• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1042 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
glassmoon said:
More and more it looks like that extra puffs theory is just cover up for something worse (bad blood bag?) It just doesn't add up the other way.
They've never expected the aaf to show up, now they are willing to get low punishment for extra puffs instead of blood doping questions/accusations imho.

I'd be surprised at a blood bag (for many reasons) mainly due to the Merkcx Index post detailing the numbers & calcs (a really good one). I would say possibly more likely **** up on pill dosage, but who knows.

Does MI"s post address the possibility that it was a combo of inhaled Salbutamol and a Salbutamol contaminated BB?
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
glassmoon said:
More and more it looks like that extra puffs theory is just cover up for something worse (bad blood bag?) It just doesn't add up the other way.
They've never expected the aaf to show up, now they are willing to get low punishment for extra puffs instead of blood doping questions/accusations imho.

I'd be surprised at a blood bag (for many reasons) mainly due to the Merkcx Index post detailing the numbers & calcs (a really good one). I would say possibly more likely **** up on pill dosage, but who knows.

Does MI"s post address the possibility that it was a combo of inhaled Salbutamol and a Salbutamol contaminated BB?

I think it does - it talks about the volumes of blood ie 500ml likely bag size compared with 7l of normal blood and how the concentration in the bag would have to be huge. Also likely if it was a bag, then more likely nowadays to be a frozen spun mixture, etc. Its on the 'Salbutamol' post he started - a great thread.

IF Sky were doing that then I'd be hugely surprised that they would *** that up, indeed its such a well known issue that I'd be surprised if any team got that wrong.
 
brownbobby said:
MartinGT said:
Dawgs just been on sports personality. Same old. Yeh I've had asthma all my life and I've never taken more puffs than I should. Blah blah blah

Just tried to cast my vote for my man. Number not recognised?

I knew they'd fix it to stop him winning :(

He wouldn't win anyway - many others well above him in the pecking order (Lewis H, Harry Kane, etc.). He's no Brad Wiggins in terms of popularity.
 
TheSpud said:
brownbobby said:
MartinGT said:
Dawgs just been on sports personality. Same old. Yeh I've had asthma all my life and I've never taken more puffs than I should. Blah blah blah

Just tried to cast my vote for my man. Number not recognised?

I knew they'd fix it to stop him winning :(

He wouldn't win anyway - many others well above him in the pecking order (Lewis H, Harry Kane, etc.). He's no Brad Wiggins in terms of popularity.

I was kidding, wouldn't vote for no dopers. Mo Farah gets my vote :D
 
brownbobby said:
TheSpud said:
brownbobby said:
MartinGT said:
Dawgs just been on sports personality. Same old. Yeh I've had asthma all my life and I've never taken more puffs than I should. Blah blah blah

Just tried to cast my vote for my man. Number not recognised?

I knew they'd fix it to stop him winning :(

He wouldn't win anyway - many others well above him in the pecking order (Lewis H, Harry Kane, etc.). He's no Brad Wiggins in terms of popularity.

I was kidding, wouldn't vote for no dopers. Mo Farah gets my vote :D

:D
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
]More and more it looks like that extra puffs theory is just cover up for something worse (bad blood bag?)
I'd be surprised at a blood bag (for many reasons) mainly due to the Merkcx Index post detailing the numbers & calcs (a really good one). I would say possibly more likely **** up on pill dosage, but who knows.
Does MI"s post address the possibility that it was a combo of inhaled Salbutamol and a Salbutamol contaminated BB?
I think it does - it talks about the volumes of blood ie 500ml likely bag size compared with normal blood and how the concentration in the bag would have to be huge.
Yes, the reasoning by MerckxIndex and other medically-inclined people was: that to come up with an additional 1000+ ng/ml in the urine, the amount of salbutamol in the blood bag would have to be so massive that it's unlikely. Froome's typical blood volume is probably about 4.5 liters, and if a typical transfusion were 500ml, then there would be a dilution of 1:10 or more.

People such as Jörg Jaksche came out immediately with the idea of blood transfusion, because it's hard to imagine how Sky could blunder so badly on day-to-day doping, and because transfusion fits the context of the racing situation. By analogy with the Contador case of clenbuterol coming back to haunt him when they forgot the possibility of residual drug in the blood bag. But it's not really the same because Contador's clenbuterol was measured in the picogram range, the trace amounts were enough to get Contador busted

Suppose that Froome was supposed to take a certain number of 2-milligram salbutamol tablets, but he was given 4-milligram tablets by mistake, and additionally was puffing his inhaler or something.
Botching the dose of some salbutamol tablets is a leading theory right now

(a) - yes 4.5l rather than 7l is much more likely (I was thinking in terms of pints)
(b) - In terms of Berty he was under the legal limit for clen wasn't he (or it wasn't established at the time, or something)? Were the plasticizers ever confirmed officially?

If they do test and find plasticizers for Froome then its game over. Do / can they regularly test for those?
 
There is no legal limit for clenbuterol. Any amount of it is a doping offence. If I recall correctly, the story at the time was that there was so little of it in his blood that only one lab in the world was able to actually detect it in his sample, but since it was there and the contaminated beef cover story wasn't believed, he got slapped with a ban.
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
]More and more it looks like that extra puffs theory is just cover up for something worse (bad blood bag?)
I'd be surprised at a blood bag (for many reasons) mainly due to the Merkcx Index post detailing the numbers & calcs (a really good one). I would say possibly more likely **** up on pill dosage, but who knows.
Does MI"s post address the possibility that it was a combo of inhaled Salbutamol and a Salbutamol contaminated BB?
I think it does - it talks about the volumes of blood ie 500ml likely bag size compared with normal blood and how the concentration in the bag would have to be huge.
Yes, the reasoning by MerckxIndex and other medically-inclined people was: that to come up with an additional 1000+ ng/ml in the urine, the amount of salbutamol in the blood bag would have to be so massive that it's unlikely. Froome's typical blood volume is probably about 4.5 liters, and if a typical transfusion were 500ml, then there would be a dilution of 1:10 or more.

People such as Jörg Jaksche came out immediately with the idea of blood transfusion, because it's hard to imagine how Sky could blunder so badly on day-to-day doping, and because transfusion fits the context of the racing situation. By analogy with the Contador case of clenbuterol coming back to haunt him when they forgot the possibility of residual drug in the blood bag. But it's not really the same because Contador's clenbuterol was measured in the picogram range, the trace amounts were enough to get Contador busted

Suppose that Froome was supposed to take a certain number of 2-milligram salbutamol tablets, but he was given 4-milligram tablets by mistake, and additionally was puffing his inhaler or something.
Botching the dose of some salbutamol tablets is a leading theory right now
Hmm, they only transfuse 500ml? Thought it would be more. Than, yes, the blood bag theory is kinda falling apart with that...
 
Re:

Saint Unix said:
There is no legal limit for clenbuterol. Any amount of it is a doping offence. If I recall correctly, the story at the time was that there was so little of it in his blood that only one lab in the world was able to actually detect it in his sample, but since it was there and the contaminated beef cover story wasn't believed, he got slapped with a ban.

I'm sure they only detected it because it went to a different lab that tests below a certain level than normal. I maybe wrong like.
 
Re: Re:

glassmoon said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
]More and more it looks like that extra puffs theory is just cover up for something worse (bad blood bag?)
I'd be surprised at a blood bag (for many reasons) mainly due to the Merkcx Index post detailing the numbers & calcs (a really good one). I would say possibly more likely **** up on pill dosage, but who knows.
Does MI"s post address the possibility that it was a combo of inhaled Salbutamol and a Salbutamol contaminated BB?
I think it does - it talks about the volumes of blood ie 500ml likely bag size compared with normal blood and how the concentration in the bag would have to be huge.
Yes, the reasoning by MerckxIndex and other medically-inclined people was: that to come up with an additional 1000+ ng/ml in the urine, the amount of salbutamol in the blood bag would have to be so massive that it's unlikely. Froome's typical blood volume is probably about 4.5 liters, and if a typical transfusion were 500ml, then there would be a dilution of 1:10 or more.

People such as Jörg Jaksche came out immediately with the idea of blood transfusion, because it's hard to imagine how Sky could blunder so badly on day-to-day doping, and because transfusion fits the context of the racing situation. By analogy with the Contador case of clenbuterol coming back to haunt him when they forgot the possibility of residual drug in the blood bag. But it's not really the same because Contador's clenbuterol was measured in the picogram range, the trace amounts were enough to get Contador busted

Suppose that Froome was supposed to take a certain number of 2-milligram salbutamol tablets, but he was given 4-milligram tablets by mistake, and additionally was puffing his inhaler or something.
Botching the dose of some salbutamol tablets is a leading theory right now
Hmm, they only transfuse 500ml? Thought it would be more. Than, yes, the blood bag theory is kinda falling apart with that...

I thought that was the 'usual' dose.

I wonder how it would work if you put in 100ml every / every other night? Enough of a boost? Low enough not to trigger the blood passport? I cant see how that would trigger a salbutamol test (as per Merkcx Index).
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Visit site
A marginal gains approach to pills would probably be a huge amount of different pills for what not.

Some non banned, some with a limit for testing.

Perhaps a sleepy moment in packaging and adminestering gave two of one instead of one of each in this case.

An innocent human error. But the risk of a marginal "little bit of everything" regime.
 
Re:

mrhender said:
A marginal gains approach to pills would probably be a huge amount of different pills for what not.

Some non banned, some with a limit for testing.

Perhaps a sleepy moment in packaging and adminestering gave two of one instead of one of each in this case.

An innocent human error. But the risk of a marginal "little bit of everything" regime.

That's what I'm leaning towards. It fits Ochams Razor better than anything else to my eye, & explains a lot of the subsequent reaction.

Froome either took two, instead of one pills, or the pill didn't metabolize as expected, so the spike happened later & was detectable, or something like that.

Then he was left coming up with BS excuses like the Doctor telling him to take 3 or 4 huffs right before the drug control so, he wouldn't be coughing during interviews :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As we've seen before, Sky have no problem throwing MDs in front of the Bus to save their stars !
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

keeponrollin said:
Froome either took two, instead of one pills, or the pill didn't metabolize as expected, so the spike happened later & was detectable, or something like that.

To repeat what's been said before they can test for oral vs inhalation.
 
Re: Re:

deValtos said:
keeponrollin said:
Froome either took two, instead of one pills, or the pill didn't metabolize as expected, so the spike happened later & was detectable, or something like that.

To repeat what's been said before they can test for oral vs inhalation.

But this is the UCI & Sky we're taking about here; isn't it ??

You know; the ones who only released the fact that there was an AAF, when they knew it was going to be on the front pages the next day ?
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
glassmoon said:
More and more it looks like that extra puffs theory is just cover up for something worse (bad blood bag?) It just doesn't add up the other way.
They've never expected the aaf to show up, now they are willing to get low punishment for extra puffs instead of blood doping questions/accusations imho.

I'd be surprised at a blood bag (for many reasons) mainly due to the Merkcx Index post detailing the numbers & calcs (a really good one). I would say possibly more likely **** up on pill dosage, but who knows.

Does MI"s post address the possibility that it was a combo of inhaled Salbutamol and a Salbutamol contaminated BB?

I think it does - it talks about the volumes of blood ie 500ml likely bag size compared with 7l of normal blood and how the concentration in the bag would have to be huge. Also likely if it was a bag, then more likely nowadays to be a frozen spun mixture, etc. Its on the 'Salbutamol' post he started - a great thread.

IF Sky were doing that then I'd be hugely surprised that they would **** that up, indeed its such a well known issue that I'd be surprised if any team got that wrong.

I'm not convinced the discussion on concentration addressed the possibility I suggested. The got something wrong, not sure what is most or least likely.
 
Re: Re:

deValtos said:
keeponrollin said:
Froome either took two, instead of one pills, or the pill didn't metabolize as expected, so the spike happened later & was detectable, or something like that.

To repeat what's been said before they can test for oral vs inhalation.

It's also been pointed out in more than one post that even when the salbutamol is inhaled, some of it ends up being swallowed, which I can say makes sense to me as someone who has been using a variety of asthma medication for twenty years now.
 
Dec 18, 2017
6
0
0
Visit site
Hey guys,

I am new here. I have been waiting for that moment for a quite while but still a bit disappointed that it's "only" Salbutamol. Excess of Salbutamol doesn't explain crazy past performances (Ventoux, ST Martin, etc..) What really puzzles me is that there is not any journalist doing some real digging for Froome like they did for Lance. For example, talk to former Barloword teams mates to check if Froome had potential, was doping at the time, had asthma, Bilarzia, etc.. Also, check with hotel manager in Tenerife if they really were "zealous" about that missed test. The journalist could also investigate his blood values from bio passport by talking to former panelists. Are they too "clean"? Basically, he won't probably gather real proof but a lot of small hints that would increase pressure and help us to find out the truth.
I think they are plenty of ways to find out if he is fraud or not. What we have now is just the tip of the iceberg. What I want to know and probably other clean riders is that what is he really on (BB, microdosing, new drugs, motor, etc..)?
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
I'm not convinced the discussion on concentration addressed the possibility I suggested. The got something wrong, not sure what is most or least likely.

Red, I don’t think transfusion is going to add much. The factor of 50-100 I suggested is probably an underestimate, and doesn’t take into account another important factor, the relatively rapid rate of clearance; as much as half of the salbutamol may be excreted in the urine within 3 – 4 hours. This means that unless Froome transfused right before the start of the stage, and didn’t relieve himself at any point along the way, he wouldn’t have peak urine concentration when tested at the end of the stage (Froome finished the stage in a time of about 4:20; I don’t know how long after he finished he would have been tested?). If he transfused the evening before, the concentration in his blood would be reduced by a further factor of ten or so. Even if he transfused the morning of the stage, say, shortly after he woke up, there would be a reduction of maybe five times or so. There are, to be sure, a lot of assumptions of linearity underlying these calculations, but when you're talking about several orders of magnitude, they shouldn't matter much. And since the case against Froome doesn't hinge on proving that he transfused, I wouldn't expect any scientific experts who are more familiar with the kinetics than I am to address this in more detail, anyway.

At this point, I’d say that in descending order of probability, the explanations are intentional oral dosing >> accidentally inhaled too much > blood transfusion.

Wrt Contador, since CB is a non-threshold substance, any detectable amount is an AAF. So while the same general math applies to calculating the original amount that would have to be present in the blood during withdrawal, this amount would not have to be very large to produce the very tiny amount detected. Another important difference is that CB is cleared much more slowly than salbutamol; it’s half-life is about ten times greater. This means, among other things, that whether he urinated or not during the stage really doesn’t matter, nor does the timing of the transfusion. One of the most critical aspects of this case, which I can't emphasize enough, is that whether and when Froome urinated makes a really big difference. See below for one important implication.

Comparing the two cases, there are relative advantages and disadvantages for each rider. I think the most important advantage that Froome has at this point is that while CB is well known to have performance enhancing effects, the view is more controversial with salbutamol. There are studies showing it does, and ones showing it doesn’t, and most of the former seem to be anaerobic effects. If this case gets as far as CAS (which I assume it probably would if Froome can’t establish a 2000 ng/ml level in the lab), where not only physical evidence but the motive or psychological state of the rider can also be considered, Froome will definitely point this out, and don’t think for a minute that he can’t find scientific experts who will back him up on this. In fact, that could be one of the benefits of the case, with each side laying out the evidence for and against salbutamol as a performance enhancer.

One other important point I want to mention. Even if Froome wins the case, it could be on a technicality. He has to show that he can get a 2000 ng/ml urine level by taking the drug within the allowed limit. The way to maximize this possibility is to take 800 ug, wait several hours, then provide the urine sample. While 1600 ug/24 hr is allowed, he would have to wait 12 hr after taking the 800 ug, by which time most of it would have been excreted from the urine. Some would be left, but not a great deal.

So suppose he does this, and manages just to get to the 2000 ng/ml level. Presumably, he’s cleared, and all the media will trumpet how he was innocent, didn’t dope, etc. But on the actual stage, is that how it would have happened? For the stage to be like that, he would have to take the entire 800 ug dose right before the start and not stop to relieve himself at any point along the way. But we already know this isn’t entirely true, because he said he took three puffs at the end. And probably when he furnishes the data he claims he has, it will turn out that that he took some of it during the stage. Maybe he urinated. We will find out.

But the bottom line is that the actual stage conditions will almost certainly be different, less conducive to maximum urine level, than the lab. So if he barely makes the 2000 ng/ml level in the lab, he not only has not shown that he could have done it on the stage, it will be strong evidence that he couldn’t have done it on the stage. If he got cleared under those circumstances, there would still be very good reason to doubt that he was within the rules on the stage.
 

TRENDING THREADS