• 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 1047 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

buckle said:
It's a struggle to find evidence that nebulizers produce higher levels.

Nebulizers allow you to take a very high dose relatively quickly. In Sundby’s case, he took three 5 mg doses in a few hours. I think it would be hard to take that much with a standard inhaler. Btw, Sundby’s example also shows that you can take high doses that are potentially performance enhancing without having cardiac arrest or whatever.

OK so :-

high dosage (the night before?) + usual daily top up + a system which makes AAFs disappear (for some) = a sanctioned leak by a new President to test the waters.

In an event, the input was enormous regardless of the delivery mechanism.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
As a Froome's fan, I will wait for UCI/WADA verdict.
But if he is finally banned I will place him between his great rivals, i.e. Contador and Valverde, in a Big Trash of Cycling Dopers and erase his palmaries from my memory.
It's not bans that make dopers, it's doping that makes dopers.

What is obvious for me so far: his level of salbutamol was two times higher than acceptable level.
If CF doesn't clarify enough the reason >> UCI/WADA will ban him >> CF will be a doper.

What (I assume) is obvious for you: his level of salbutamol is two times higher than acceptable level >> CF is a doper.
 
If you believe 1000 is "acceptable", you are misguided. It is an arbitrary figure devised to exclude accidental positives by being impossible to exceed through taking legal amounts in a legal way. How many positives have there been in tens of thousands of tests?

And twice that?

BTW Dawg is already guilty, he WAS over the limit. The onus is now on him to explain why.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
Re:

(As I've mentioned elsewhere) Froome going into the UCI lab hoping to get an illegal salbutamol output from a legal salbutamol input will I suspect be the last resort of his legal team. Froome's had 3 months to check whether that's possible and the fact that he hasn't been to the UCI lab speaks volumes

What I suspect is happening right now is Froome's lawyer is trying to strike out the AAF via a wide range of legal/procedural/technical arguments. Only if/when that process is exhausted will Froome go into the lab

What's not clear to me is whether the UCI can insist that Froome goes into the lab before he races again. That would be logical but is it in the UCI's rules/regulations anywhere? Surely Froome can't keep brazenly racing while dodging the lab test?!
 
Re:

sittingbison said:
If you believe 1000 is "acceptable", you are misguided. It is an arbitrary figure devised to exclude accidental positives by being impossible to exceed through taking legal amounts in a legal way. How many positives have there been in tens of thousands of tests?

And twice that?

BTW Dawg is already guilty, he WAS over the limit. The onus is now on him to explain why.

Yep Froome's a gonner, If the authorities are fair of course.

What is interesting to me with not being an asthmatic myself, is that in all the recent reading that I have done on Sky riders and their love affair with steroid use for their supposed asthma, everyone including all the asthma sufferers who post here state that the treatments do no more than open the airways to be on an even footing with athletes who don't have asthma. As far as asthma is concerned that is. So in theory extra puffs especially enough to be double the legal limit, should do nothing for you. There for Sky riders are clearly using the steroids under the guise of having asthma for the intentions of doping.

Who can argue with this? Surely the prosecutor will point this out.
 
Re: Re:

Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Red Rick said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
As a Froome's fan, I will wait for UCI/WADA verdict.
But if he is finally banned I will place him between his great rivals, i.e. Contador and Valverde, in a Big Trash of Cycling Dopers and erase his palmaries from my memory.
It's not bans that make dopers, it's doping that makes dopers.

What is obvious for me so far: his level of salbutamol was two times higher than acceptable level.
If CF doesn't clarify enough the reason >> UCI/WADA will ban him >> CF will be a doper.

What (I assume) is obvious for you: his level of salbutamol is two times higher than acceptable level >> CF is a doper.

If Froome is banned the correlation between TDF winners and doping over the last few decades would move even closer to 1. Since the mid 90's The only TDF's not won by suspended athletes would then be 2008 (a lot can be said there) 2011 (even more can be said there) 2012 (basically only hanging on a technicality at the moment)

Move the needle back a bit and you add 5 from Indurain - who by your logic was clean since he wasn't suspended but by everyone else's logic he doped (basically admited it anyway).

So at what point can we say that winning the TDF is enough to say its likely someone dopes?
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
CTQ said:
https://twitter.com/veloropa/status/942689428597886976 In this conversation, Notification of A September 20th and B unknown , between September 20 and December 13. I suppose that You must wait the result of B before starting your procedures to explain why theses results

If someone working for me was alerted to a problem and did nothing about it until after we were 100% sure there was a problem some weeks later, they'd be shown the door. What you're suggesting makes no sense in any business, particularly when the problem has the potential to take down the entire organization.

This argument has no merit whatsoever.

This is such an important question which needs an answer, from UCI.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Red Rick said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
As a Froome's fan, I will wait for UCI/WADA verdict.
But if he is finally banned I will place him between his great rivals, i.e. Contador and Valverde, in a Big Trash of Cycling Dopers and erase his palmaries from my memory.
It's not bans that make dopers, it's doping that makes dopers.

What is obvious for me so far: his level of salbutamol was two times higher than acceptable level.
If CF doesn't clarify enough the reason >> UCI/WADA will ban him >> CF will be a doper.

What (I assume) is obvious for you: his level of salbutamol is two times higher than acceptable level >> CF is a doper.

If Froome is banned the correlation between TDF winners and doping over the last few decades would move even closer to 1. Since the mid 90's The only TDF's not won by suspended athletes would then be 2008 (a lot can be said there) 2011 (even more can be said there) 2012 (basically only hanging on a technicality at the moment)

Move the needle back a bit and you add 5 from Indurain - who by your logic was clean since he wasn't suspended but by everyone else's logic he doped (basically admited it anyway).

So at what point can we say that winning the TDF is enough to say its likely someone dopes?

You forgot 2014.
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Visit site
I am absolutely convinced that the TUE thing should be banned....in all sport. It is a conniving, devious tool to upend the system. Someone has a physical condition that prevents them from competing naturally at the highest level without some chemical intake? then compete at the lower level. What ever level that you can compete naturally without the chemical. it is totally NOT fair to other athletes. There was a time I had heart flutters and i was given medication which kind of silences the heart, that drug is actually banned in Arrow shooting, where a silent heart gives the shooter considerable advantage. Well my Squash game was suddenly at a different level, I could train and play at 3 times my normal intensity without feeling a thing. Should a top Squash athlete get a TUE and use it?? Of course not.

All these top folks with "Asthma" or they say "cycling induced asthma" should drop out of the race if they have to take chemicals. Its the FAIR thing
 
What I don't understand, really, is how Froome would confirm tha giro-tour double without knowing that the B-sample would come out negative OR that the case would somehow go away.

I don't believe that Sky nor Froome would be so naive that they would dare to announce the double without this in mind.

So in my mind, there is little doubt, that someone inside the UCI was trying to make this disappear. And then I think about how ASO has a problem with both UCI and Sky & Froome. It's a wellknown subject that ASO is not a fan of Froome or Sky. So perhaps ASO has a role in this to play too, like they could have been the ones who leaked this.

Israel paid 2 million dollers for Froome to show up, and at the same time Israel is the biggest producer of Salbutamol. Just a fun fact :) :)
 
Re:

sittingbison said:
If you believe 1000 is "acceptable", you are misguided. It is an arbitrary figure devised to exclude accidental positives by being impossible to exceed through taking legal amounts in a legal way. How many positives have there been in tens of thousands of tests?

And twice that?

BTW Dawg is already guilty, he WAS over the limit. The onus is now on him to explain why.

He should already be banned.

"You cheated, but if you can come up with good explanation you will be good. Take all the time you want."

This is a joke...

Im just happy he probably wont win another race anyway after this. Good riddance.
 
Re:

danielovichdk2 said:
What I don't understand, really, is how Froome would confirm tha giro-tour double without knowing that the B-sample would come out negative OR that the case would somehow go away.

I don't believe that Sky nor Froome would be so naive that they would dare to announce the double without this in mind.

So in my mind, there is little doubt, that someone inside the UCI was trying to make this disappear. And then I think about how ASO has a problem with both UCI and Sky & Froome. It's a wellknown subject that ASO is not a fan of Froome or Sky. So perhaps ASO has a role in this to play too, like they could have been the ones who leaked this.

Israel paid 2 million dollers for Froome to show up, and at the same time Israel is the biggest producer of Salbutamol. Just a fun fact :) :)

Yes, i'm intrigued by the source of the leak.

I don't think it was from within Sky. If that was the case i think the Daily Mail (as in Jiffy Bag leak) would have got the story first.

So i veered towards UCI, new French President allowing the story to leak to a French newspaper. Not sure of the link to the Guardian but i'm guessing English print paper thrown into the mix for maximum initial impact.

The ASO option is an interesting one that i hadn't considered. Would they have access to confidential UCI/WADA information like this?
 
Robert5091 said:

Well yeah, but only if you ignore the rest of the quote and the article which it headlines.

What i read is a pretty strong statement of trust and support from Thomas, without missing the opportunity to promote and further his own GT ambitions, which of course we've heard quite a lot of in recent times and way before this story broke.
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
The Hitch said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Red Rick said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
As a Froome's fan, I will wait for UCI/WADA verdict.
But if he is finally banned I will place him between his great rivals, i.e. Contador and Valverde, in a Big Trash of Cycling Dopers and erase his palmaries from my memory.
It's not bans that make dopers, it's doping that makes dopers.

What is obvious for me so far: his level of salbutamol was two times higher than acceptable level.
If CF doesn't clarify enough the reason >> UCI/WADA will ban him >> CF will be a doper.

What (I assume) is obvious for you: his level of salbutamol is two times higher than acceptable level >> CF is a doper.

If Froome is banned the correlation between TDF winners and doping over the last few decades would move even closer to 1. Since the mid 90's The only TDF's not won by suspended athletes would then be 2008 (a lot can be said there) 2011 (even more can be said there) 2012 (basically only hanging on a technicality at the moment)

Move the needle back a bit and you add 5 from Indurain - who by your logic was clean since he wasn't suspended but by everyone else's logic he doped (basically admited it anyway).

So at what point can we say that winning the TDF is enough to say its likely someone dopes?

You forgot 2014.

Tru. My bad.

Though of course a lot can be said about that one as well
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
danielovichdk2 said:
What I don't understand, really, is how Froome would confirm tha giro-tour double without knowing that the B-sample would come out negative OR that the case would somehow go away.

I don't believe that Sky nor Froome would be so naive that they would dare to announce the double without this in mind.

So in my mind, there is little doubt, that someone inside the UCI was trying to make this disappear. And then I think about how ASO has a problem with both UCI and Sky & Froome. It's a wellknown subject that ASO is not a fan of Froome or Sky. So perhaps ASO has a role in this to play too, like they could have been the ones who leaked this.

Israel paid 2 million dollers for Froome to show up, and at the same time Israel is the biggest producer of Salbutamol. Just a fun fact :) :)

Yes, i'm intrigued by the source of the leak.

I don't think it was from within Sky. If that was the case i think the Daily Mail (as in Jiffy Bag leak) would have got the story first.

So i veered towards UCI, new French President allowing the story to leak to a French newspaper. Not sure of the link to the Guardian but i'm guessing English print paper thrown into the mix for maximum initial impact.

The ASO option is an interesting one that i hadn't considered. Would they have access to confidential UCI/WADA information like this?

Testing the waters. The onus in on the Disney board at this stage. ASO to Murdoch: "Dump Sky in exchange for a stage starting at Euro Disney?"
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Rollthedice said:
The Hitch said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Red Rick said:
[quote="

What is obvious for me so far: his level of salbutamol was two times higher than acceptable level.
If CF doesn't clarify enough the reason >> UCI/WADA will ban him >> CF will be a doper.

What (I assume) is obvious for you: his level of salbutamol is two times higher than acceptable level >> CF is a doper.

If Froome is banned the correlation between TDF winners and doping over the last few decades would move even closer to 1. Since the mid 90's The only TDF's not won by suspended athletes would then be 2008 (a lot can be said there) 2011 (even more can be said there) 2012 (basically only hanging on a technicality at the moment)

Move the needle back a bit and you add 5 from Indurain - who by your logic was clean since he wasn't suspended but by everyone else's logic he doped (basically admited it anyway).

So at what point can we say that winning the TDF is enough to say its likely someone dopes?

You forgot 2014.

Tru. My bad.

Though of course a lot can be said about that one as well
It's actually quite remarkable how little controversy he's been considering the teams he's been on
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Visit site
brownbobby said:
Robert5091 said:

Well yeah, but only if you ignore the rest of the quote and the article which it headlines.

What i read is a pretty strong statement of trust and support from Thomas, without missing the opportunity to promote and further his own GT ambitions, which of course we've heard quite a lot of in recent times and way before this story broke.

Thomas has to support Froome. It's only a couple of years ago that he decided to go full genius and get on the same programme after all. Remember G suddenly riding the GT specialists off his wheel on the MTFs - beautiful! Another Sky rider making a miraculous transformation in his late 20s - whoda thunk it! :rolleyes:
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Escarabajo said:
We have to go by sanctions only, otherwise nobody would be spared from the doping accusations.

that's fair for Sastre, Evans, Nibali, even for Wiggins, but not for Indurain where it is established that he was a "normal" 90s turbocharged champ.
 

TRENDING THREADS