Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

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.

And what happened to this individual? Do we know?

RichN95.

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

And what happened to this individual? Do we know?

He got a warning from UKAD - standard practice for them. It wasn't a cyclist, it was an unnamed amateur boxer.

larkim

Mattsaw wrote:

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.

True. Fitch was an expert witness for Petacchi at the CAS hearing, but CAS themselves determined that his doubts and concerns about the tests weren't sufficiently robust.

Worth reading the CAS formal decision actually - intriguing in many ways given the context of Froome's case being dropped.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/ ... hi_fci.pdf

Perhaps with hindsight and developments in the research behind salbutamol and the levels recorded it might be worth considering reevaluating Petacchi, I suppose. But Petacchi did definitely leave the door open in his own evidence for a panel to conclude that he negligently took too many puffs. In fact, from reading his case and making inferences in Ulissi's case, they both appear to be situations where post-race inhalation above and beyond (for no malicious intent) may have caused their higher readings and can be genuinely considered to be negligent doping. Froome persistently denies that sort of scenario.

larkim

RichN95 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

And what happened to this individual? Do we know?

He got a warning from UKAD - standard practice for them. It wasn't a cyclist, it was an unnamed amateur boxer.

"Having considered various previous cases, and taking into account the boxer’s “youth, inexperience and general lack of awareness of his anti-doping responsibilities (so far as his use of the inhaler is concerned)” he was subject to a reprimand but no period of ineligibility."

ocdupalais

I have a picture somewhere of an athlete coming out of a hearing to explain their reading of 4738...

ocdupalais

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

And what happened to this individual? Do we know?

He got a warning from UKAD - standard practice for them. It wasn't a cyclist, it was an unnamed amateur boxer.

"Having considered various previous cases, and taking into account the boxer’s “youth, inexperience and general lack of awareness of his anti-doping responsibilities (so far as his use of the inhaler is concerned)” he was subject to a reprimand but no period of ineligibility."

Ignorance isn't really an excuse. Anyway, all the other British cases have also ended in a warning.

above_the_cows

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

And what happened to this individual? Do we know?

He got a warning from UKAD - standard practice for them. It wasn't a cyclist, it was an unnamed amateur boxer.

"Having considered various previous cases, and taking into account the boxer’s “youth, inexperience and general lack of awareness of his anti-doping responsibilities (so far as his use of the inhaler is concerned)” he was subject to a reprimand but no period of ineligibility."

above_the_cows

OCDuPalais wrote:

This dude got to keep their anonymity.

larkim

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

He got a warning from UKAD - standard practice for them. It wasn't a cyclist, it was an unnamed amateur boxer.

"Having considered various previous cases, and taking into account the boxer’s “youth, inexperience and general lack of awareness of his anti-doping responsibilities (so far as his use of the inhaler is concerned)” he was subject to a reprimand but no period of ineligibility."

Ignorance isn't really an excuse. Anyway, all the other British cases have also ended in a warning.

Agreed, but a bit of tolerance for a young sportsman who UKAD have found to their comfortable satisfaction as having used an inhaler without intending any performance enhancement fits within their criteria for eligibility for the lowest of sanctions.

Had Froome been in the same situation, for example, naivety couldn't have been used to generate a lower sanction I wouldn't have thought.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

Agreed, but a bit of tolerance for a young sportsman who UKAD have found to their comfortable satisfaction as having used an inhaler without intending any performance enhancement fits within their criteria for eligibility for the lowest of sanctions.

Had Froome been in the same situation, for example, naivety couldn't have been used to generate a lower sanction I wouldn't have thought.

But it wasn't an exceptional ruling. All five British cases that I have found ended in a warning.

iainf72

Just started listening to the new cycling podcast

The interesting thing for me was that the majority of AAF's don't end up as doping cases.

salsiccia1

iainf72 wrote:

Just started listening to the new cycling podcast

The interesting thing for me was that the majority of AAF's don't end up as doping cases.

It won't matter to those who want Froome to be guilty. They all think he's doping/cheating in one way or another, and the Salbutamol just confirmed it.

I've been trying to think how I'd feel if it was a sportsman/woman I really disliked. So I thought of Ronaldo (absolute bellend, IMO). How would I feel if he'd had an AAF, and then cleared? I'd like to think I'd be objective and welcome the decision, but I'm not sure I would. This is where a large number of cycling followers are.

tailwindhome

Above The Cows wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

This dude got to keep their anonymity.

Won the Grand National, Kentucky Derby, L'Arc De Troimphe and the Melbourne Cup after being spotted giving kids rides on Blackpool beach

What a story

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

This dude got to keep their anonymity.

Won the Grand National, Kentucky Derby, L'Arc De Troimphe and the Melbourne Cup after being spotted giving kids rides on Blackpool beach

What a story

Seabiscuit was relegated to a heavy schedule of smaller races. He failed to win his first 17 races, usually finishing back in the field. After that, Fitzsimmons did not spend much time on him, and the horse was sometimes the butt of stable jokes....
.....He beat the 1937 Triple-Crown winner, War Admiral, by 4 lengths in a 2-horse special at Pimlico, and was voted American Horse of the Year for 1938. In the Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century (1999), Seabiscuit was ranked 25th.


Dream Alliance was bred by Janet Vokes, whose main experience until then had been with breeding whippets and racing pigeons. While working as a barmaid at a local pub, she overheard Howard Davies, a local tax adviser, discussing a racehorse he had once owned. She was inspired by the idea, and soon after she and her husband, Brian, found a mare named Rewbell who was available for ₤1000, due in part to a barbed wire injury and a very bad temperament. They ultimately bought her for ₤350 and named Davies as the "racing manager" of the group.....
......The horse won the 2009 Welsh National by three-quarters of a length,

above_the_cows

The Pie a Piebald (sometimes masquerading as a chestnut) gelding, was won in a raffle by Velvet Brown, a 14 year old girl from Sewels in Sussex. Together with Mi Taylor, Velvet Brown trained The Pie for entry into the Grand National choosing to ride the horse herself after losing faith in the original jockey and persuading Mi Taylor that she was the best rider for the job on account of her excellent horse handling skills and low weight. Together Velvet and The Pie win the race only for Velvet later to return an Adverse Analytical Finding of two X chromosomes. An exciting story of sexism in sport and triumph against the odds, the story of The Pie and Velvet Brown was made into a successful feature film staring Elizabeth Taylor as Velvet Brown, Mickey Rooney as Mi Taylor and Camilla Parker Bowles as The Pie.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

Seabiscuit

Seabiscuit or Fine Cotton?

What's the Froome movie going to be?

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Fine Cotton?

That's a hilarious story of utter incompetence.

redvision

The reception Froome just received during the tdf presentation would suggest he is in for a very hostile atmosphere during the race.

jwa581

I think the UCI have a duty to conduct a proper and transparent investigation into how this was leaked.

The potential for harm to Froome during the tour secondary to the adverse publicity generated by this case has got to be pretty high given events at recent tours.

The individual who leaked this should be appropriately sanctioned and a statement by the UCI to the effect that they are concerned about the leak and are going to investigate it thoroughly would be welcome (I have not seen anything to this effect), as would an apology to Froome for the damage to his reputation.

Vino'sGhost

redvision wrote:

The reception Froome just received during the tdf presentation would suggest he is in for a very hostile atmosphere during the race.

yep I thought Luke Rowe looked ready to deck someone

hopefully it will calm down, its not the first time Sky have had to win over the French. and its not the first ime a team or rider has been booed either.

No_Ta_Doctor

Imagine football did actually "come home"...with France losing in the final.... :shock:

tailwindhome

gsk82

redvision wrote:

The reception Froome just received during the tdf presentation would suggest he is in for a very hostile atmosphere during the race.

They could've given him a hand by interviewing him in French.

RichN95.

jwa581 wrote:

I think the UCI have a duty to conduct a proper and transparent investigation into how this was leaked.

The potential for harm to Froome during the tour secondary to the adverse publicity generated by this case has got to be pretty high given events at recent tours.

The individual who leaked this should be appropriately sanctioned and a statement by the UCI to the effect that they are concerned about the leak and are going to investigate it thoroughly would be welcome (I have not seen anything to this effect), as would an apology to Froome for the damage to his reputation.

It would be right, but two problems with this.

1) The media won't ask questions about it because they like leaks for obvious reasons. Many probably already know. So nobody is going to hold UCI to account

2) The UCI aren't going voluntarily investigate. It just damages them. They also probably know who did it. And [tinfoilhat] it's possible that it was done with approval from the top[/tinfoilhat}

inseine

No tA Doctor wrote:

Imagine football did actually "come home"...with France losing in the final.... :shock:

Some of us live, work and cycle in France, it’s almost not funny

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

Imagine football did actually "come home"...with France losing in the final.... :shock:

As I pedantically pointed out on twitter - football came home the year Three Lions was released because England hosted the tournament, not because they won it. That's what the lyrics mean. The World Cup's home is France. The trophy's home is Italy.

jwa581

Rich, you may well be right. I was working on the assumption that if I was in charge of the UCI I would be very concerned that my organisation was leaking confidential information and would want to take steps to stop it happening again.
Thought the press were crusading warriors fighting for what's true and right (or so they keep telling us). Find it slightly galling that a profession that has just gone through the Levenson inquiry is preaching about the ethics of Team Sky.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Imagine football did actually "come home"...with France losing in the final.... :shock:

As I pedantically pointed out on twitter - football came home the year Three Lions was released because England hosted the tournament, not because they won it. That's what the lyrics mean. The World Cup's home is France. The trophy's home is Italy.

Nonsense. As good old Mike Bassett said, 'we gave the world football and now we are going to go out and get it back'

m.r.m.

Above The Cows wrote:

Camilla Parker Bowles as The Pie.

So harsh...