Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

above_the_cows

M.R.M. wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Camilla Parker Bowles as The Pie.

So harsh...

But fair.

RichN95.

jwa581 wrote:

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.

The problem I have is that the President of the UCI is a slick career politician who is known to have ambitions beyond cycling.
This is just a stepping stone to greater positions. He was due to stand for the French Senate until it became clear that support for traditional parties had collapsed - he's with the right leaning UMP of Sarkosky and Hollande.
Everything he does is about the French base. He may well have sanctioned the leak himself.

He's a man who wins elections but once in position just uses it to win the next election.

m.r.m.

Above The Cows wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Camilla Parker Bowles as The Pie.

So harsh...

But fair.

Seems like she is saddled with a rather lame mule

jwa581

RichN95 wrote:

jwa581 wrote:

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.

The problem I have is that the President of the UCI is a slick career politician who is known to have ambitions beyond cycling.
This is just a stepping stone to greater positions. He was due to stand for the French Senate until it became clear that support for traditional parties had collapsed - he's with the right leaning UMP of Sarkosky and Hollande.
Everything he does is about the French base. He may well have sanctioned the leak himself.

He's a man who wins elections but once in position just uses it to win the next election.

This is true unfortunately, so we now have a president of the UCI who doesn't really care about cycling, just what cycling can do for his career. Gotta love politicians!

bompington

inseine 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"

Is that in the podcast? I can’t find it in the text

It's his last comment put into plain words

Matthewfalle

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.

so untterly completely different comparison then? in fact you couldn't get more different. comparing potatoes to space rockets.

bizarre how you didn't mention the situation in your defensive post above.

Allez Mark

redvision wrote:

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'

Yes... And "England will be playing 4---4 f***ing 2".

above_the_cows

Matthewfalle 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.

so untterly completely different comparison then? in fact you couldn't get more different. comparing potatoes to space rockets.

bizarre how you didn't mention the situation in your defensive post above.

The only is how far above the limit this other person was in comparison to Froome. I don't see other differences or are you suggesting that different anti-doping rules apply to different sports?

Bumo_b

Totally fair comparison in my book as it was merely highlighting that other people had been found further over the limit and anyway, as has been discussed recently, we have a false data set in that we really don't know how many people have had an adverse finding and nor should we. Personally I would pick something far more useful to dope with than a bloody inhaler if I was intent on cheating.
People who exclaim that he broke the rules, were quite happy to circumnavigate them and claim he should be banned when the rules quite clearly state he was allowed to race, and he followed the rules in his appeal to the letter. Personally I almost consider it a form of cheating that an attempt was made to remove a better rider from the field. The whole episode stinks in so many ways, least of all Froomes behaviour, but others reaction to it.
"I'll say to the people who don't believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you can't dream ..."

shirley_basso

What of Froome's behaviour? Hes quietly gone about his own business.

Bumo_b

Behaviour as in insisting he should race which quite rightly he should be able to, poor choice of words on my part as believe his behaviour/insistence was 100% right

shirley_basso

Delete were saying the same thing.

salsiccia1

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/05/team-sky-tour-de-france-rival-education-first-chris-froome-jonathan-vaughters

I'm seriously considering not watching the Tour this year. I don't think I'll be able to stand the shit that Froome and Sky are going to get from the wankers on the side of the road.

davidof

Salsiccia1 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/05/team-sky-tour-de-france-rival-education-first-chris-froome-jonathan-vaughters

I'm seriously considering not watching the Tour this year. I don't think I'll be able to stand the shit that Froome and Sky are going to get from the wankers on the side of the road.

Maybe if the Guardian had acted more responsibly there wouldn't have been a story?
I like the way they ramp up the tension "armed police are protecting the Sky hotel..."

All police in France are armed.

Bumo_b

Good post, these quotes sum it up perfectly for me

“The first thing to understand is that this was never a case,” he said. “It was a process to determine whether they should bring a case. And 99% of the time that happens behind closed doors, in complete privacy.

“In this case, it was public, which is really unfortunate and whoever leaked it — because somebody inside the UCI leaked it — it’s just nasty, vindictive behaviour to do that,” he said. “It doesn’t actually allow the system to work in the way that it should in a case involving a restricted substance, as opposed to a banned substance.”

DeVlaeminck

I suspect it'll be no worse than previous years - not that what has happened in previous years is necessarily acceptable but most people there are there to watch the racing and wont tolerate idiots who spoil that.

I'm not really a Sky fan and I'd rather see Nibali, Bardet or some of the others win it but most of all I want to see a bike race and some civilised behaviour. If I was at the side of a mountain watching this years race (which if they hadn't delayed the start by a week I might have been :x ) and someone tries to barge past me with a syringe and a bottle of piss to aim at Froome he'd be feeling my elbow to his ribs.

above_the_cows

Salsiccia1 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/05/team-sky-tour-de-france-rival-education-first-chris-froome-jonathan-vaughters

I'm seriously considering not watching the Tour this year. I don't think I'll be able to stand the shit that Froome and Sky are going to get from the wankers on the side of the road.

There's some terrible story on there about Titchy Richie that just couldn't help talking about Froome's 'clearance for doping'. Don't look at the comments.* Car crash of ridiculousness, someone is even saying 'has anyone actually seen Froome with an inhaler'.




*I failed to follow my own advice, but in my defence I was woken up by one of the cats depositing a dead mouse on my chest at 4.30 this morning and couldn't get back to sleep. So in my sleep deprived state I headed down the tunnel of the absurd.

tangled_metal

Perhaps WADA could release some anonymised data on salbutamol AAFs. Simple data like level recorded, cleared/sanctioned and if sanctioned what the sanction was. No names, sports or any identifying detail.

If we knew there were ten or a thousand Salbutamol AAFs is useful. If Froome is one of a thousand athletes to be cleared then there shouldn't be as much of an issue than if he's one of a very rare few. I doubt WADA will release that data, hiding behind confidentiality rules and procedures, because it may show that actually it is not an effective test anyway with more getting off than getting sanctions or sanctions such as a suspension.

BTW IMHO since the leak of Froome's AAF I think the confidentiality of some of that data should be waived because it's unfair to leave Froome out there as one of the few known Salbutamol AAF to be cleared. Knowing how many have been cleared (even without the reasons) will possibly help Froome's case. Kind of puts his case into some kind of perspective.

Vino'sGhost

Salsiccia1 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/05/team-sky-tour-de-france-rival-education-first-chris-froome-jonathan-vaughters

I'm seriously considering not watching the Tour this year. I don't think I'll be able to stand the shit that Froome and Sky are going to get from the wankers on the side of the road.

Balanced comments from Vaughters. I'd love to see Uran in Paris wearing yellow.

tailwindhome

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.

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.

It's a reasonable assumption that Froome wasn't able to reproduce the test result in his own testing.

We can assume this by it's absence from the WADA statement.

The alternatives are that they didn't try to reproduce it, reproduced it but omitted from their defense or reproduced it, included it in their defense and WADA haven't mentioned it.

My guess?

They've tried to reproduce it, couldn't, but spotted a variability in the results which they've used to undermine the test.

His legal team have done a fabulous job here.

They couldn't explain the result, came up with a convincing argument why not only could they not explain it but that it was unfair to ask them to explain it then attacked the test itself.

davidof

RichN95 wrote:

The problem I have is that the President of the UCI is a slick career politician who is known to have ambitions beyond cycling.
This is just a stepping stone to greater positions. He was due to stand for the French Senate until it became clear that support for traditional parties had collapsed - he's with the right leaning UMP of Sarkosky and Hollande.
Everything he does is about the French base. He may well have sanctioned the leak himself.

Hollande was general secretary of the French Socialist Party before becoming president.

David Lappartient is the mayor of Sarzeau for Les Républicains, the mainstream center right French party. He's not going to rise much above that politically, maybe a senate seat as you suggested, perhaps minister of sports. He has a number of other low level political jobs which must rake in quite a bit of cash in total.

I count 4 political jobs currently plus the UCI, so 5 jobs in total. I wonder how he has time for it all?

above_the_cows

davidof wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/05/team-sky-tour-de-france-rival-education-first-chris-froome-jonathan-vaughters

I'm seriously considering not watching the Tour this year. I don't think I'll be able to stand the shit that Froome and Sky are going to get from the wankers on the side of the road.

Maybe if the Guardian had acted more responsibly there wouldn't have been a story?
I like the way they ramp up the tension "armed police are protecting the Sky hotel..."

All police in France are armed.

Nice of Whittle to acknowledge where he lifted Vaughters' quotes from. He's just ripped it from the Cycling Podcast. His journalistsic ethics know no bounds!

tailwindhome

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps WADA could release some anonymised data on salbutamol AAFs. Simple data like level recorded, cleared/sanctioned and if sanctioned what the sanction was. No names, sports or any identifying detail.

If we knew there were ten or a thousand Salbutamol AAFs is useful. If Froome is one of a thousand athletes to be cleared then there shouldn't be as much of an issue than if he's one of a very rare few. I doubt WADA will release that data, hiding behind confidentiality rules and procedures, because it may show that actually it is not an effective test anyway with more getting off than getting sanctions or sanctions such as a suspension.

BTW IMHO since the leak of Froome's AAF I think the confidentiality of some of that data should be waived because it's unfair to leave Froome out there as one of the few known Salbutamol AAF to be cleared. Knowing how many have been cleared (even without the reasons) will possibly help Froome's case. Kind of puts his case into some kind of perspective.

WADA have a problem here

To stretch my analogy further, they can't tell everyone that their speed cameras don't work or it'll be wacky races

Vino'sGhost

TailWindHome 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.

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.

It's a reasonable assumption that Froome wasn't able to reproduce the test result in his own testing.

We can assume this by it's absence from the WADA statement.

The alternatives are that they didn't try to reproduce it, reproduced it but omitted from their defense or reproduced it, included it in their defense and WADA haven't mentioned it.

My guess?

They've tried to reproduce it, couldn't, but spotted a variability in the results which they've used to undermine the test.

His legal team have done a fabulous job here.

They couldn't explain the result, came up with a convincing argument why not only could they not explain it but that it was unfair to ask them to explain it then attacked the test itself.

Exactly that, His team is to be congratulated. I'd love to see the fees but seriously with a result like that theyre going to be in demand.

davidof

Above The Cows wrote:

but in my defence I was woken up by one of the cats depositing a dead mouse on my chest at 4.30 this morning and couldn't get back to sleep. So in my sleep deprived state I headed down the tunnel of the absurd.

at least it wasn't a horse's head !

above_the_cows

davidof wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

but in my defence I was woken up by one of the cats depositing a dead mouse on my chest at 4.30 this morning and couldn't get back to sleep. So in my sleep deprived state I headed down the tunnel of the absurd.

at least it wasn't a horse's head !

larkim

TailWindHome wrote:

WADA have a problem here

To stretch my analogy further, they can't tell everyone that their speed cameras don't work or it'll be wacky races

There is highly unlikely to be any other athlete that will have the depth of data that they were able to review from Froome in terms of consecutive days of urine tests whilst using Salbutamol. The WADA statement also refers to an illness that Froome had (surprised no-one has picked up that on the basis of "how does someone ill win a GT"?) to paint of picture of genuine uniqueness about the dataset.

And in any event, short of chronic use in training in tablet form to drop weight, should we really be concerned about Salbutamol testing as there is scant evidence that it enhances performance anyway. If it did, and with inhalers more or less freely available, *everyone* in the peloton would use it within legal limits.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they try to clarify things in the post-Froome world, but I don't think the whole system is broken - and wacky races won't arise because Salbutamol doesn't do much anyway!

(On your analogy, it was well known in the film days that most cameras were out of film and even if they flashed there was unlikely to be a ticket)

tangled_metal

Wasn't the illness an infection? I could be he was pi$$ING fire! Would a mild urinary infection or could it be a pretty minor infection that most people get no treatment for but carry on regardless. At his end treating a marginal infection that you'd carry on right through could give a marginal gain. To over use that phrase.

Personally I didn't care who wins the tour. I've always wanted to see a competitive race. However now I want Froome to win and keep on winning. It'll be the best way to stick two fingers up at the haters who IMHO are trying to destroy the sport.

Bumo_b

On the subject of illness and dehydration, I drink plenty of beetroot juice daily (with concentrate added) to help raise my awful riding to semi-mediocre. Last year I completed L'Etape (bottom third so no bragging rights) and as the effects of the heat and climbing of the last 50km took their effect I peed deep purple (clear for the first 6 hours) despite being relatively well hydrated. There may be no relevance to Mr Froome, but it seemed very odd that suddenly my body seemed to be dumping beetroot (or some extract of beetroot) and something clearly changed quite rapidly in a short period of time in major exertion. Happened for the rest of the day and then was dead clear in the morning. The body behaves in weird ways.

PhilipPirrip

Bumo_b wrote:

...as the effects of the heat and climbing of the last 50km took their effect I peed deep purple...

Was there any smoke on the water?