Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 958 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 
While the extended discussion AICAR testing capabilities of WADA accredited labs is interesting it doesn't belong in this thread. The question about the Cologne lab being the only one capable of testing is certainly pertinent to the discussion (I'm pretty sure every lab is capable of doing IRMS as it is required for testosterone detection), but the surrounding discussion is going a bit off topic.

Thanks!
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
The question about the Cologne lab being the only one capable of testing is certainly pertinent to the discussion (I'm pretty sure every lab is capable of doing IRMS as it is required for testosterone detection)
If only the mods had ways of making sniper talk and not just shutting him up, we might get an actual answer from him to the question...
 
Re: Re:

Catwhoorg said:
Bronstein said:
PremierAndrew said:
Valv.Piti said:
Wait, Sky basically rated him as their worst rider? :D
Fwiw, when Sky were starting up with their aim of producing a British Tour winner within 5 years, they were looking at two riders: Froome and Thomas. Then Wiggins had his Tour in 09 and all the plans changed. It's a shame that Froome's become too common to search the forum history on here, because until recently, you could see posts before the 2011 Vuelta from multiple forumers who seemed very excited about Froome. Ok, not as a potential 4 time Tour winner and the dominant stage racer of his era, but it definitely looked like people expected him to be a challenger for top 5s in major stage races.

Not denying that he's 99% likely to have doped to get where he is right now, but the image of Froome as a talentless kid who cheated his way to the top is also ridiculous
Do you have a source for this?

Kennaugh was the one normally thought of with the comment IIRC
Ah yeah, my bad, you're right.

But anyway, there was some excitement about Froome until he joined Team Sky, after which it all faded away, and then he started getting offered around in 2011
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Bronstein said:

This is f.hilarious. Last week Rick James was in here telling us Brailsford didn’t need the pawn off Froome. Now we find out Brailsford was prostituting Froome to anyone he could find.

And then, if by magic...........

Froome finishes 2nd in the Vuelta by going full genius. What are the chances?
Did Froome perform like that clean? Aw hell naw
Did Froome do anything that Cobo didn't? Aw hell naw

UCI's fault that there is still more than enough incentive for a rider to dope
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
thehog said:
Bronstein said:

This is f.hilarious. Last week Rick James was in here telling us Brailsford didn’t need the pawn off Froome. Now we find out Brailsford was prostituting Froome to anyone he could find.

And then, if by magic...........

Froome finishes 2nd in the Vuelta by going full genius. What are the chances?
Did Froome perform like that clean? Aw hell naw
Did Froome do anything that Cobo didn't? Aw hell naw
Exactly. Froome almost our Cobo’d Cobo. Almost. Poor gear choice on Angliru and some stage seconds lost it. Otherwise he would have and should have won. Fairly awesome seeing he spent week one on the front pacing Wiggins.
 
Aug 12, 2015
63
0
0
A bit off but do we know Froome's blood type? Apart from being T (transfused), what if his blood is of type O? I've heard that this makes possible much more efficient fat burning than other types who run on carbs better.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS