Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

And of course Froome's lawyer Mike Morgan is good at pulling rabbits out of hats

- Impey: A professionally trained pharmacist provides a witness statement admitting to not cleaning up between preparing medicines. A pharmacist could kill someone doing that! And to compound the implausibilities the previous customer's medicine was the banned PED found in Impey's system...

- Armitstead: A professionally trained UKAD tester provides a witness statement admitting to not following correct procedures when trying to locate Lizzie during an early morning hotel visit. UKAD testers only have one thing to do - turn up at the hotel, do their job properly as per their training, and go home an hour later...

- Froome: No doubt Morgan has requested witness statements from everyone involved in the chain of custody of Froome's sample. What odds one of those trained professionals provides a witness statement admitting to not doing their job properly...? Someone in the lab maybe...? A rabbit from a hat...

So basically you're implying Mike Morgan may resort to inciting perjury!? Be careful, i've heard he may know a good Lawyer

Ha! But an incorrect inference. No way Morgan gets his hands dirty. He gets paid whether Froome wins or loses

But Morgan will be exploring all legitimate avenues for getting Froome off. He'll be forensic in his examination of the chain of custody witness statements

Froome's options are most likely narrowing and a procedural snafu might already be the only way of getting him off

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

And of course Froome's lawyer Mike Morgan is good at pulling rabbits out of hats

- Impey: A professionally trained pharmacist provides a witness statement admitting to not cleaning up between preparing medicines. A pharmacist could kill someone doing that! And to compound the implausibilities the previous customer's medicine was the banned PED found in Impey's system...

- Armitstead: A professionally trained UKAD tester provides a witness statement admitting to not following correct procedures when trying to locate Lizzie during an early morning hotel visit. UKAD testers only have one thing to do - turn up at the hotel, do their job properly as per their training, and go home an hour later...

- Froome: No doubt Morgan has requested witness statements from everyone involved in the chain of custody of Froome's sample. What odds one of those trained professionals provides a witness statement admitting to not doing their job properly...? Someone in the lab maybe...? A rabbit from a hat...

So basically you're implying Mike Morgan may resort to inciting perjury!? Be careful, i've heard he may know a good Lawyer

Ha! But an incorrect inference. No way Morgan gets his hands dirty. He gets paid whether Froome wins or loses

But Morgan will be exploring all legitimate avenues for getting Froome off. He'll be forensic in his examination of the chain of custody witness statements

Froome's options are most likely narrowing and a procedural snafu might already be the only way of getting him off

Mmmm So in the 2 examples posted above you're saying that the witness statements (pharmacist/UKAD tester) were correct but only uncovered due to Morgans forensic examinations?

The inference i took, rightly or wrongly, was that you did not think either witness statement was credible, therefore suggesting someone (OK, maybe not Morgan) had incited and/or commited perjury.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

And of course Froome's lawyer Mike Morgan is good at pulling rabbits out of hats

- Impey: A professionally trained pharmacist provides a witness statement admitting to not cleaning up between preparing medicines. A pharmacist could kill someone doing that! And to compound the implausibilities the previous customer's medicine was the banned PED found in Impey's system...

- Armitstead: A professionally trained UKAD tester provides a witness statement admitting to not following correct procedures when trying to locate Lizzie during an early morning hotel visit. UKAD testers only have one thing to do - turn up at the hotel, do their job properly as per their training, and go home an hour later...

- Froome: No doubt Morgan has requested witness statements from everyone involved in the chain of custody of Froome's sample. What odds one of those trained professionals provides a witness statement admitting to not doing their job properly...? Someone in the lab maybe...? A rabbit from a hat...

So basically you're implying Mike Morgan may resort to inciting perjury!? Be careful, i've heard he may know a good Lawyer

Ha! But an incorrect inference. No way Morgan gets his hands dirty. He gets paid whether Froome wins or loses

But Morgan will be exploring all legitimate avenues for getting Froome off. He'll be forensic in his examination of the chain of custody witness statements

Froome's options are most likely narrowing and a procedural snafu might already be the only way of getting him off

Unlike yours ... that appear to be multiplying like a virus in a petri dish. From speculations, to suspicions ... to wild left hooks that whiff badly over the top. C'mon, champ. You coulda been a contender. :lol:

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

And of course Froome's lawyer Mike Morgan is good at pulling rabbits out of hats

- Impey: A professionally trained pharmacist provides a witness statement admitting to not cleaning up between preparing medicines. A pharmacist could kill someone doing that! And to compound the implausibilities the previous customer's medicine was the banned PED found in Impey's system...

- Armitstead: A professionally trained UKAD tester provides a witness statement admitting to not following correct procedures when trying to locate Lizzie during an early morning hotel visit. UKAD testers only have one thing to do - turn up at the hotel, do their job properly as per their training, and go home an hour later...

- Froome: No doubt Morgan has requested witness statements from everyone involved in the chain of custody of Froome's sample. What odds one of those trained professionals provides a witness statement admitting to not doing their job properly...? Someone in the lab maybe...? A rabbit from a hat...

So basically you're implying Mike Morgan may resort to inciting perjury!? Be careful, i've heard he may know a good Lawyer

Ha! But an incorrect inference. No way Morgan gets his hands dirty. He gets paid whether Froome wins or loses

But Morgan will be exploring all legitimate avenues for getting Froome off. He'll be forensic in his examination of the chain of custody witness statements

Froome's options are most likely narrowing and a procedural snafu might already be the only way of getting him off

Mmmm So in the 2 examples posted above you're saying that the witness statements (pharmacist/UKAD tester) were correct but only uncovered due to Morgans forensic examinations?

The inference i took, rightly or wrongly, was that you did not think either witness statement was credible, therefore suggesting someone (OK, maybe not Morgan) had incited and/or commited perjury.

This link is an excellent summary of the many peculiarities of the Impey case. Worth reading the whole thing rather than just the section quoted below. Fair to say the article's author (a "physician with extensive anti-doping experience") has serious doubts about the credibility of the pharmacist's witness statement

https://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Cycling/South-Africa/Daryl-Impey-a-very-unusual-case-20140903

"Impey’s defence was however novel – he claimed that he tested positive because the empty gelatin capsule that he purchased from a pharmacy was contaminated by probenecid, which the pharmacist had dispensed to a patient two hours prior to Impey. Both products were dispensed using the same pill-counter, as confirmed in evidence by the pharmacist.

This is highly unusual for a number of reasons. Probenecid is a rarely used drug nowadays; in fact few pharmacies even stock it. Furthermore, for contamination to occur an uncoated version of the drug must be used in order to produce residue, or the drug must be cut or crushed. This is also rare.

What are the chances of Impey being the person who attends the pharmacy after the patient who was dispensed the rarely used probenecid, in a rare uncoated form?"

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

"Impey’s defence was however novel – he claimed that he tested positive because the empty gelatin capsule that he purchased from a pharmacy was contaminated by probenecid, which the pharmacist had dispensed to a patient two hours prior to Impey. Both products were dispensed using the same pill-counter, as confirmed in evidence by the pharmacist.

This is highly unusual for a number of reasons. Probenecid is a rarely used drug nowadays; in fact few pharmacies even stock it. Furthermore, for contamination to occur an uncoated version of the drug must be used in order to produce residue, or the drug must be cut or crushed. This is also rare.

What are the chances of Impey being the person who attends the pharmacy after the patient who was dispensed the rarely used probenecid, in a rare uncoated form?"

See the Clinic thread on the subject. Once we got to the cross-contamination there was some good contributions, esp IIRC from Merckx index.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

And of course Froome's lawyer Mike Morgan is good at pulling rabbits out of hats

- Impey: A professionally trained pharmacist provides a witness statement admitting to not cleaning up between preparing medicines. A pharmacist could kill someone doing that! And to compound the implausibilities the previous customer's medicine was the banned PED found in Impey's system...

- Armitstead: A professionally trained UKAD tester provides a witness statement admitting to not following correct procedures when trying to locate Lizzie during an early morning hotel visit. UKAD testers only have one thing to do - turn up at the hotel, do their job properly as per their training, and go home an hour later...

- Froome: No doubt Morgan has requested witness statements from everyone involved in the chain of custody of Froome's sample. What odds one of those trained professionals provides a witness statement admitting to not doing their job properly...? Someone in the lab maybe...? A rabbit from a hat...

So basically you're implying Mike Morgan may resort to inciting perjury!? Be careful, i've heard he may know a good Lawyer

Ha! But an incorrect inference. No way Morgan gets his hands dirty. He gets paid whether Froome wins or loses

But Morgan will be exploring all legitimate avenues for getting Froome off. He'll be forensic in his examination of the chain of custody witness statements

Froome's options are most likely narrowing and a procedural snafu might already be the only way of getting him off

Mmmm So in the 2 examples posted above you're saying that the witness statements (pharmacist/UKAD tester) were correct but only uncovered due to Morgans forensic examinations?

The inference i took, rightly or wrongly, was that you did not think either witness statement was credible, therefore suggesting someone (OK, maybe not Morgan) had incited and/or commited perjury.

We have less clarity on the plausibility or otherwise of the UKAD's tester's witness statement in the Armitstead case because Lizzie refused to allow publication of the CAS judgement. I'll concede that there's more scope for *** up rather than conspiracy compared to the Impey case

And indeed this article from Matt Lawton suggests that Lizzie escaped a ban because the UKAD tester didn't approach a team mechanic in the car park. If correct that would be an example of Mike Morgan earning his corm by flagging up a potential procedural irregularity which the CAS panel then chose to hang their hat on

When Morgan chose that line of defence he would have had no idea whether it would work. And that's what Morgan will be doing now for Froome. Explore every possible line of defence (legal/procedural/scientific/medical) and hope something sticks. Pull that rabbit out the hat!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-4497464/Lizzie-Armitstead-s-inclusion-Rio-stays-unexplained.html

"Deignan and her legal team persuaded a CAS hearing the doping officer could have done more to make contact after the receptionist refused to reveal her room number. The doping officer did not reveal their identity but Deignan said, having failed to contact her by phone, the doping officer could have approached a team mechanic she claims was working on bikes in the hotel car park."

 

[thehog]

Outside magazine pulling plenty of punches asking for Froome to be banned:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2277476/suspending-belief?utm_content=buffer7c515&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tweet

Cycling is rife with these sorts of unlikely stories. In 2005, for instance, when Tyler Hamilton was called out for doping, he argued that the small amount of a second type of blood mixed in with his own came from a “vanishing twin,” which, before dying in utero, had left him with traces of its blood. (Of course it wasn’t from a blood transfusion, silly.)

No matter how the decision on Froome turns out, it’s clear that UCI and its anti-doping processes are broken. The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away. If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.

 

[cyclingfan4ever]

Can you imagine if Froome is allowed to ride again, spectators will throw more than a bottle of urine at him in a major race ...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Outside magazine pulling plenty of punches asking for Froome to be banned:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2277476/suspending-belief?utm_content=buffer7c515&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tweet

Cycling is rife with these sorts of unlikely stories. In 2005, for instance, when Tyler Hamilton was called out for doping, he argued that the small amount of a second type of blood mixed in with his own came from a “vanishing twin,” which, before dying in utero, had left him with traces of its blood. (Of course it wasn’t from a blood transfusion, silly.)

No matter how the decision on Froome turns out, it’s clear that UCI and its anti-doping processes are broken. The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away. If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.

Outside Magazine, who before and after the fall knelt at the altar of LA so much you had to think they were fellating him? Where's that salt cellar...

 

[thehog]

Outside magazine pulling plenty of punches asking for Froome to be banned:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2277476/suspending-belief?utm_content=buffer7c515&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tweet

Cycling is rife with these sorts of unlikely stories. In 2005, for instance, when Tyler Hamilton was called out for doping, he argued that the small amount of a second type of blood mixed in with his own came from a “vanishing twin,” which, before dying in utero, had left him with traces of its blood. (Of course it wasn’t from a blood transfusion, silly.)

No matter how the decision on Froome turns out, it’s clear that UCI and its anti-doping processes are broken. The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away. If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.

Outside Magazine, who before and after the fall knelt at the altar of LA so much you had to think they were fellating him? Where's that salt cellar...

This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Moving on, I thought it was a good article, good for a non-cycling publication to reach some of the masses who may not understand the case fully.

 

[pastronef]

Outside magazine pulling plenty of punches asking for Froome to be banned:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2277476/suspending-belief?utm_content=buffer7c515&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tweet

Cycling is rife with these sorts of unlikely stories. In 2005, for instance, when Tyler Hamilton was called out for doping, he argued that the small amount of a second type of blood mixed in with his own came from a “vanishing twin,” which, before dying in utero, had left him with traces of its blood. (Of course it wasn’t from a blood transfusion, silly.)

No matter how the decision on Froome turns out, it’s clear that UCI and its anti-doping processes are broken. The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away. If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.

Outside Magazine, who before and after the fall knelt at the altar of LA so much you had to think they were fellating him? Where's that salt cellar...

This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Moving on, I thought it was a good article, good for a non-cycling publication to reach some of the masses who may not understand the case fully.

like when you posted instagram pics of U23 racers TOTALLY unrelated from Sky, in the Sky thread?

 

[thehog]

You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.

 

[Parker]

You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.

They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.

 

[pastronef]

You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.

They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.

did the pics got deleted from Insta?

 

[Parker]

You forgot to mention the British Cycling juniors were purchasing tramandol much the same Josh Edmondson outlined his time at Sky. Additionally, in recent events have shown Sky and British Cycling are inextricably linked when it comes to doctors and medications. Poor attempt at deflection.

They were nothing to do with British Cycling though. The person who's name was displayed - James McKay - is just a student at York University who does some racing. He has a blog. He goes to Belgium a lot but doesn't seem to have been to Italy or have anything to do with BC.

did the pics got deleted from Insta?

Probably - I haven't been to look. I only saw the screenshot put on here.

 

[fmk_RoI]

This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Please, take your frustrations out using the Report Button, it's why God invented it...

 

[thehog]

This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Please, take your frustrations out using the Report Button, it's why God invented it...

Not required, you could just stay on topic and make life easier for everyone including the mods. That’s the shot!

(noted you backed down from your Outside/Armstrong assertion )

 

[fmk_RoI]

This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Please, take your frustrations out using the Report Button, it's why God invented it...

Not required, you could just stay on topic and make life easier for everyone including the mods. That’s the shot!

(noted you backed down from your Outside/Armstrong assertion )

Whatever you say Hoggy, it must be true.

 

[Merckx index]

From the Outside article:

The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away.

This is a very interesting point. The breathalyzer test assumes that a certain amount of alcohol in the breath corresponds to a certain amount in the plasma, which results in a certain degree of impairment. The driver could argue that his physiology is such that a larger than usual amount of alcohol ends up in the breath, so that his plasma level wasn’t actually that high. Or s/he could even argue, following a blood test, that peculiar physiology resulted in just, say, half a glass of wine resulting in a high blood plasma concentration normally associated with several drinks, but that this did not mean that such a high concentration reached neurons in the brain that control movement and other behavior necessary for driving.

Someone like Morgan or Howard Jacobs (who represented not only Floyd, but also Cesar Cielo and three other Brazilian swimmers who successfully used the contaminated tablet defense before Impey) could have a field day if allowed to defend drunk drivers. The larger point being that when it comes to doping sanctions, WADA bends over backwards to accommodate athletes--beginning with setting the bar for a positive very high to protect against false positives--to a degree that would be considered absurd if applied to ordinary citizens accused of breaking the law.

If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.

That’s not quite true. If Froome drags out the hearing process—e.g., if he managed to deny an appearance before CADF to after the Giro and Tour—he could get a longer than usual ban. This is because Article 10.8 of the Code says that bans begin at the time of the positive sample, while 10.11 says they begin at the time of the hearing. There are exceptions, but they apparently don’t apply to athletes who intentionally stall. So, e.g., if Froome were given a nine month ban in August, following the Tour, he would lose all his results in 2018, plus he could not race again until the following May. This is kind of like double jeopardy, but as I understand it, is done precisely to discourage athletes from trying to drag out the process. If Froome could establish it wasn't his fault that the hearing was delayed, he wouldn't be subject to this increased ban. The nine months would begin with the positive sample, so that in fact he would be free to race following the hypothetical decision in August.

 

[Robert5091]

https://www.idrottsforskning.se/astmamedicin-gor-idrottare-starkare-och-mer-explosiva/
WADA's Danish Vibeke Backer states that Sundby/Froome levels of Salbutamol are PE. Interestingly, the high allowed levels of asthma medicine is because of financial consideration - lower limits would cost a lot due to the legal costs of all the "active asthmatics" that would be caught. No normal asthmatic though would take such large doses and be walking around let alone riding up a mountain

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

https://www.idrottsforskning.se/astmamedicin-gor-idrottare-starkare-och-mer-explosiva/
WADA's Danish Vibeke Backer states that Sundby/Froome levels of Salbutamol are PE. Interestingly, the high allowed levels of asthma medicine is because of financial consideration - lower limits would cost a lot due to the legal costs of all the "active asthmatics" that would be caught. No normal asthmatic though would take such large doses and be walking around let alone riding up a mountain

Thanks for this link. I found it interesting that Backer believes Sundby was definitely trying to take the maximum amount that would test just below the limit (and in fact, he didn’t miss by much; his two positive samples were both around 1350 ng/ml, about 10% above the DL). She basically implicates the team doctor, who in the CAS decision provides a statement justifying Sundby’s use of a nebulizer and very high doses.

“Sundby knew what was going on. Everyone was aware of it, and it was the team doctor who prescribed the medicine. The ethics of team physicians who treat athletes are, unfortunately, not always the best," she said.

I had thought Sundby had a definite medical need for high doses, and certainly the CAS panel bought into this, but Backer doesn’t. The CAS decision also mentions that Sundby at one time was taken off salbutamol because he developed atrial fibrillation, surely a warning sign of overdosing.

Another major significance of the Sundby case is that his lawyers argued for a distinction between how much salbutamol is “taken” or consumed, vs. how much actually gets into the system. This goes back to a point that John S. raised in the very beginning of this thread that I always wondered about, that while nominally one takes in a fixed amount such as 100 ug per puff, tests which measure deposition of the drug on the lungs reveal a lower amount, maybe less than half of this. This obviously has great relevance to interpreting lab studies designed to correlate urine levels with amount inhaled. Sundby’s team in fact claimed, on the basis of some studies cited, that the 15 mg, or 15,000 ug, he took by nebulizer was actually equivalent to only the 1600 ug by inhaling allowed per 24 hour (though Sundby's own lab tests did not support this). The prosecution countered by arguing that all that can be easily and reliably controlled is how much drug is consumed, so the limits have to be based on this.

 

[bambino]

This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Please, take your frustrations out using the Report Button, it's why God invented it...

Not required, you could just stay on topic and make life easier for everyone including the mods. That’s the shot!

(noted you backed down from your Outside/Armstrong assertion )

Whatever you say Hoggy, it must be true.

Why do you call yourself Hoggy?

 

[TourOfSardinia]

he (fmk_RoI) generally hogs the conversation.
l'ultima parola e' mia

 

[Alpe73]

Outside magazine pulling plenty of punches asking for Froome to be banned:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2277476/suspending-belief?utm_content=buffer7c515&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tweet

Cycling is rife with these sorts of unlikely stories. In 2005, for instance, when Tyler Hamilton was called out for doping, he argued that the small amount of a second type of blood mixed in with his own came from a “vanishing twin,” which, before dying in utero, had left him with traces of its blood. (Of course it wasn’t from a blood transfusion, silly.)

No matter how the decision on Froome turns out, it’s clear that UCI and its anti-doping processes are broken. The fact that athletes can return adverse results and continue racing is like giving a drunk driver who fails a breathalyzer test the chance to come up with a good excuse and drive away. If athletes with adverse test results are allowed to keep racing, there’s no motivation for their teams to conclude the affairs quickly and every reason to stretch them—and their possible winning streaks—out.

Outside Magazine, who before and after the fall knelt at the altar of LA so much you had to think they were fellating him? Where's that salt cellar...

This is the Froome thread not the Armstrong. You should take your grievances up on that thread. Not relevant here, sorry. Although since you brought it up, Outside were one of the first to print an exposé on Livestrong so what you are saying is more made up tripe (not unexpected mind you). For reference the article and subsequent issues with Bill Gifford and Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong - “Our fight with Lance and Livestrong”.

Moving on, I thought it was a good article, good for a non-cycling publication to reach some of the masses who may not understand the case fully.

Fair point of argument by FMK, Hog, even on this thread. You use OutsideOnline (Froome) article to support a point. FMK discredits the point by discrediting the credibility of the publication ... based on its seemingly flip flop relationship with Armstrong. Eg. Livestrong vs Stages. I'm with him on that. Not only that ... (here we come Armstrong thread) the O.O. Livestrong article was a sink of soapsuds. Under close reading, there's not much there ... except for those Clinicians who say ... "I see things at night." :lol:

 

[Robert5091]

http://forskning.ku.dk/find-en-fors...is(010debb0-4d61-4658-9b4d-707eba68efaf).html

In conclusion, exercise and dehydration affect urine concentrations of salbutamol and increase the risk of Adverse Analytical Findings in samples collected after inhalation of that maximal permitted (1600 µg) for salbutamol. This should be taken into account when evaluating doping cases of salbutamol.

Bingo! Case dismissed! (throw in some dodgy kidneys on top and we have a winner)