Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

It's not really one study Rich. It's a model based on several studies, and gives a better assessment of the possibility that a high reading can be gained from a legal dose.

Tucker does make some reasonable points (amongst irrelevant ones), but if further doubt can be thrown at the urine measurement as a surrogate for intake then it's looking good for the defence.

I hadn't actually read the report. I wouldn't understand it.

I wonder if this might end up a bit like the Kreuziger biological passport case where it seems he managed to cast enough doubt on the passport according to his circumstances that UCI/WADA preferred to drop the case rather than risk having the passport undermined.

LOLOL if you hadnt read the report how on earth can you make a sensible comment???? LOLOL internet rules.

timoid.

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

It's not really one study Rich. It's a model based on several studies, and gives a better assessment of the possibility that a high reading can be gained from a legal dose.

Tucker does make some reasonable points (amongst irrelevant ones), but if further doubt can be thrown at the urine measurement as a surrogate for intake then it's looking good for the defence.

I hadn't actually read the report. I wouldn't understand it.

I wonder if this might end up a bit like the Kreuziger biological passport case where it seems he managed to cast enough doubt on the passport according to his circumstances that UCI/WADA preferred to drop the case rather than risk having the passport undermined.

LOLOL if you hadnt read the report how on earth can you make a sensible comment???? LOLOL internet rules.

Errr, because he's aware of what the summary findings of the report is? Surely it's not too much of a leap to say that if Froome's team can discredit the test through this and other studies, he could pull a Kreuziger.

This is not being a Sky apologist, just drawing a logical conclusion from an analysis.

kingstongraham

Even though I don't particularly like Froome, it would be worth that happening just to witness the explosion of indignation.

rick_chasey

Gotta say guys, there's a lot more chat on this this week than his current form, which you'd say is a lot more relevant right now.

timoid.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gotta say guys, there's a lot more chat on this this week than his current form, which you'd say is a lot more relevant right now.

He was never going to come into it all guns blazing and then he had a pretty hard crash before the Prologue. Don't think we can judge much right now.

rick_chasey

That's more evidence than we have for this case, and that hasn't stopped any of the speculation, so...

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's more evidence than we have for this case, and that hasn't stopped any of the speculation, so...

We should not comment until the race is over and he has either been declared the winner or not. Any speculation based on his results leading up to the final decision is not helpful.

rick_chasey

I just think it's odd that the issue ultimately is around whether he'll race or not. That's the main impact.

Yet, he is currently IN A RACE, and a big one at that.

I dunno. Maybe doping is more fun to chat about.

phreak

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gotta say guys, there's a lot more chat on this this week than his current form, which you'd say is a lot more relevant right now.

Probably sensible to an extent isn't it? The Giro is notorious for back-loading climbs into the final week so it's probably safer to be a bit under cooked now than over cooked for the final week. I remember Zulle in 98 looking utterly unstoppable for the first fortnight, and then blowing up big time in the last week.

rick_chasey

Timoid. wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gotta say guys, there's a lot more chat on this this week than his current form, which you'd say is a lot more relevant right now.

He was never going to come into it all guns blazing and then he had a pretty hard crash before the Prologue. Don't think we can judge much right now.

40 seconds over 10km is a spanking by anyone’s book.

If he’d had 40 seconds on Dumoulin at the top of the Zoncolan half of twitter would be on fire shouting “not normal” and “extra terrestrial”.

tailwindhome

phreak wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gotta say guys, there's a lot more chat on this this week than his current form, which you'd say is a lot more relevant right now.

Probably sensible to an extent isn't it? The Giro is notorious for back-loading climbs into the final week so it's probably safer to be a bit under cooked now than over cooked for the final week. I remember Zulle in 98 looking utterly unstoppable for the first fortnight, and then blowing up big time in the last week.

When I see the name Zulle my first thought is always Ghostbusters.
Just me?
Ok

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gotta say guys, there's a lot more chat on this this week than his current form, which you'd say is a lot more relevant right now.

He was never going to come into it all guns blazing and then he had a pretty hard crash before the Prologue. Don't think we can judge much right now.

40 seconds over 10km is a spanking by anyone’s book.

If he’d had 40 seconds on Dumoulin at the top of the Zoncolan half of twitter would be on fire shouting “not normal” and “extra terrestrial”.

Without the crash, it would be all put down to form. As it is, it is impossible to say until we get at least to stage 6.

Until then, he's not the interesting story in the Giro. The next three stages should be cracking good.

blazing_saddles

Rick Chasey wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gotta say guys, there's a lot more chat on this this week than his current form, which you'd say is a lot more relevant right now.

He was never going to come into it all guns blazing and then he had a pretty hard crash before the Prologue. Don't think we can judge much right now.

40 seconds over 10km is a spanking by anyone’s book.

If he’d had 40 seconds on Dumoulin at the top of the Zoncolan half of twitter would be on fire shouting “not normal” and “extra terrestrial”.

I think you are getting carried away with one, crash affected result.
Better to revisit relative form after Etna maybe?
And if half of twitter think it not normal to expect Froome to gain 40 second on Dumoulin up Zoncolan, then I'm with the other half.

rick_chasey

Aye but he's still 40 seconds behind.

This race has started remember.


Anyway, I think, given the level of scrutiny of his kidneys and how they may impact his performance, I'm surprised at the lack of scrutiny of his actual racing.

You can legit write it off as a crash but a) he's still had the crash and that isn't gonna go away and b), he's still got to find 40 seconds more than he did.

mididoctors

bad luck early in a gt is rarely overcome by a gt contender. I think he is feeling the pressure.

kingstongraham

On form, he would put more than 37 seconds into Dumoulin on some of these climbs. Quintana did last year over a couple of stages (excluding the one where Dumoulin had his problem).

Until we've seen him in some proper action more than a couple of hours after hitting the deck, it's a bit early to decide whether it had a lasting effect.

rick_chasey

I admire your boldness.

Name a GT contender who's won having lost 30+ seconds in the opening prologue?

shirley_basso

Due to a fall or lack of form?

rick_chasey

Either.

shirley_basso

My knowledge doesn't go back that far but when has a proper favorite crashed out in a prologue?

kingstongraham

You think "it's too early to decide" is bold?

Anyway, Quintana gave away almost a minute on the TTT to start the 2014 Giro, then over 2 minutes in the ITT.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

You think "it's too early to decide" is bold?

Anyway, Quintana gave away almost a minute on the TTT to start the 2014 Giro, then over 2 minutes in the ITT.

This is a good shout.

Fair play.

blazing_saddles

Rick Chasey wrote:

I admire your boldness.

Name a GT contender who's won having lost 30+ seconds in the opening prologue?

How about just the Giro? Gilberto Simoni for one.

mididoctors

Rick Chasey wrote:

I admire your boldness.

Name a GT contender who's won having lost 30+ seconds in the opening prologue?

pantani was the best example

came last...LAST in the 98 tour prologue. then dropped the entire peloton in the hills. different kind of ride thou

mididoctors

I think Froome's crash is different thou. he was not expecting to lose that time there... maybe not winning... thou it is a psychological blow....long way to Rome. may end up eating my hat etc.

blazing_saddles

Damiano Cunego for another.
He lost 45 seconds in the prologue.

mididoctors

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Damiano Cunego for another.
He lost 45 seconds in the prologue.

yeah but he mugged his own team leader thou

rick_chasey

So so far we got 1 rider in the last 10 years.

We'll see, but I think this is not a good sign, and if I was a bookie I'd give Froome fairly long odds today.

RichN95.

In the 2015 Tour Froome was expected to take time in the opening 14km TT - the only TT in the race. But the lost time to Nibali and gained only 8 and 10 seconds on Quintana and Contador, And lost 50 s to the day's winner (Dennis). It was seen as a disaster. But he was in yellow by the time they hit the mountains.

rick_chasey

Fair enough.

We'll see. I've been 100% wrong with my predictions multiple times (Sagan will never win PR - Cav is too young to win MSR in 2009), so we'll see.