping controls. But the substance occurs in the body and there is debate over what constitutes a natural amount and where to draw the threshold but the science is established and anyone using it risks becoming a test case like Kaykov."
http://inrng.com/2013/04/valery-kaykov-gw501516/

I doubt an AICAR positive would stand up in CAS/court (correct me if wrong ;) )
 
Re:

sniper said:
I doubt an AICAR positive would stand up in CAS/court (correct me if wrong ;) )
And yet you argue that the UCI has stopped sending samples to Cologne - which you claim is the only lab on the planet can do the AICAR test - with the obvious implication being they're trying not to find AICAR? You really want to have it every which way you can, don't you: "They're not testing, and even if they are testing the test is useless!"
 
Re:

sniper said:
link to potential problems with AICAR test:

"The Aicar Test
Kaykov has been caught [for GW1516] by the WADA Accredited Cologne laboratory, a place with equipment so finely calibrated it caught Alberto Contador in 2010. This matters because the German lab has been testing for Aicar. This substance first appeared in cycling circles when police found traces in waste dumped during the 2009 Tour de France. It has now perfected an Aicar test in that it can detect levels in anti-doping controls. But the substance occurs in the body and there is debate over what constitutes a natural amount and where to draw the threshold but the science is established and anyone using it risks becoming a test case like Kaykov."
http://inrng.com/2013/04/valery-kaykov-gw501516/

I doubt an AICAR positive would stand up in CAS/court (correct me if wrong ;) )
AFAIK - and people, please, do correct my knowledge here, I am talking off the top of my head here - INRNG doesn't appear to understand the AICAR test, which - once again, AFAIK - comes in two parts: the first looks at AICAR concentration in urine (using established thresholds) and the second seeks to prove that in those cases that exceed the established thresholds the AICAR is exogenous, not endogenous. The thresholds may be a bit of a red herring as it isn't clear whether you can go to step two without triggering step one.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
AFAIK - and people, please, do correct my knowledge here, I am talking off the top of my head here - INRNG doesn't appear to understand the AICAR test, which - once again, AFAIK - comes in two parts: the first looks at AICAR concentration in urine (using established thresholds) and the second seeks to prove that in those cases that exceed the established thresholds the AICAR is exogenous, not endogenous. The thresholds may be a bit of a red herring as it isn't clear whether you can go to step two without triggering step one.
This is correct AFAIK. This appears to be the main study on which the test is based:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Norbert_Baume/publication/261839999_Determination_of_13C12C_ratios_of_endogenous_urinary_5-amino-imidazole-4-carboxamide_1-D-ribofuranoside_AICAR/links/00b7d53c766a83e709000000/Determination-of-13C-12C-ratios-of-endogenous-urinary-5-amino-imidazole-4-carboxamide-1-D-ribofuranoside-AICAR.pdf

The study was published in 2014, whereas I thought the test was put in use at the end of 2013? Presumably there is more than just this one study, since they analyzed urinary concentrations and carbon isotope ratio following AICAR administration to only one subject. However, the normal urinary concentrations and CIRs were determined from a large population of subjects.

It turns out there's a very large variation in both urinary concentrations and CIRs in the normal population, more than for steroids, which have previously been detected by a CIR test. Hence, the thresholds for detection have to be pretty high. In this paper, the authors suggest a urinary concentration threshold of 3500 ng/ml, which is 5-6 times the mean normal concentration.

More worrisome, though, is that in their test subject, the CIR threshold was crossed for only about 40 hours, and the urinary concentration--which is the first step, and which determines whether the CIR is determined--for even less time. So unless an athlete doping with AICAR takes it very frequently, and at a dose as high as in this study (10 g), it would seem that he could avoid a positive.

I also wonder about some of the technical aspects of the study. From Floyd's data, we learned that these CIR results in actual practice aren't necessarily as clear-cut as those published in studies. Floyd's delta values, which measure the isotope ratio difference between the doping substance and some reference compound, were not all above the criterion--as I recall, only two of the four were, whereas in theory they either all should be or none should be. This linked study doesn't address that. Their analysis of a reference or baseline population is pretty thorough, but they need more than one test subject, and data of the reference compounds in those subjects.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts