Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[fmk_RoI]

Such a pity WADA pulled funding from such a solidly researched project before it could be validated.

There were several reasons for this, one of them being that the cat--or blood--was already out of the bag. Since riders now knew the risk of storing blood in this kind of bag, they were likely to avoid it. There are also in principle more direct ways of demonstrating transfusion, based on cellular/molecular changes in the blood, which don't depend on what the blood is stored in, and which can even be applied to frozen samples, which would not be the case for the DEHP test. (There is some solid research in this area, too, but it hasn't led to a test yet).

But because DEHP is an environmental pollutant, and is now pervasive in society, there have been literally tens of thousands of individuals whose urine levels have been determined, so I repeat, there is very solid research. This research has established a mean level that is far below what a rider transfusing blood would frequently demonstrate. The test could have been used, and AFAIK, it's still possible to use it as supplementary evidence if not as a standalone test. But as I have pointed out numerous times here, the most recent just a few days ago wrt Froome, WADA goes out of its way to avoid false positives, to the point of making it fairly easy for riders to avoid real ones.

So it would be fair to say, then, that it was a bit of a stretch to include it in the Bert case, all things considered?

 

[Merckx index]

So it would be fair to say, then, that it was a bit of a stretch to include it in the Bert case, all things considered?

Not at all. It provided very useful information. Remember that while CAS concluded it was a contaminated supplement, they clearly weren't very confident in the decision--it was like a political candidate winning office with less than a majority of the vote--and Contador himself denied at the outset that he had taken any supplements.

Back to Froome. His Giro strategy ought to be affected by his salbutamol case. It was just reported that his trainer, I think it was, said Froome wasn't 100% yet, and that was by plan, since he has to conserve energy for the Tour. But the blunt reality is that he very likely will not be able to ride the Tour, and will probably be able to keep Giro results, so IMO he ought to go all out to win this GT, hold nothing back. If a minor miracle happens, and he either isn't banned before the Tour, or any ban isn't proactive, he can deal with that as it happens. But he seems to be in denial, that the Giro is probably the only chance he's going to have this year.

OTOH, if he turns out not be competitive in the Giro--and the injury and the time losses at least hint that he might not be--then he needs to think about abandoning, trying to get a retroactive ban that allows him to ride the Tour, and going all out for that. It's too early to know, I understand, but it's a real possibility, and if he's seriously affected by the injury, he might need to rest if he were to have any chance at the Tour.

 

[fmk_RoI]

So it would be fair to say, then, that it was a bit of a stretch to include it in the Bert case, all things considered?

Not at all. It provided very useful information. Remember that while CAS concluded it was a contaminated supplement, they clearly weren't very confident in the decision--it was like a political candidate winning office with less than a majority of the vote--and Contador himself denied at the outset that he had taken any supplements.

Back to Froome. His Giro strategy ought to be affected by his salbutamol case. It was just reported that his trainer, I think it was, said Froome wasn't 100% yet, and that was by plan, since he has to conserve energy for the Tour. But the blunt reality is that he very likely will not be able to ride the Tour, and will probably be able to keep Giro results, so IMO he ought to go all out to win this GT, hold nothing back. If a minor miracle happens, and he either isn't banned before the Tour, or any ban isn't proactive, he can deal with that as it happens. But he seems to be in denial, that the Giro is probably the only chance he's going to have this year.

OTOH, if he turns out not be competitive in the Giro--and the injury and the time losses at least hint that he might not be--then he needs to think about abandoning, trying to get a retroactive ban that allows him to ride the Tour, and going all out for that. It's too early to know, I understand, but it's a real possibility, and if he's seriously affected by the injury, he might need to rest if he were to have any chance at the Tour.

Somehow I get the feeling that none of this has had anything to do with my original comment.

 

[Merckx index]

Somehow I get the feeling that none of this has had anything to do with my original comment.

Well, not the last two paragraphs, as I said I was going to change the subject back to Froome. But your original comment was:

Or what the other side did then: inventing new science, viz the famed plastizer test.

Maybe I misinterpreted this, but "inventing new science" sounds derogatory to me, implying that the DEHP test was a fantasy that never had any possibility as a valid test. And my point has been that it was a very good idea, even if WADA ultimately decided they wouldn't base a test for transfusion on urine DEHP levels. It was never going to be possible to use those levels by themselves to sanction Contador, though, because every test has to go through a validation process, and this test had not at the time. In that respect, it was somewhat like the situation when Ressiot reported the EPO levels in LA's TDF samples--no matter how good that evidence was, it couldn't be used to sanction him.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Or what the other side did then: inventing new science, viz the famed plastizer test.

Maybe I misinterpreted this, but "inventing new science" sounds derogatory to me, implying that the DEHP test was a fantasy that never had any possibility as a valid test. And my point has been that it was a very good idea, even if WADA ultimately decided they wouldn't base a test for transfusion on urine DEHP levels. It was never going to be possible to use those levels by themselves to sanction Contador, though, because every test has to go through a validation process, and this test had not at the time. In that respect, it was somewhat like the situation when Ressiot reported the EPO levels in LA's TDF samples--no matter how good that evidence was, it couldn't be used to sanction him.

It may have been a good idea, but it was not a validated procedure. It was something seized upon, in pretty much the same way some think this latest bit of Dutch nonsense will be seized upon - more in hope than expectation.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Ashenden talks in detail about Contador, DEHP levels and the CAS hearing:

http://nyvelocity.com/articles/interviews/behind-the-scenes-of-the-contador-cas-hearing-with-michael-ashenden/

This is my favourite quote:

"Among other things, I was prevented from testifying about non-DEHP bags. It was a surreal situation to be confronted with, because it was such a simple issue to resolve completely and without room for doubt in about 30 seconds, yet the arguments to prevent me from confirming that non-DEHP bags existed took hours. I recognise that arbitration hearings must be conducted in accordance with legal rules, but that does not remedy the frustration I felt when I was categorically ordered by the chairman not to answer the question, but instead the question was directed to the person sitting right next to me who did not know the answer."

Meanwhile, back on topic, the Dawg was struggling today. Looks like a man in need of a large infusion of something tainted with DEHP

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Meanwhile, back on topic, the Dawg was struggling today. Looks like a man in need of a large infusion of something tainted with DEHP

well, if staying with Dumo Pozzo Pinot is struggling, this bodes well for the rest of the race. bit by bit the crash pains are going away. and he´s better than 2 days ago.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Meanwhile, back on topic, the Dawg was struggling today. Looks like a man in need of a large infusion of something tainted with DEHP

well, if staying with Dumo Pozzo Pinot is struggling, this bodes well for the rest of the race. bit by bit the crash pains are going away. and he´s better than 2 days ago.

The crash pains going away solve a small problem. Uncle Brian going away created a much bigger problem

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Meanwhile, back on topic, the Dawg was struggling today. Looks like a man in need of a large infusion of something tainted with DEHP

well, if staying with Dumo Pozzo Pinot is struggling, this bodes well for the rest of the race. bit by bit the crash pains are going away. and he´s better than 2 days ago.

You might be right. I thought that the main GC guys would be out to eliminate Froome entirely, especially Dumoulin. Now Froome was able to stay with them AND the Mitchelton hydra has had a huge confidence boost. Possibly a worst case scenario for everyone else.

 

[Robert5091]

We'll see how well Froome is on Sunday up the Gran Sasso.

 

[MartinGT]

Turbo cadence of 180+ *waves by to Yatesy*

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Turbo cadence of 180+ *waves by to Yatesy*

Leaving motors aside, we might be seeing the Brits Who've Had Bother With Asthma Meds Winning a GT baton being handed over

First Wiggo. Then the Dawg. Yatesy next. BOOM!

 

[gillan1969]

Turbo cadence of 180+ *waves by to Yatesy*

Leaving motors aside, we might be seeing the Brits Who've Had Bother With Asthma Meds Winning a GT baton being handed over

First Wiggo. Then the Dawg. Yatesy next. BOOM!

meat loaf eat your heart out

 

[MartinGT]

Listened to the cyclingpodcast last night and apparently, according to Raymond somebody (didnt get his surname) at De Telepgraph that the Dawg will be absolved within a few days

 

[Merckx index]

Listened to the cyclingpodcast last night and apparently, according to Raymond somebody (didnt get his surname) at De Telepgraph that the Dawg will be absolved within a few days

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2018/05/09/telegraph-cycling-podcast-giro-ditalia-2018-stage-five-agrigento/

Begins 35:25. They say that Raymond Kerckhoffs is "very confident" Froome will be exonerated. They go on to say that this seems inconsistent with what others, including Brailsford, are saying. There has been no indication that a decision would come during the Giro. Remember, there have been several previous reports of some breakthrough in the case that didn't pan out. From what has come out so far, for Froome to be exonerated at this point, I think there would have to be some very obvious technicality that has just come to light. I just don't see anything in the actual evidence that would do it.

Found this on Kerckhoff's twitter (translated from Dutch):

Dutch doping expert Douwe de Boer also attacks Chris Froome. Sounds that Brit is acquitted are getting louder.

Provides this link:

https://tmgonlinemedia.nl/consent/consent/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraaf.nl%2Fsport%2Fwielrennen%2F2016282%2Fnederlandse-doping-expert-valt-froome-bij&clienttime=1526047833986&version=5&digitalversion=0&detect=true

"I subscribe to the scientific study and think that the WADA strategy for salbutamol is too short of the curve. In that sense, I could understand Froome's acquittal, ' says De Boer…

De Boer: "That [the old TUE system] cost more money for the doping authorities and still offered enough opportunities for the athletes to get down. At the time, WADA opted for a simple and cheaper approach to a threshold value of 1,000, 1 [micro]gram per millilitre, which is broken down through the scientific study of CHDR. In the Froome case arises now the discussion how high that threshold value should reasonably be. The problems surrounding Froome are, in my view, thanks to WADA itself. They did not have their business on salbutamol in order. It will not do any good for the credibility of the anti-doping system, but I would put the blame on WADA.

'

IOW, he thinks WADA opened themselves up to problems by eliminating TUEs in favor of a threshold that De Boer seems to believe is not high enough.

Also this from Ross Tucker:

Another important point - @DickinsonTimes has confirmed that this study [Heuberger et al.] was not funded by Sky/Froome, and is ‘independent’. The timing is terrific for Sky obviously,

I'm still not buying that this study is enough to get Froome off. Empirical data trump theoretical models, and all the empirical data indicate his level is too high to be explained by inhalation of the allowed amount. Even if one does accept the model, it only suggests that occasionally (< 10% of the time) if he gave a urine sample within an hour of inhaling 800 ug., he might reach the recorded level. Is this likely in this case, and can he prove that he did?

Anyway, Froome now knows the importance of relieving himself before being tested:

Froome told La Gazzetta dello Sport that he stopped to take a natural break just 30km from the finish of the stage to Mount Etna. That left him struggling to produce enough urine for his sample.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/anti-doping-delay-leaves-chris-froome-missing-helicopter-transfer-giro-ditalia-shorts/

 

[MartinGT]

He's gonna get off aint he LOL

 

[JosephK]

Re:

He's gonna get off aint he LOL

If that happens, this board is gonna get swamped like it did after Froomey and LRP did their dance up Ax 3 Domaines in July 2013.

 

[Koronin]

If he gets off then they must give Lance back his Tours and reinstate him. They also must give Contador back his two GTs. They must give Valverde back his 2010 results that were stripped. And they'll need to give back a heck of a lot of other results to a lot of other riders.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

If he gets off then they must give Lance back his Tours and reinstate him. They also must give Contador back his two GTs. They must give Valverde back his 2010 results that were stripped. And they'll need to give back a heck of a lot of other results to a lot of other riders.

And Maurice Garin can win the 1904 Tour again and Sean Kelly can have all those stages he was denied victory in and ... and sweet God above the logical leaps made by some are sights to behold.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

If he gets off then they must give Lance back his Tours and reinstate him. They also must give Contador back his two GTs. They must give Valverde back his 2010 results that were stripped. And they'll need to give back a heck of a lot of other results to a lot of other riders.

And Maurice Garin can win the 1904 Tour again and Sean Kelly can have all those stages he was denied victory in and ... and sweet God above the logical leaps made by some are sights to behold.

fmk, you forgetting Riccò!

 

[lartiste]

https://twitter.com/festinaboy/status/991952049758666752

vrooooome Ventoux 2013 with Watts, heart rate etc.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

If he gets off then they must give Lance back his Tours and reinstate him. They also must give Contador back his two GTs. They must give Valverde back his 2010 results that were stripped. And they'll need to give back a heck of a lot of other results to a lot of other riders.

And Maurice Garin can win the 1904 Tour again and Sean Kelly can have all those stages he was denied victory in and ... and sweet God above the logical leaps made by some are sights to behold.

Petacchi and Ulissi’s cases would need a review at the very least.

 

[hazaran]

Re: Re:

Petacchi and Ulissi’s cases would need a review at the very least.

Under the new WADA rules that take urine specific gravity into account Petacchi would not have triggered an AAF and would not have been banned. This was the major point of contention in his CAS case. Then CAS sided with WADA who said the science is clear, adjustment is unnecessary, he's a doping scumbag. WADA have gone forwards and backwards so often on salbutamol I wouldn't be surprised if CAS just tells them off in this case since they already backtracked on testimony made with absolute certainty to the court once.

 

[70kmph]

Petacchi got nailed by his enantiomer analysis, this test destroyed his defense

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Petacchi got nailed by his enantiomer analysis, this test destroyed his defense

That certainly didn't help him, but the bottom line is his case would not have even begun under current rules. It would be nice to know if Froome's sample was subjected to a similar analysis--probably was--and if so, what the result was.

Several other reasons for doubting Kerckhoffs’s claim that a decision is imminent:

1) If this paper by Heuberger et al. has been/will be submitted in support of Froome, as presumably is the case, WADA has to be given a chance to respond. Haas would not simply make a ruling without allowing that. Rabin has already said they have a response, and feel very confident in it. As far as I can tell, no one could have known about the paper other than the reviewers until very recently, so there would have to be time given to both parties to deal with it. Everyone should be able to agree that this will take quite a bit of time.

2) There’s generally a lag time of several weeks between when a Tribunal judge reaches a decision in a case, and when the decision—which requires a lengthy, scientifically-detailed document—is published. If the decision were ready to be published within a few days, then Haas would almost certainly have reached it before the Giro. But if his decision is based on the Heuberger study, I don’t see how he could have come to it by then.

3) It’s hard to believe that Haas, who holds the cards here, would tell anyone that he's about to decide, let alone what the decision is. It’s one thing to get some insider to suggest what Froome is basing his case on, quite another to learn anything at all from Haas, who of course is not supposed to speak to anyone about the case except the parties. Remember, Lappartient himself could find out very little about the case. I really don't know how a journo would find out more. So far, all I see is that Kerckhoff thinks that if De Boer believes Froome should be exonerated, then Haas must, too. The podcast noted that Kerckhoffs has excellent UCI/WADA sources, but as recently as a few days ago, Rabin himself was expressing confidence in winning the case.

Latest cycling podcast (following stage 7): https://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/giro-ditalia-2018-stage-7-pizzo-praia-a-mare

Beginning at 36:37, an interview with Brailsford. He was asked about the Heuberger paper, said he had read it, just pointed out, fairly enough, that in science there are disagreements, people with different points of view. He gave no indication of knowing anything about a decision soon to be announced. He was critical of Lappartient for speaking out, which he believes definitely influences the case.