How good is Chris Froome?

carbonclem

Shipley wrote:

This nonsense is down to SKY and their arrogance. Whatever the cause, Froome was tested at double the limit.

If he, and his masters had had the good grace to say ‘it’s a fair cop, we don’t know why but the limits were broken so we will take an off season ban’ then all of this could have been avoided.

Instead, this will drag on and on, damaging the sport as it goes and ensuring Froome will be viewed with suspicion forever.

He’ll never shake this off now whatever the official result.

Well done lads !

The Tour should be interesting.

The test result may indicate that but you can hardly blame Froome/Sky/SDB from throwing the kitchen sink at proving no blame if they think that is the case. The doomsday scenario to this could* be a loss of the Vuelta, Worlds TT medal, the Giro and a potential Tour win. Froome could have to leave Sky under a ZTP policy and SDB could resign causing team collapse. this isn't some late feed fine, it could be massive. They have every reason to fight it all the way.


*Highly unlikely, but ....

joey54321

I heard on a podcast Froome was offered a shorter ban if he admitted guilt and he refused. Quite a statement of intent/innocence.

Also bear in mind that if he is innocent, a ban or even suspending himself from racing would make quite a dent in his peak years. Given pros only have ~20 years of a career, and that he is at his peak, it would be like a member of the public, who is potentially innocent, sitting out on 4-5 years of their career. How many people would do that?

I know, I know, people will say he was over the legal limit but that isn't strictly speaking true. The limit is for ingesting the drug and the test is for the drug in the blood, it's not quite a straight line.

shirley_basso

Why would he be banned for 4-5 years? (Or are you saying it's the equivalent of a normal person missing out 4-5y)

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Sadly George Bennett will be forever associated with his stupid remark on camera and will regret it for many a long year.

Only by morons, in fairness.

The same morons that have accused him relentlessly of doping on this forum or have those people also long forgotten their glib comments?

It's not really an accusation when you've tested twice over the limit...

of which banned substance....

Here we go... let's light the fuse again...

Its banned above permitted levels, even the froome suckers can probably see that.

No its not. Consuming more than a certain amount in 24 hours is banned, and tests which exceed 1000 units are considered indicative of consuming more than that specified amount, though that indicative test is refutable through production of evidence if the appropriate panel is convinced of its veracity.

I know in laymans terms the threshold feels like a limit, but it really isn't. The difference is subtle but if you're serious about following the story it's important to be clear about it, whether you're a froome sucker or not!

Well i hope for froomes sake that he's not relying on ridiculous semantics like that. because clearly the indicators show he exceeded the limit. "the limit" being a normal common english language way of describing his position. and the test used to establish wether he had probably overdone it "indicated" he had indeed broken the rules .

Perhaps calibration of that test can be shown he wasnt over "the limit" but right now, the indication that he had used more in the previous 24 hours than permitted stands.

Maybe clever doctors can show an extreme theoretical set of conditions that might exonerate him but it can only ever be theoretical unless they can replicate the results with froome. I guess if that would be the case we wouldn't be having this discussion.

One things for sure, it would be better for everyone if it were resolved sooner rather than later.

shirley_basso

Vino - ridiculous semantics like the above is exactly how the law is carried out a lot of the time.

That's why his reading was reduced from 2,000 to 1,400 (or so) and that's why he's defending it. If was it cut and dry then he'd be banned and that's that.

larkim

THat's not ridiculous semantics, its the law insofar as it applies to this particular drug.

If the rules said "detection of > 1000 units of XYZ are present in a sample obtained" then 1001 or 2000 or 1420 would be over the limit and it would be 100% clear that there was a breach. But the law is not that. There might be a reasonable argument to suggest that the law is wrong or unhelpful, but the bottom line is that unless Froome actually took in more than the allowable amount within 24 hours he didn't break any rules, irrespective of how much was detected in his system. He might have a very, very hard time providing good enough evidence that the test is so badly flawed that it can't be relied on to give enough evidence that excess had been taken in within 24 hours, but that's for a tribunal to decide.

kingstongraham

Vino, the problem with that is that the whole test is theoretical. The limit is on ingestion, and the test is on what's remaining in the blood. If the limit had just been on the blood test, he'd be banned already. Maybe that's what it should be.

I can't help coming back to the point that if he is doping, surely he'd be doping with something that gives a proper performance benefit?

inseine

Shipley wrote:

If he, and his masters had had the good grace to say ‘it’s a fair cop, we don’t know why but the limits were broken so we will take an off season ban’ then all of this could have been avoided.

Instead, this will drag on and on, damaging the sport as it goes and ensuring Froome will be viewed with suspicion forever.

If you were concerned about public opinion would you rather be viewed with suspicion or as guilty as a drug cheat? I don't think most people would see the subtleties.
Lots of people think all cyclists are doping, accepting a ban isn't going to help his cause.

tailwindhome

Test was fine until it returned an adverse finding on a Sky rider.

larkim

Without knowing the specifics about other riders who have take sanctions following those test outcomes, that's an unsupportable claim.

Maybe I've missed something, but I've not seen reports of salbutamol "convictions" where the athlete adamantly refuted that they had only taken the "right" number of puffs yet the test resulted in a higher reading. I've seen some scientific papers (linked from here amongst others) which seem to suggest that it is possible to give a > threshold reading of less ingestion, and that may be Froome's line of defence, but in the main it looks to me like the sanctions have been applied and the athletes in question have generally said "its a fair cop guv, my mistake".

kingstongraham

inseine wrote:

Shipley wrote:

If he, and his masters had had the good grace to say ‘it’s a fair cop, we don’t know why but the limits were broken so we will take an off season ban’ then all of this could have been avoided.

Instead, this will drag on and on, damaging the sport as it goes and ensuring Froome will be viewed with suspicion forever.

If you were concerned about public opinion would you rather be viewed with suspicion or as guilty as a drug cheat? I don't think most people would see the subtleties.
Lots of people think all cyclists are doping, accepting a ban isn't going to help his cause.

Yates seems to have got away with it.

Matthewfalle

KingstonGraham wrote:

inseine wrote:

Shipley wrote:

If he, and his masters had had the good grace to say ‘it’s a fair cop, we don’t know why but the limits were broken so we will take an off season ban’ then all of this could have been avoided.

Instead, this will drag on and on, damaging the sport as it goes and ensuring Froome will be viewed with suspicion forever.

If you were concerned about public opinion would you rather be viewed with suspicion or as guilty as a drug cheat? I don't think most people would see the subtleties.
Lots of people think all cyclists are doping, accepting a ban isn't going to help his cause.

Yates seems to have got away with it.

Wasn't he banned?

norvernrob

Shirley Basso wrote:

Vino - ridiculous semantics like the above is exactly how the law is carried out a lot of the time.

That's why his reading was reduced from 2,000 to 1,400 (or so) and that's why he's defending it. If was it cut and dry then he'd be banned and that's that.

The fact that the reading has been reduced via a calculation to take into account dehydration surely says that they don’t actually know what Froome’s exact reading was. It’s like a police officer saying you were doing 120, actually no I think it might be 90 but you were definitely speeding.

If they’re prosecuting using the 2,000 figure then surely they’ve already shown with their own recalculation that the numbers can be flawed? The whole thing is a massive mess and it wouldn’t surprise me if Froome walked away without a ban, or if he did get one win a case at CAS.

Pross

TailWindHome wrote:

Test was fine until it returned an adverse finding on a Sky rider.

Not really, it's been challenged before both in cycling and other sports. This is just the most high profile case.

Having a test which links output to input when there seems to be too many variables for a direct link seems a bit pointless really.

kingstongraham

Matthewfalle wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

inseine wrote:

Shipley wrote:

If he, and his masters had had the good grace to say ‘it’s a fair cop, we don’t know why but the limits were broken so we will take an off season ban’ then all of this could have been avoided.

Instead, this will drag on and on, damaging the sport as it goes and ensuring Froome will be viewed with suspicion forever.

If you were concerned about public opinion would you rather be viewed with suspicion or as guilty as a drug cheat? I don't think most people would see the subtleties.
Lots of people think all cyclists are doping, accepting a ban isn't going to help his cause.

Yates seems to have got away with it.

Wasn't he banned?

Exactly, served a ban for failing a dope test, and comes back without the lasting stain on his character (generally) because it was inadvertent. If Froome does serve a ban for this, it should be the same reaction.

dinyull

KingstonGraham wrote:

inseine wrote:

Shipley wrote:

If he, and his masters had had the good grace to say ‘it’s a fair cop, we don’t know why but the limits were broken so we will take an off season ban’ then all of this could have been avoided.

Instead, this will drag on and on, damaging the sport as it goes and ensuring Froome will be viewed with suspicion forever.

If you were concerned about public opinion would you rather be viewed with suspicion or as guilty as a drug cheat? I don't think most people would see the subtleties.
Lots of people think all cyclists are doping, accepting a ban isn't going to help his cause.

Yates seems to have got away with it.

He was getting a fair bit of stick from some quarters whilst leading the Giro.

You could probably multiply that by 6 if he was as dominant as Froome.

larkim

KingstonGraham wrote:

Exactly, served a ban for failing a dope test, and comes back without the lasting stain on his character (generally) because it was inadvertent. If Froome does serve a ban for this, it should be the same reaction.

Should be, but won't. At the time of the ban Yates had such a low profile in the public eye only cycling fans know about it. And even now his profile is higher the story of the ban is much more acceptable - someone cocked up a form.

The reigning champ at the TdF, Vuelta and Giro copping a ban would be a much, much bigger deal. The reaction would be completely different.

jimmythecuckoo

I wonder how many pages the "Froome Guilty/Not Guilty" thread will get to post a decision being made.

Compared to the Lance one, 57 pages is weak.

tailwindhome

First they came for Petacchi.
I didn't speak up.

Then they came for Ulissi
I didn't speak up.

Then they came for Froome.
I googled salbutamol and found some studies to link to.......

Vino'sGhost

TailWindHome wrote:

First they came for Petacchi.
I didn't speak up.

Then they came for Ulissi
I didn't speak up.

Then they came for Froome.
I googled salbutamol and found some studies to link to.......

LOL

No_Ta_Doctor

TailWindHome wrote:

First they came for Petacchi.
I didn't speak up.

Then they came for Ulissi
I didn't speak up.

Then they came for Froome.
I googled salbutamol and found some studies to link to.......

Not quite, though. Neither of the cases above got anywhere near the press coverage, and the forum was generally pretty much agreed that there wasn't any real attempt to cheat in them. In Froome's case we have a large newspaper leaking the test result, taken during a GT he won - it's not really surprising there's more to talk about and a bit more googling of scientific literature. Froome is also being portrayed as a massive dope cheat scandal, which is where I tend to get a bit f@rked off.

Mad_Malx

Think we need a poll so the UCI don't need to bother with a hearing.

I'd say the most likely outcomes are

No sanction (and revision of the rules)
or
Loss of vuelta and 6 months ban from decision

I'm now leaning to the former now, but this will make Ulissi look unfairly treated.

larkim

Did ulissi or his representatives ever categorically state that they'd never exceeded the ingested limit? The outcome I seem to remember was never made public of his hearing etc

No_Ta_Doctor

Typical Ross Tucker thread on the Cycling Tips power analysis article linked up-thread.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/stat ... 3709149184

Complains of missing data (fair enough, it's patchy), say's he isn't sure he can trust it (typical cynicism), wants to include Froome's under-performing days in the calibration model (scientifically dubious)

“If you’re being dropped at 400W on one day, then how is 397W for 11 min, or 465W for 6:17 on another day ‘easy’ or plausible?"

Essentially: assume Froome's rubbish days were at peak physiological capacity, model his capacity from it, see that he exceeds it on his good days.

bobmcstuff

Pross wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Test was fine until it returned an adverse finding on a Sky rider.

Not really, it's been challenged before both in cycling and other sports. This is just the most high profile case.

Having a test which links output to input when there seems to be too many variables for a direct link seems a bit pointless really.

Basically this. Nobody really cared in cycling until it was Froome.

norvernrob

TailWindHome wrote:

First they came for Petacchi.
I didn't speak up.

Then they came for Ulissi
I didn't speak up.

Then they came for Froome.
I googled salbutamol and found some studies to link to.......

If proper protocol had been followed then Froome’s case shouldn’t be public at all until after the verdict. If he’d had the same treatment as anyone else then nobody would be talking about it because nobody would even know at this stage.

sloppyschleckonds

TailWindHome wrote:

Test was fine until it returned an adverse finding on a Sky rider.

Pah!

sloppyschleckonds

andyp wrote:

It's cod science in the sense that they are trying to validate a performance based on snippets of data, so they've basically guessed the other parameters they need.

Who are 'they'?

andyp

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

andyp wrote:

It's cod science in the sense that they are trying to validate a performance based on snippets of data, so they've basically guessed the other parameters they need.

Who are 'they'?

Sebastian Weber and Shane Stokes.

iainf72

No tA Doctor wrote:

Typical Ross Tucker thread on the Cycling Tips power analysis article linked up-thread.

As you know, when I saw this it wound me up.

Nothing would ever satisfy him, yet he's too cowardly to just say in black and white how he thinks they do it. And even if he thought it was fine, he's not want to disappoint the faithful. So it's not really science anymore it's just appeasing a cult.