Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

RichN95.

bobmcstuff wrote:

Well it doesn't prove anything, really. All it shows is that Sky were extremely organised (which we knew already).

Which raises the question what would convince them? To which the answer is clearly nothing. This is the social media age and the only things that are sacrosanct and unchallengable are not facts but our own half thought-out opinions.

tangled_metal

Will anything prove he's clean to some ppl?

All that information shows is they had a good plan and executed it well. I bet other teams also had plans that day and every other day too. The success of the sky plan shows only that sky has the ability to do it better or they have a more committed team. I took the point of that, and an earlier BBC article that read in a link on that page, was that Froome committed his all to the plan as did the team (riders and support staff). If it didn't work then they are likely to have finished Froome's chances in the GT. Respect for going all out on that stage.

BTW they used everyone in the team to get nutrition to him when it was needed. From the cycling team on the road and who normally pass bidon to their guys to the press officers who have very little to do with the coal face of cycling. Are there any other teams with the number of staff to do that?

slowbike

kleinstroker wrote:

I have come to believe that it is these certain writers/bloggers that are actually spoiling cycling for a lot of people by their vehement beliefs that Team Sky in particular are rampant dopers. They have no evidence at all, but constantly refer back to LA etc and keep at it enough to plant the no smoke without fire kind of logic in a lot of cycling fans minds.

People believe in God(s) without a shred of evidence ... so believing that a sportsman is cheating is far easier.

and as a sportsman can't prove they're not cheating at all (they must be doing something, we just haven't figured out what yet) then we just presume they're guilty ...

timothyw

Yeah, there's a pretty strong correlation between those we know to be doping and success (Lance Armstong, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Russia at Sochi Olympics, Merckx, Anquetil, etc)

Admittedly, a fair few unknown and unsuccessful sportspeople get caught each year, but those don't really stick in the memory.

Either way, given there are clearly gains to be had, it seems easy to get into that mindset that all successful sportspeople must be on the gear.

Still, to single them out or mistreat them for their success when you don't actually know seems ridiculous to me.

timoid.

iainf72 wrote:

I love all the conspiracy stuff about what happened. It's amazing.

If a test cannot survive legal and / or scientific scrutiny, it's not worth anything. If it took some money to expose that, it benefits all athletes as it tightens things up.

This^

I think people really are missing the point. The test is now unreliable in the eyes of WADA, which will have a huge knock on impact (including on previous sanctions). It's good that this has been highlighted and addresssed.

Now if WADA could target Tramadol, that would be a good thing

mattsaw

iainf72 wrote:

I love all the conspiracy stuff about what happened. It's amazing.

If a test cannot survive legal and / or scientific scrutiny, it's not worth anything. If it took some money to expose that, it benefits all athletes as it tightens things up.

It's not even a 'money thing'

According to WADA this was not a case in isolation. Lots of salbutamol positives have been successfully appealed in the recent past.

The only difference is that Froomes was made public during that process.

It sounds like WADA were well aware of the unreliability of the Salbutamol test, but continued to publically use and enforce it.

As bad as it has been for Froome, he's not really the victim here, Petacchi is, that's the real story in all of this.

RichN95.

Mattsaw wrote:

It's not even a 'money thing'

According to WADA this was not a case in isolation. Lots of salbutamol positives have been successfully appealed in the recent past.

And even then plenty of those who weren't successful were just given a warning. I doubt Froome would have assembled a legal team to fight a warning had he been a star in a different sport.

larkim

Mattsaw wrote:

It sounds like WADA were well aware of the unreliability of the Salbutamol test, but continued to publically use and enforce it.

As bad as it has been for Froome, he's not really the victim here, Petacchi is, that's the real story in all of this.

But in WADA's defence, that's why test results outside the normal range are not automatically deemed to be a breach, and why investigations are supposed to take place confidentially so a clean bill of health can be confirmed without anyone getting caught up in the cycle of "are they or are they not a doper".

iainf72

larkim wrote:

But in WADA's defence, that's why test results outside the normal range are not automatically deemed to be a breach, and why investigations are supposed to take place confidentially so a clean bill of health can be confirmed without anyone getting caught up in the cycle of "are they or are they not a doper".

Indeed. And this is the thing people can't seem to get their heads around.

mattsaw

larkim wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

It sounds like WADA were well aware of the unreliability of the Salbutamol test, but continued to publically use and enforce it.

As bad as it has been for Froome, he's not really the victim here, Petacchi is, that's the real story in all of this.

But in WADA's defence, that's why test results outside the normal range are not automatically deemed to be a breach, and why investigations are supposed to take place confidentially so a clean bill of health can be confirmed without anyone getting caught up in the cycle of "are they or are they not a doper".

Tell that to Alessandro Petacchi :shock:

mrb123

http://road.cc/content/news/244597-scie ... ded-froome

mattsaw

MrB123 wrote:

http://road.cc/content/news/244597-scientist-behind-wada-salbutamol-rules-sided-froome

Quite

Ken Fitch says that he made a ‘terrible blunder’ and has been pressing Wada to change its rules for years.

Fitch wrote in support of Froome and previously sided with Alessandro Petacchi after he produced an abnormal reading of Salbutamol in a sample at the 2007 Giro d’Italia. The Italian sprinter ended up serving a one-year ban.

Doesn't quite paint WADA in such a good light

tailwindhome

Man clocked at 140 mph casts doubt on proper calibration of speed camera.
Case dropped.

above_the_cows

kleinstroker wrote:

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

have a read of the bbc on the nutrition for stage 19 Giro https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/44694122

Thing that stands out most for me is the revealing bit at the end from Jeremy Whittle - "this doesn't prove 100% that he isn't doping so I'm going to keep believing he is"

I have come to believe that it is these certain writers/bloggers that are actually spoiling cycling for a lot of people by their vehement beliefs that Team Sky in particular are rampant dopers. They have no evidence at all, but constantly refer back to LA etc and keep at it enough to plant the no smoke without fire kind of logic in a lot of cycling fans minds.

You cannot reason with them, no evidence will ever be enough, as they will always point to some perceived gap and jump on that as proof that they are hiding something, and that something is definitely doping.

They are sad little nobody's who just seem to want everybody to be as cynical and miserable as they are

Its a case of the journalists themselves actually becoming the story through what they report and how they report.

Pross

TailWindHome wrote:

Man clocked at 140 mph casts doubt on proper calibration of speed camera.
Case dropped.

Not really. The equivalent would be that the man clocked at 140 was able to demonstrate that there was a fair chance the calibration was out by 100% (or less in Froome's case as the amended reading was nowhere near double the level for an AAF).

slowbike

TailWindHome wrote:

Man clocked at 140 mph casts doubt on proper calibration of speed camera.
Case dropped.

you say it in a way that you believe Froome to be guilty ...

it seems this test is trying to accurately measure how much alcohol is in the blood by making them walk down a thin white line and measure how far off the line they wobble. The white line walk may be an indicator that someone MAY HAVE drunk too much, but it isn't and can't deliver an absolute figure on how much they consumed. It's quite fair to say that some people don't have the balance to walk down a white line - some may have an ear infection that affects their balance at the moment yet others may be able to do so after several units over the limit. Which is why it can be used as an indicator and there are calibrated instruments used to prove what level is in the blood - and for those unable or unwilling to partake in that testing? Well - they're not prosecuted for an arbitrary reading by an unreliable source.

But don't let the principles of law cloud your judgment ...

above_the_cows

iainf72 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But in WADA's defence, that's why test results outside the normal range are not automatically deemed to be a breach, and why investigations are supposed to take place confidentially so a clean bill of health can be confirmed without anyone getting caught up in the cycle of "are they or are they not a doper".

Indeed. And this is the thing people can't seem to get their heads around.

Because they a) don't want to or b) are just that dumb.

Having listened to the latest Cycling Podcast this morning, and considering all this, it does seem that WADA are in a tricky spot. They have very few resources considering the job they have to do and rely as much on the commitment of those involved in the fight against doping to that ideal as they do to their own scientific expertise and the resources they have to support and build that epxertise. This means a few things, including the organisation wanting and in fact needing to snare some big names to ensure their continued relevance in the field of anti-doping and improve their resources for that fight. When combined with relying on people who appear to be ideologically committed to that fight then you can end up in a bit of a 'burn the witch' scenario.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Man clocked at 140 mph casts doubt on proper calibration of speed camera.
Case dropped.

And the person who calibrated the speed camera says he cocked up the calibration and the readings can't be trusted.

tailwindhome

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Man clocked at 140 mph casts doubt on proper calibration of speed camera.
Case dropped.

you say it in a way that you believe Froome to be guilty ...

it seems this test is trying to accurately measure how much alcohol is in the blood by making them walk down a thin white line and measure how far off the line they wobble. The white line walk may be an indicator that someone MAY HAVE drunk too much, but it isn't and can't deliver an absolute figure on how much they consumed. It's quite fair to say that some people don't have the balance to walk down a white line - some may have an ear infection that affects their balance at the moment yet others may be able to do so after several units over the limit. Which is why it can be used as an indicator and there are calibrated instruments used to prove what level is in the blood - and for those unable or unwilling to partake in that testing? Well - they're not prosecuted for an arbitrary reading by an unreliable source.

But don't let the principles of law cloud your judgment ...

Froome managed to deviate further from the line than anyone else.

Wobblier even that people who have admitted being drunk

He deviated so far from the line that even when he spent the off season drinking shots he couldn't wobble as far.

He did show that there was a variation between the number of shots he drunk and the wobbliness of the wobble.

Conclusion - line not straight.

shirley_basso

Not true.

Rulings says.

He wobbled further than someone who was sober would, but was pretty reasonable compared to someone with an ear infection might. He wobbled a bit further than previous walks on this most recent test, but was still reasonable and no further than was expected given he had a glass of wine and an ear infection.

Ruling: Not drunk and also the line wobble test doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Also, that drink driving shouldn't be a crime (although this is where the analogy wanders a bit)

Pross

TailWindHome wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Man clocked at 140 mph casts doubt on proper calibration of speed camera.
Case dropped.

you say it in a way that you believe Froome to be guilty ...

it seems this test is trying to accurately measure how much alcohol is in the blood by making them walk down a thin white line and measure how far off the line they wobble. The white line walk may be an indicator that someone MAY HAVE drunk too much, but it isn't and can't deliver an absolute figure on how much they consumed. It's quite fair to say that some people don't have the balance to walk down a white line - some may have an ear infection that affects their balance at the moment yet others may be able to do so after several units over the limit. Which is why it can be used as an indicator and there are calibrated instruments used to prove what level is in the blood - and for those unable or unwilling to partake in that testing? Well - they're not prosecuted for an arbitrary reading by an unreliable source.

But don't let the principles of law cloud your judgment ...

Froome managed to deviate further from the line than anyone else.

How do you know that's the case? Do you know the results for any other athlete that has been cleared? You shouldn't as it should never be public knowledge they returned an AAF. The analogies are pointless - WADA has stated that these things are specific to individuals. Why do you seem to think you know better than the people who saw all the evidence and deal with such matters professionally?

slim_boy_fat

TailWindHome wrote:

Man clocked at 140 mph casts doubt on proper calibration of speed camera.
Case dropped.

After dehydration was taken into account he was found to be 19% over the threshold. However, the author of the paper that was used to set the limit has now admitted that his results are not fit for purpose.

tailwindhome

Pross wrote:

Why do you seem to think you know better than the people who saw all the evidence and deal with such matters professionally?

I don't - and nothing I've posted today supports this claim.

tailwindhome

La Flamme Rouge@laflammerouge16

Lappartient: "I am too friend of Bernard Hinault to comment what he said. He is a free man, free to say what he wants. I just think he doesn't want Froome in the five yellow jerseys winners club"

darkhairedlord

TailWindHome wrote:

Pross wrote:

Why do you seem to think you know better than the people who saw all the evidence and deal with such matters professionally?

I don't - and nothing I've posted today supports this claim.

no kidding!

Pross

TailWindHome wrote:

Pross wrote:

Why do you seem to think you know better than the people who saw all the evidence and deal with such matters professionally?

I don't - and nothing I've posted today supports this claim.

So why do you appear to be challenging the decision with your speed camera analogy? I'm not the only one who seems to have read that and understood it as you suggesting that whilst the test might be flawed the discrepancy is outside reasonable bounds of that flaw whereas the experts reviewing the evidence seem to concluded that it is quite conceivable.

larkim

Is it time we stopped throwing Petacchi and Ulissi into the mix here.

Petacchis evidence to CAS was that he may have taken too many puffs. You don't say "may have" when are 100% certain that you didn't. http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php ... sion_may08

Ulissi admitted his own negligence causing the high reading - i.e. he took too may puffs. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi- ... -positive/

Whilst there is a very strong argument that bans for inhaled salbutamol shouldn't really exist, for all I care WADA could put broccoli on the list with an associated ban - if I have a mouthful of broccoli and it is detected, I am responsible for that and should take the appropriate sanction.

mattsaw

larkim wrote:

Is it time we stopped throwing Petacchi and Ulissi into the mix here.

Petacchis evidence to CAS was that he may have taken too many puffs. You don't say "may have" when are 100% certain that you didn't. http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php ... sion_may08

I don't know. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he accepts the test result at face value (being unaware of its failings) and is searching for possible reasons that he has failed.

“When I went to UCI after they contacted me, they showed me the history of all of my controls. All the controls were different, not one the same. It depends how soon you used it before the control, how concentrated your urine was.

“I used it more or less the same every time, but it’d vary: 300, 400, or 700 or 500. That time it was 1200, but that was the only one where I concentrated urine.

“Now, that’s the only way I can justify how it happened. Had I had a bottle of water after the finish, instead I did the podium ceremony and the control, and maybe I didn’t drink enough. Had I done that, maybe my urine would’ve been clean like the others.”

Ken Fitch seems very confident that he is innocent. I'm not going to second guess his expertise on the matter.

above_the_cows

TailWindHome wrote:

Froome managed to deviate further from the line than anyone else.

You don't know that. You only know about Froome's case becasue it was leaked. You cannot possibly make such a claim. Your statistical sample is not valid and your claim is based on an assumption.

TailWindHome wrote:

Wobblier even that people who have admitted being drunk

You don't know that. You only know about Froome's case because it was leaked. You cannot possibly make such a claim. Your statistical sample is not valid and your claim is based on an assumption.

TailWindHome wrote:

He deviated so far from the line that even when he spent the off season drinking shots he couldn't wobble as far.

You don't know that. You only know about Froome's case because it was leaked. You cannot possibly make such a claim. Your statistical sample is not valid and your claim is based on an assumption.

TailWindHome wrote:

He did show that there was a variation between the number of shots he drunk and the wobbliness of the wobble.

And based on that information he was deemed to have explained his adverse analytical finding.

RichN95.

Above The Cows wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Froome managed to deviate further from the line than anyone else.

You don't know that. You only know about Froome's case becasue it was leaked. You cannot possibly make such a claim. Your statistical sample is not valid and your claim is based on an assumption.

In fact in I've seen a reading of 2670 in one of the few cases I've seen information on.