Re: Re:
I think you're right, although don't underestimate how long it can take to the get the relevant experts lined up for matters such as this.
I think the most telling 'clue' we have so far is Froome resorting to bringing in the top (very expensive) lawyers. If he could prove this with medical data alone why would this be necessary. My guess would be that tests have been done, data doesn't fully support his defence, so now he needs the legal angle to try and find some loophole to escape through.
gillan1969 said:mb2612 said:brownbobby said:LaFlorecita said:Good point!mb2612 said: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.
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
I think you're right, although don't underestimate how long it can take to the get the relevant experts lined up for matters such as this.
I think the most telling 'clue' we have so far is Froome resorting to bringing in the top (very expensive) lawyers. If he could prove this with medical data alone why would this be necessary. My guess would be that tests have been done, data doesn't fully support his defence, so now he needs the legal angle to try and find some loophole to escape through.