Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Blanco]

I'm with Jaksche and Digger with this. Blood bag. Huge amounts of salbutamol taken between two races, for weight loss. He then withdrew blood for a BB full of salbutamol. He probably wanted to reinfuse it for Angliru stage, but panicked after Los Machucos and get it back straight away.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

My wife is asthmatic and when she has a bad attack she has taken that many puffs. It doesn't have adverse health effects. I also know that during a bad attack, the asthma sufferer will do anything to clear their airway.

As stated above, CF knows all too well the rules regarding the medicine. So...either he miscalculated, or really couldn't breathe. The third alternative is that he's been using salbutamol as a PED all along -- I wouldn't rule that out but since you can get a TUE for it, why?

I'm scratching my head a bit, as I did for Contador. I don't doubt that CF's preparation involves more than pane e aqua, but not sure this is the smoking gun we've been waiting for. On the other hand, he and his team may decide to eat a suspension along with a lot of mea culpas.

If it was that bad for him, surly he wouldnt go onto win the stage by 1'+ ? Surly.

When did Froome ever win a stage by more than a minute? On the day in question he was 23rd @ 10:08. He did gain time on Nibali that day (21 seconds, not more than 60), but so did Kelderman, Zakarin, Contador and Woods. He has lots to explain, and I doubt there can be a satisfactory explanation, but let's not expect things that didn't happen to be explained.


Is it remotely possible that he has discovered/imagined (sportsmen can be very superstitious, and convince themselves of all kinds of nonsense) that Salbutimol can aid recovery, and so he takes something close to the limit after a race? On the day in question, the time gap between the inhalations and the testing was then miscalculated, resulting in the levels. Given the decay that there would have been of any pre/early race dosage, and the lack of use in the later parts of the stage, that might explain a high reading, despite his lack of any apparent respiratory distress in post-stage interviews. It would make no medical sense, but Sky seems to me to be all about trying to skirt around laws and medical logic, and have spent so long on thin ice that it takes only the slightest of flaws in the surface for the blades to go in.

 

[The Hitch]

Tony Martin sums it up very well;

+10000000000

about damn time someone finally stood up & spoke properly on the real matter!! Hope many follow his example, otherwise is Omerta 2.0

WTF?? This has got to be a spoof account right??

At first i was struggling to believe that a senior pro like Martin would get so confused about the difference between an AAF and a doping violation, and therefore the procedures/routes to suspension seperately applicable to each.

Then i saw his reference to Marcel Kittel as a leader in the fight for clean sport and knew this had to be a spoof. Right??

But eh, don't let the facts get in the way of your resentment for all things Sky/Froome.

Cry me a river. Sky hired the likes of Rogers and Lienders (which any intern could have told them were doped) preaching a 0 tolerance policy and hatched their wagon to any and every succesful doper who still hadn't been outed (including Lance pre 2012).

Hypocrisy has been strategy numero uno at Sky Manchester HQ since day 1.

We are supposed to feel sorry for them now that other dodgy riders finally turn on them (for the record cant remember the arguments vis a vis martin)

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

My wife is asthmatic and when she has a bad attack she has taken that many puffs. It doesn't have adverse health effects. I also know that during a bad attack, the asthma sufferer will do anything to clear their airway.

As stated above, CF knows all too well the rules regarding the medicine. So...either he miscalculated, or really couldn't breathe. The third alternative is that he's been using salbutamol as a PED all along -- I wouldn't rule that out but since you can get a TUE for it, why?

I'm scratching my head a bit, as I did for Contador. I don't doubt that CF's preparation involves more than pane e aqua, but not sure this is the smoking gun we've been waiting for. On the other hand, he and his team may decide to eat a suspension along with a lot of mea culpas.

If it was that bad for him, surly he wouldnt go onto win the stage by 1'+ ? Surly.

When did Froome ever win a stage by more than a minute? On the day in question he was 23rd @ 10:08. He did gain time on Nibali that day (21 seconds, not more than 60), but so did Kelderman, Zakarin, Contador and Woods.

I do apologise, I was looking at the GC after the stage.

 

[brownbobby]

This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.

Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.

I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.

So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:

1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.

2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.

3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).

4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.

I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.

Spud

I notice there are a lot of these "Hey everyone - this is what I think!!!" posts from the last remaining beliebers.

Trying to put a cloak of rationality on their opinion, they write long posts about just how complicated the story really is.
Arguments of the "maybe he is guilty maybe he isn't, its more complicated, we just don't know, this is a really complex issue and I am being rational about it" variety.

Its very clear what they are trying to do is to implictly create the illusion that the clinic are just irrational uncivilized barbarian haters who just hate froome because hate hate hate and in typical barbarian fashion jump on any media story without checking the facts.

They always emphasize the - "its just my opinion", in every post, sometimes twice, which feigns humility but in reality its just away for them to distinguish themselves from the mob because then they can claim that in civilized fashion they mark their own opinions whereas us barbarians in the clinic dont even do that.

Its not very distinguishable from the way fraud journos like Syed or Moore or Walsh would mock and cast down the likes of digger as beneath them because they, the great journos adhere to the great journalistic standards such as being sceptical to every story (unless the story comes from the mouth of Brailsford in which case it is accepted 100% as truth) or only accepting truth it a judge signs of on it (or if Brailsford says its true) whereas the plebian digger will just believe stories that haven't even been verified by court - the horror.

In the same way here, Spud and brownbobby play themselves are the representatives of polite society, here to set the mob straight, and of course very brave for doing so.

Lets put an end to this crap.

The rational response to this story isn't to park oneself on the fence (while looking down only at the sceptics) and treat Froome's positive test as a complicated historical question to which even the greatest minds in history would never find an answer.

Its to view him as guilty. THe only argument for a few years now in favour of froome has been that he didn't test positive, everrything else about him screamed guilty, most notably the fact that he lied about everything (always excused as - poor froomie just has a poor memory). You guys dont want us to go over the full gammet of arguments and reasons to doubt Sky, from the book series one could write about Sky's and Froome's lies to the tv soap opera that could be filmed about cyclings problems with doping, from the taint on all TDF winners to the continues weakness of testing etc.

Despite claiming to be commited to cleanliness and transparency they tried to hide the story, just like they tried to hide the jiffy bag story and then lied their teeth off about it, and as a poster above pointed out, these are just the stories that actually got leaked.

Keep acting as the rational ones if you want, in your own minds, but no one is buying it.

Gotta love your hypocrisy Hitch. I could easily find a few examples of you quickly jumping in with both feet when anyone dares to speak on behalf of or put words into the mouth of 'the Clinic'. But eh, you do exactly the same in reverse and that's ok because your mind is made up (your very own words, not me making them up for you) and those with different opinions are just wrong.

Sorry, i'm not falling in line. This 'crap' goes on. You're entitled to your opinion. You don't get to tell me, or anyone else for that matter what mine should be.

You see, its possible to be really, really interested in a story, without having any emotion invested in how that story plays out. I'm not a fan of Froome or Sky. I don't hate them either. I'm a fan of cycling, not just as a sport but as a show. Right now, and indeed for several years Sky/Froome have been the biggest story in town. I'm really, really interested in how that story plays. But i don't really care how it turns out. Like all good stories, eventually it will come to an end, and another one will come along to replace it. I'll probably be really, really interested in that one too, but i probably wont care how it turns out.

So, i keep 'sitting on the fence', there's no motivation to jump down on to either side. I'm an Engineer, years in practice have made me inquisitive but with an aversion to loose ends. So i keep asking questions, i keep replugging in the answers to those questions to new calculations until things compute and the loose ends disappear.

In this forum, that translates to me questioning any theories that are not proven. Trying to make them compute. I enjoy debate, and all this really is, is an enjoyable distraction from the really important stuff in my life.

I'm sorry if this means more to you. I'm sorry if you've got emotional investments tied up here. If cycling for you is about the purity of sport i get that. Keep doing what you're doing for your own reasons.

But please cut out the personal attacks and arrogant assumptions that you know what motivates everyone else.

 

[veji11]

The point about that trigger level it's that it is a shitty arbitrary level that is already quite generous. Sure there might be scientific explanations as to why it was crossed, but it doesn't matter. It was crossed because the athlete and his entourage took a chance by either puffing more or puffing the same amount in a moment when the rider was getting dehydrated. Tough luck in that case, it's like taking cough syrup without reading the notice, or it's like Sharapova forgetting to take one med out of her cocktail of meds because it went on the list of banned substances on january the 1st. You can very realistically argue a case of non-intentionnality. But it shouldn't matter.

Non TUE substances that come with a maximum concentration are *** anyway, but the level, albeit arbitrary has to be enforced otherwise it becomes even worse.

I am pretty sure Sky and Froome weren't trying to "cheat". They were just trying to keep optimizing all the settings to reach best possible performance. They overoptimized in that case by forgetting to take into account dehydration. That's it. Lost title + 9 months out meaning no 2018 season. That's how it has to be.

 

[mb2612]

One thing to note on dehydration, is that the stage was only 4 hours, with a break winning by 10 minutes, and the temperature was only 20 C, and Froome finished well.

As such, it's hard to see a reason why he would be more dehydrated on this stage than on any of the others.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

One thing to note on dehydration, is that the stage was only 4 hours, with a break winning by 10 minutes, and the temperature was only 20 C, and Froome finished well.

As such, it's hard to see a reason why he would be more dehydrated on this stage than on any of the others.

Good point!

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

One thing to note on dehydration, is that the stage was only 4 hours, with a break winning by 10 minutes, and the temperature was only 20 C, and Froome finished well.



As such, it's hard to see a reason why he would be more dehydrated on this stage than on any of the others.

Good point!

No one yet has claimed that he was more dehydrated.

He's admitted (or at least offered as part of his excuse) that he increased his doseage.

So, increased doseage, same levels of hydration = higher levels in the body when tested

 

[buckle]

This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.

Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.

I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.

So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:

1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.

2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.

3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).

4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.

I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.

Spud

I notice there are a lot of these "Hey everyone - this is what I think!!!" posts from the last remaining beliebers.

Trying to put a cloak of rationality on their opinion, they write long posts about just how complicated the story really is.
Arguments of the "maybe he is guilty maybe he isn't, its more complicated, we just don't know, this is a really complex issue and I am being rational about it" variety.

Its very clear what they are trying to do is to implictly create the illusion that the clinic are just irrational uncivilized barbarian haters who just hate froome because hate hate hate and in typical barbarian fashion jump on any media story without checking the facts.

They always emphasize the - "its just my opinion", in every post, sometimes twice, which feigns humility but in reality its just away for them to distinguish themselves from the mob because then they can claim that in civilized fashion they mark their own opinions whereas us barbarians in the clinic dont even do that.

Its not very distinguishable from the way fraud journos like Syed or Moore or Walsh would mock and cast down the likes of digger as beneath them because they, the great journos adhere to the great journalistic standards such as being sceptical to every story (unless the story comes from the mouth of Brailsford in which case it is accepted 100% as truth) or only accepting truth it a judge signs of on it (or if Brailsford says its true) whereas the plebian digger will just believe stories that haven't even been verified by court - the horror.

In the same way here, Spud and brownbobby play themselves are the representatives of polite society, here to set the mob straight, and of course very brave for doing so.

Lets put an end to this crap.

The rational response to this story isn't to park oneself on the fence (while looking down only at the sceptics) and treat Froome's positive test as a complicated historical question to which even the greatest minds in history would never find an answer.

Its to view him as guilty. THe only argument for a few years now in favour of froome has been that he didn't test positive, everrything else about him screamed guilty, most notably the fact that he lied about everything (always excused as - poor froomie just has a poor memory). You guys dont want us to go over the full gammet of arguments and reasons to doubt Sky, from the book series one could write about Sky's and Froome's lies to the tv soap opera that could be filmed about cyclings problems with doping, from the taint on all TDF winners to the continues weakness of testing etc.

Despite claiming to be commited to cleanliness and transparency they tried to hide the story, just like they tried to hide the jiffy bag story and then lied their teeth off about it, and as a poster above pointed out, these are just the stories that actually got leaked.

Keep acting as the rational ones if you want, in your own minds, but no one is buying it.

Gotta love your hypocrisy Hitch. I could easily find a few examples of you quickly jumping in with both feet when anyone dares to speak on behalf of or put words into the mouth of 'the Clinic'. But eh, you do exactly the same in reverse and that's ok because your mind is made up (your very own words, not me making them up for you) and those with different opinions are just wrong.

Sorry, i'm not falling in line. This 'crap' goes on. You're entitled to your opinion. You don't get to tell me, or anyone else for that matter what mine should be.

You see, its possible to be really, really interested in a story, without having any emotion invested in how that story plays out. I'm not a fan of Froome or Sky. I don't hate them either. I'm a fan of cycling, not just as a sport but as a show. Right now, and indeed for several years Sky/Froome have been the biggest story in town. I'm really, really interested in how that story plays. But i don't really care how it turns out. Like all good stories, eventually it will come to an end, and another one will come along to replace it. I'll probably be really, really interested in that one too, but i probably wont care how it turns out.

So, i keep 'sitting on the fence', there's no motivation to jump down on to either side. I'm an Engineer, years in practice have made me inquisitive but with an aversion to loose ends. So i keep asking questions, i keep replugging in the answers to those questions to new calculations until things compute and the loose ends disappear.

In this forum, that translates to me questioning any theories that are not proven. Trying to make them compute. I enjoy debate, and all this really is, is an enjoyable distraction from the really important stuff in my life.

I'm sorry if this means more to you. I'm sorry if you've got emotional investments tied up here. If cycling for you is about the purity of sport i get that. Keep doing what you're doing for your own reasons.

But please cut out the personal attacks and arrogant assumptions that you know what motivates everyone else.

It's an absurdity that in 2017 people continue to maintain that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution in respect of professional sports. The concept of innocent until proved guilty in this context is an anachronism. That Lord Coe himself is seeking to reset every World record in track and field tells you that professional sport is, from the point of view of reputation, insolvent. A WR reset is a declaration of bankruptcy. What irritates Clinicians are the endless bailouts which SKY apologists demand for their own chosen “emotional investments”.

 

[Barbapapa]

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/941257918015528960?s=17

It’s sad seeing the misconceptions that are out there about athletes & salbutamol use. My hope is that this doesn’t prevent asthmatic athletes from using their inhalers in emergency situations for fear of being judged. It is not something to be ashamed of @asthmauk #asthma
6:45 PM · Dec 14, 2017

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

You can tell Froome is full of it. He's obviously willing to talk to the media about this, but has avoided mentioning any facts that could be checked and disputed. For example, the story is that a doctor told him to up his dosage of his puffer. Why not just say that doctor Jones (or whatever) advised me to take an extra 4 (or whatever) puffs when I woke up and another two before the start of the stage. It would put all the onus on the good doctor to defend himself rather than Froome looking dumb and sounding dumber.

John Swanson

Matt Lawton is reporting it was Doctor Derick Macleod with three more puffs. Although it's sources close to the rider given as the source, and they seemingly weren't good enough to pass on the dosage per puff or what his regular number is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5176703/Chris-Froome-hires-anti-doping-lawyers-bid-clear-him.html

Froome doesn’t hire a lawyer after the A or B sample positive, only when the story leaks and he knows he is f£*&ed.

He was going to get away with it, that's why. Sky is protected. They have enjoyed a massive advantage over all other teams. Let's hope things are more even from now on.

The team is likely screwed no matter what, Disney will probably liquidate it as a cost cutting measure once this Fox deal goes through.

If as seems likely Disney's buyout of Fox/SkyTV goes through then James Murdoch is likely become the CEO of the merged entity. And Team Sky is of course James Murdoch's baby. So I wouldn't bank on the plug being pulled on Team Sky. After all Murdoch is shameless when it comes to scandals. He's a good old fashioned win at any cost guy

Indeed it was James Murdoch who gave Brailsfraud a huge bollocking after Team Sky's failed 2010 season. From there Brailsfraud hired Leinders and Sutton told Wiggins he had to start preparing properly. Echoes of the bollockings James Murdoch gave to News of the World executives if the didn't get the big scoops. From there we got the phone hacking scandal

 

[Robert5091]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42350159

... cheating with salbutamol would not just be an extraordinarily amateur way of attempting to secure an unfair advantage but one almost guaranteed to fail.

Unless they knew they'd get away with it.

 

[mb2612]

Re: Re:

One thing to note on dehydration, is that the stage was only 4 hours, with a break winning by 10 minutes, and the temperature was only 20 C, and Froome finished well.



As such, it's hard to see a reason why he would be more dehydrated on this stage than on any of the others.

Good point!

No one yet has claimed that he was more dehydrated.

He's admitted (or at least offered as part of his excuse) that he increased his doseage.

So, increased doseage, same levels of hydration = higher levels in the body when tested

Sure, the obvious defence is presumably something along the lines of:

1) He normally takes 400 mcg a day, 1/4 of the maximum amount
2) As he was suffering more than usual he increased this dosage to the maximum daily amount, 1600 mcg
3) Unbeknown to Froome, his quarterly maximum leaves him with a blood concentration of 500ng/ml (half the limit)
4) He quadrupled his dose and accidentally triggered the test, while still following the rules

As he was tested every day, there should be a measure of salbutamol every day, so if Sky have recorded his daily dose (and surely they keep their medical records) then it could be relatively easy to map the ingestion and excretion quantities.

If the values don't line up, then one possible explanation would be dehydration, as studies have shown that you can get significant spikes in salbutamol though a combination of legal doses and dehydration.

As such, it's useful to know if Froome was more dehydrated on stage 18 than normal, and given the stage and weather, that seems pretty unlikely. It's possible that even on an easy stage he didn't drink and hence got dehydrated, someone could probably go through the footage to check if they were very keen to rule out that possibility.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

One thing to note on dehydration, is that the stage was only 4 hours, with a break winning by 10 minutes, and the temperature was only 20 C, and Froome finished well.



As such, it's hard to see a reason why he would be more dehydrated on this stage than on any of the others.

Good point!

No one yet has claimed that he was more dehydrated.

He's admitted (or at least offered as part of his excuse) that he increased his doseage.

So, increased doseage, same levels of hydration = higher levels in the body when tested

Sure, the obvious defence is presumably something along the lines of:

1) He normally takes 400 mcg a day, 1/4 of the maximum amount
2) As he was suffering more than usual he increased this dosage to the maximum daily amount, 1600 mcg
3) Unbeknown to Froome, his quarterly maximum leaves him with a blood concentration of 500ng/ml (half the limit)
4) He quadrupled his dose and accidentally triggered the test, while still following the rules

As he was tested every day, there should be a measure of salbutamol every day, so if Sky have recorded his daily dose (and surely they keep their medical records) then it could be relatively easy to map the ingestion and excretion quantities.

If the values don't line up, then one possible explanation would be dehydration, as studies have shown that you can get significant spikes in salbutamol though a combination of legal doses and dehydration.

As such, it's useful to know if Froome was more dehydrated on stage 18 than normal, and given the stage and weather, that seems pretty unlikely. It's possible that even on an easy stage he didn't drink and hence got dehydrated, someone could probably go through the footage to check if they were very keen to rule out that possibility.

Very much along the lines of the theory that was in my mind

 

[MartinGT]

https://twitter.com/DamianReilly/status/941265909624266752

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

One thing to note on dehydration, is that the stage was only 4 hours, with a break winning by 10 minutes, and the temperature was only 20 C, and Froome finished well.



As such, it's hard to see a reason why he would be more dehydrated on this stage than on any of the others.

Good point!

No one yet has claimed that he was more dehydrated.

He's admitted (or at least offered as part of his excuse) that he increased his doseage.

So, increased doseage, same levels of hydration = higher levels in the body when tested

Sure, the obvious defence is presumably something along the lines of:

1) He normally takes 400 mcg a day, 1/4 of the maximum amount
2) As he was suffering more than usual he increased this dosage to the maximum daily amount, 1600 mcg
3) Unbeknown to Froome, his quarterly maximum leaves him with a blood concentration of 500ng/ml (half the limit)
4) He quadrupled his dose and accidentally triggered the test, while still following the rules

As he was tested every day, there should be a measure of salbutamol every day, so if Sky have recorded his daily dose (and surely they keep their medical records) then it could be relatively easy to map the ingestion and excretion quantities.

If the values don't line up, then one possible explanation would be dehydration, as studies have shown that you can get significant spikes in salbutamol though a combination of legal doses and dehydration.

As such, it's useful to know if Froome was more dehydrated on stage 18 than normal, and given the stage and weather, that seems pretty unlikely. It's possible that even on an easy stage he didn't drink and hence got dehydrated, someone could probably go through the footage to check if they were very keen to rule out that possibility.

You're joking, right? :lol:

 

[brownbobby]

TheSpud"]

This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.

Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.

I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.

So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:

1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.

2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.

3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).

4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.

I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.

Spud[/quote]


I notice there are a lot of these "Hey everyone - this is what I think!!!" posts from the last remaining beliebers.

Trying to put a cloak of rationality on their opinion, they write long posts about just how complicated the story really is.
Arguments of the "maybe he is guilty maybe he isn't, its more complicated, we just don't know, this is a really complex issue and I am being rational about it" variety.

Its very clear what they are trying to do is to implictly create the illusion that the clinic are just irrational uncivilized barbarian haters who just hate froome because hate hate hate and in typical barbarian fashion jump on any media story without checking the facts.

They always emphasize the - "its just my opinion", in every post, sometimes twice, which feigns humility but in reality its just away for them to distinguish themselves from the mob because then they can claim that in civilized fashion they mark their own opinions whereas us barbarians in the clinic dont even do that.

Its not very distinguishable from the way fraud journos like Syed or Moore or Walsh would mock and cast down the likes of digger as beneath them because they, the great journos adhere to the great journalistic standards such as being sceptical to every story (unless the story comes from the mouth of Brailsford in which case it is accepted 100% as truth) or only accepting truth it a judge signs of on it (or if Brailsford says its true) whereas the plebian digger will just believe stories that haven't even been verified by court - the horror.

In the same way here, Spud and brownbobby play themselves are the representatives of polite society, here to set the mob straight, and of course very brave for doing so.

Lets put an end to this crap.

The rational response to this story isn't to park oneself on the fence (while looking down only at the sceptics) and treat Froome's positive test as a complicated historical question to which even the greatest minds in history would never find an answer.

Its to view him as guilty. THe only argument for a few years now in favour of froome has been that he didn't test positive, everrything else about him screamed guilty, most notably the fact that he lied about everything (always excused as - poor froomie just has a poor memory). You guys dont want us to go over the full gammet of arguments and reasons to doubt Sky, from the book series one could write about Sky's and Froome's lies to the tv soap opera that could be filmed about cyclings problems with doping, from the taint on all TDF winners to the continues weakness of testing etc.

Despite claiming to be commited to cleanliness and transparency they tried to hide the story, just like they tried to hide the jiffy bag story and then lied their teeth off about it, and as a poster above pointed out, these are just the stories that actually got leaked.

Keep acting as the rational ones if you want, in your own minds, but no one is buying it.[/quote]

Gotta love your hypocrisy Hitch. I could easily find a few examples of you quickly jumping in with both feet when anyone dares to speak on behalf of or put words into the mouth of 'the Clinic'. But eh, you do exactly the same in reverse and that's ok because your mind is made up (your very own words, not me making them up for you) and those with different opinions are just wrong.

Sorry, i'm not falling in line. This 'crap' goes on. You're entitled to your opinion. You don't get to tell me, or anyone else for that matter what mine should be.

You see, its possible to be really, really interested in a story, without having any emotion invested in how that story plays out. I'm not a fan of Froome or Sky. I don't hate them either. I'm a fan of cycling, not just as a sport but as a show. Right now, and indeed for several years Sky/Froome have been the biggest story in town. I'm really, really interested in how that story plays. But i don't really care how it turns out. Like all good stories, eventually it will come to an end, and another one will come along to replace it. I'll probably be really, really interested in that one too, but i probably wont care how it turns out.

So, i keep 'sitting on the fence', there's no motivation to jump down on to either side. I'm an Engineer, years in practice have made me inquisitive but with an aversion to loose ends. So i keep asking questions, i keep replugging in the answers to those questions to new calculations until things compute and the loose ends disappear.

In this forum, that translates to me questioning any theories that are not proven. Trying to make them compute. I enjoy debate, and all this really is, is an enjoyable distraction from the really important stuff in my life.

I'm sorry if this means more to you. I'm sorry if you've got emotional investments tied up here. If cycling for you is about the purity of sport i get that. Keep doing what you're doing for your own reasons.

But please cut out the personal attacks and arrogant assumptions that you know what motivates everyone else.[/quote]

It's an absurdity that in 2017 people continue to maintain that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution in respect of professional sports. The concept of innocent until proved guilty in this context is an anachronism. That Lord Coe himself is seeking to reset every World record in track and field tells you that professional sport is, from the point of view of reputation, insolvent. A WR reset is a declaration of bankruptcy. What irritates Clinicians are the endless bailouts which SKY apologists demand for their own chosen “emotional investments”.[/quote]

Eh?? Who said this? Certainly not me. On the contrary, this is what i said yesterday...

"Todays events have been seismic in terms of the doping debate; he's shifted from highly suspicious but innocent until proven guilty, to now being guilty until proven innocent in my mind"

...and the rules specific to this case also make it clear that the burden of proof now lies with Froome, and unless he can produce it he will be found guilty.

So not quite sure who this claim of absurdity is aimed at here

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42350159

... cheating with salbutamol would not just be an extraordinarily amateur way of attempting to secure an unfair advantage but one almost guaranteed to fail.

Unless they knew they'd get away with it.

Sort of like cheating with Clen.

But these things are not always as simple as - they were cheating just with the drug they got caught with

 

[The Hitch]

This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.

Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.

I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.

So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:

1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.

2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.

3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).

4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.

I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.

Spud

I notice there are a lot of these "Hey everyone - this is what I think!!!" posts from the last remaining beliebers.

Trying to put a cloak of rationality on their opinion, they write long posts about just how complicated the story really is.
Arguments of the "maybe he is guilty maybe he isn't, its more complicated, we just don't know, this is a really complex issue and I am being rational about it" variety.

Its very clear what they are trying to do is to implictly create the illusion that the clinic are just irrational uncivilized barbarian haters who just hate froome because hate hate hate and in typical barbarian fashion jump on any media story without checking the facts.

They always emphasize the - "its just my opinion", in every post, sometimes twice, which feigns humility but in reality its just away for them to distinguish themselves from the mob because then they can claim that in civilized fashion they mark their own opinions whereas us barbarians in the clinic dont even do that.

Its not very distinguishable from the way fraud journos like Syed or Moore or Walsh would mock and cast down the likes of digger as beneath them because they, the great journos adhere to the great journalistic standards such as being sceptical to every story (unless the story comes from the mouth of Brailsford in which case it is accepted 100% as truth) or only accepting truth it a judge signs of on it (or if Brailsford says its true) whereas the plebian digger will just believe stories that haven't even been verified by court - the horror.

In the same way here, Spud and brownbobby play themselves are the representatives of polite society, here to set the mob straight, and of course very brave for doing so.

Lets put an end to this crap.

The rational response to this story isn't to park oneself on the fence (while looking down only at the sceptics) and treat Froome's positive test as a complicated historical question to which even the greatest minds in history would never find an answer.

Its to view him as guilty. THe only argument for a few years now in favour of froome has been that he didn't test positive, everrything else about him screamed guilty, most notably the fact that he lied about everything (always excused as - poor froomie just has a poor memory). You guys dont want us to go over the full gammet of arguments and reasons to doubt Sky, from the book series one could write about Sky's and Froome's lies to the tv soap opera that could be filmed about cyclings problems with doping, from the taint on all TDF winners to the continues weakness of testing etc.

Despite claiming to be commited to cleanliness and transparency they tried to hide the story, just like they tried to hide the jiffy bag story and then lied their teeth off about it, and as a poster above pointed out, these are just the stories that actually got leaked.

Keep acting as the rational ones if you want, in your own minds, but no one is buying it.

Gotta love your hypocrisy Hitch. I could easily find a few examples of you quickly jumping in with both feet when anyone dares to speak on behalf of or put words into the mouth of 'the Clinic'. But eh, you do exactly the same in reverse and that's ok because your mind is made up (your very own words, not me making them up for you) and those with different opinions are just wrong.

Sorry, i'm not falling in line. This 'crap' goes on. You're entitled to your opinion. You don't get to tell me, or anyone else for that matter what mine should be.

You see, its possible to be really, really interested in a story, without having any emotion invested in how that story plays out. I'm not a fan of Froome or Sky. I don't hate them either. I'm a fan of cycling, not just as a sport but as a show. Right now, and indeed for several years Sky/Froome have been the biggest story in town. I'm really, really interested in how that story plays. But i don't really care how it turns out. Like all good stories, eventually it will come to an end, and another one will come along to replace it. I'll probably be really, really interested in that one too, but i probably wont care how it turns out.

So, i keep 'sitting on the fence', there's no motivation to jump down on to either side. I'm an Engineer, years in practice have made me inquisitive but with an aversion to loose ends. So i keep asking questions, i keep replugging in the answers to those questions to new calculations until things compute and the loose ends disappear.

In this forum, that translates to me questioning any theories that are not proven. Trying to make them compute. I enjoy debate, and all this really is, is an enjoyable distraction from the really important stuff in my life.

I'm sorry if this means more to you. I'm sorry if you've got emotional investments tied up here. If cycling for you is about the purity of sport i get that. Keep doing what you're doing for your own reasons.

But please cut out the personal attacks and arrogant assumptions that you know what motivates everyone else.

Its just so beautiful to go through the same arguments we had so often before,

and to know that this time, finally, they got him.

Most people who ever heard of froome now just view him as another drug cheat. Thats all we ever wanted.

I wish some of the fallen heroes along the way - sceptic, sniper, dear wiggo, were here to enjoy this. I hope they are looking down on us from twitter land.

 

[brownbobby]

This kind of bears out what I've been saying for months, that Sky have learnt to dope with 'legal' prescription meds as opposed to the old way of EPO and blood bags...seems someone made a miscalculation though, oops.

Ok, so as you I’m a Sky fan and I guess you didn’t expect me or others to post here today (but I bet you were salivating at the prospect). In the past I have sparred with many a Clinic ‘beast’ (you know who you are) about Sky, etc. I guess now its time for me to man up, post and take the flak.

I have responded to the post above for a reason. I’ve always said that I believe that this is what Sky have been doing – pushing the grey areas : Xenon, Cortisone, Salbutamol, etc. within legal limits. I wouldn’t be surprised if Meldonium featured in there at one stage – the comments from Wiggins about being told what they could or couldn’t take, etc. suggests (strongly) that they were operating this way. ie Playing by the letter of the rules – but not the spirit.

So let me lay a few things out here based on Froome’s AAF:

1. Does this come as a surprise to me? No, not really.

2. Am I disappointed? Yes and no – you do what you have to do within the rules to win, unfortunately that is professional sport.

3. Do I think Sky are cheating? That’s a tough one – its been said before that what Sky are suspected of doing isn’t illegal (in a doping sense) but immoral. That to me supports the ‘grey’ area argument that I mentioned above- so technically not doping / cheating. This is where the rules need clarifying, etc. (and yes I do think these rules are exploited).

4. Should Froome be punished? Yes of course – rules are rules, BUT if there is some provable mitigation, etc.it needs looking at. To be honest I can’t see it so I foresee a ban.

I believe I’ve been fairly brave and honest here in posting and opening myself up for the inevitable flak.

Spud

I notice there are a lot of these "Hey everyone - this is what I think!!!" posts from the last remaining beliebers.

Trying to put a cloak of rationality on their opinion, they write long posts about just how complicated the story really is.
Arguments of the "maybe he is guilty maybe he isn't, its more complicated, we just don't know, this is a really complex issue and I am being rational about it" variety.

Its very clear what they are trying to do is to implictly create the illusion that the clinic are just irrational uncivilized barbarian haters who just hate froome because hate hate hate and in typical barbarian fashion jump on any media story without checking the facts.

They always emphasize the - "its just my opinion", in every post, sometimes twice, which feigns humility but in reality its just away for them to distinguish themselves from the mob because then they can claim that in civilized fashion they mark their own opinions whereas us barbarians in the clinic dont even do that.

Its not very distinguishable from the way fraud journos like Syed or Moore or Walsh would mock and cast down the likes of digger as beneath them because they, the great journos adhere to the great journalistic standards such as being sceptical to every story (unless the story comes from the mouth of Brailsford in which case it is accepted 100% as truth) or only accepting truth it a judge signs of on it (or if Brailsford says its true) whereas the plebian digger will just believe stories that haven't even been verified by court - the horror.

In the same way here, Spud and brownbobby play themselves are the representatives of polite society, here to set the mob straight, and of course very brave for doing so.

Lets put an end to this crap.

The rational response to this story isn't to park oneself on the fence (while looking down only at the sceptics) and treat Froome's positive test as a complicated historical question to which even the greatest minds in history would never find an answer.

Its to view him as guilty. THe only argument for a few years now in favour of froome has been that he didn't test positive, everrything else about him screamed guilty, most notably the fact that he lied about everything (always excused as - poor froomie just has a poor memory). You guys dont want us to go over the full gammet of arguments and reasons to doubt Sky, from the book series one could write about Sky's and Froome's lies to the tv soap opera that could be filmed about cyclings problems with doping, from the taint on all TDF winners to the continues weakness of testing etc.

Despite claiming to be commited to cleanliness and transparency they tried to hide the story, just like they tried to hide the jiffy bag story and then lied their teeth off about it, and as a poster above pointed out, these are just the stories that actually got leaked.

Keep acting as the rational ones if you want, in your own minds, but no one is buying it.

Gotta love your hypocrisy Hitch. I could easily find a few examples of you quickly jumping in with both feet when anyone dares to speak on behalf of or put words into the mouth of 'the Clinic'. But eh, you do exactly the same in reverse and that's ok because your mind is made up (your very own words, not me making them up for you) and those with different opinions are just wrong.

Sorry, i'm not falling in line. This 'crap' goes on. You're entitled to your opinion. You don't get to tell me, or anyone else for that matter what mine should be.

You see, its possible to be really, really interested in a story, without having any emotion invested in how that story plays out. I'm not a fan of Froome or Sky. I don't hate them either. I'm a fan of cycling, not just as a sport but as a show. Right now, and indeed for several years Sky/Froome have been the biggest story in town. I'm really, really interested in how that story plays. But i don't really care how it turns out. Like all good stories, eventually it will come to an end, and another one will come along to replace it. I'll probably be really, really interested in that one too, but i probably wont care how it turns out.

So, i keep 'sitting on the fence', there's no motivation to jump down on to either side. I'm an Engineer, years in practice have made me inquisitive but with an aversion to loose ends. So i keep asking questions, i keep replugging in the answers to those questions to new calculations until things compute and the loose ends disappear.

In this forum, that translates to me questioning any theories that are not proven. Trying to make them compute. I enjoy debate, and all this really is, is an enjoyable distraction from the really important stuff in my life.

I'm sorry if this means more to you. I'm sorry if you've got emotional investments tied up here. If cycling for you is about the purity of sport i get that. Keep doing what you're doing for your own reasons.

But please cut out the personal attacks and arrogant assumptions that you know what motivates everyone else.

Its just so beautiful to go through the same arguments we had so often before,

and to know that this time, finally, they got him.

Most people who ever heard of froome now just view him as another drug cheat. Thats all we ever wanted.

I wish some of the fallen heroes along the way - sceptic, sniper, dear wiggo, were here to enjoy this. I hope they are looking down on us from twitter land.

I think when i first joined this forum, it was you who asked me, on the balance of probability, how sure i was that he was doping. You said if i was less than 90% i hadn't been paying attention. I told you i was less than 90%

Well, the last couple of days have been really interesting, and i'm probably well over that 90% mark now.

Still, don't expect the questions and opinion to dry up just yet, still some loose ends flapping about for me.

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

ote="MatParker117"]

You can tell Froome is full of it. He's obviously willing to talk to the media about this, but has avoided mentioning any facts that could be checked and disputed. For example, the story is that a doctor told him to up his dosage of his puffer. Why not just say that doctor Jones (or whatever) advised me to take an extra 4 (or whatever) puffs when I woke up and another two before the start of the stage. It would put all the onus on the good doctor to defend himself rather than Froome looking dumb and sounding dumber.

John Swanson

Matt Lawton is reporting it was Doctor Derick Macleod with three more puffs. Although it's sources close to the rider given as the source, and they seemingly weren't good enough to pass on the dosage per puff or what his regular number is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5176703/Chris-Froome-hires-anti-doping-lawyers-bid-clear-him.html

Froome doesn’t hire a lawyer after the A or B sample positive, only when the story leaks and he knows he is f£*&ed.

He was going to get away with it, that's why. Sky is protected. They have enjoyed a massive advantage over all other teams. Let's hope things are more even from now on.

The team is likely screwed no matter what, Disney will probably liquidate it as a cost cutting measure once this Fox deal goes through.

If as seems likely Disney's buyout of Fox/SkyTV goes through then James Murdoch is likely become the CEO of the merged entity. And Team Sky is of course James Murdoch's baby. So I wouldn't bank on the plug being pulled on Team Sky. After all Murdoch is shameless when it comes to scandals. He's a good old fashioned win at any cost guy

Indeed it was James Murdoch who gave Brailsfraud a huge bollocking after Team Sky's failed 2010 season. From there Brailsfraud hired Leinders and Sutton told Wiggins he had to start preparing properly. Echoes of the bollockings James Murdoch gave to News of the World executives if the didn't get the big scoops. From there we got the phone hacking scandal[/quote]


Bob Iger will remain through 2021, think no matter what Disney will fold the team.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

One thing to note on dehydration, is that the stage was only 4 hours, with a break winning by 10 minutes, and the temperature was only 20 C, and Froome finished well.



As such, it's hard to see a reason why he would be more dehydrated on this stage than on any of the others.

Good point!

No one yet has claimed that he was more dehydrated.

He's admitted (or at least offered as part of his excuse) that he increased his doseage.

So, increased doseage, same levels of hydration = higher levels in the body when tested

Sure, the obvious defence is presumably something along the lines of:

1) He normally takes 400 mcg a day, 1/4 of the maximum amount
2) As he was suffering more than usual he increased this dosage to the maximum daily amount, 1600 mcg
3) Unbeknown to Froome, his quarterly maximum leaves him with a blood concentration of 500ng/ml (half the limit)
4) He quadrupled his dose and accidentally triggered the test, while still following the rules

As he was tested every day, there should be a measure of salbutamol every day, so if Sky have recorded his daily dose (and surely they keep their medical records) then it could be relatively easy to map the ingestion and excretion quantities.

If the values don't line up, then one possible explanation would be dehydration, as studies have shown that you can get significant spikes in salbutamol though a combination of legal doses and dehydration.

As such, it's useful to know if Froome was more dehydrated on stage 18 than normal, and given the stage and weather, that seems pretty unlikely. It's possible that even on an easy stage he didn't drink and hence got dehydrated, someone could probably go through the footage to check if they were very keen to rule out that possibility.

then these figures would be replicated in the study he'll be undertaking and submiting to the UCI

With what is at stake I would imagine that this study would have already been undertaken and the results not replicated...otherwise the issue would already have been resolved

 

[Bronstein]

Froome pulling an Armstrong:

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/941257918015528960?s=17

It’s sad seeing the misconceptions that are out there about athletes & salbutamol use. My hope is that this doesn’t prevent asthmatic athletes from using their inhalers in emergency situations for fear of being judged. It is not something to be ashamed of @asthmauk #asthma
6:45 PM · Dec 14, 2017

at one with the asthma community...I await a charity - livefroome