Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

inseine

Seems like the only acceptable outcome, for some people, would have been a guilty one. That’s not how justice should work is it (and all the behind the scenes speculation is just that).

slim_boy_fat

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm not sure everyone gets that.

We've clocked you at 140mph, but we can't prove what speed you were doing

More like we've clocked you at 140mph but the speed gun is broken so have no idea what it really was.

or weve clocked you at 140mph, your enourmous team have come up with a hypothetical situation that is specific to you because of your unusual paint which has now been washed off and since it would be impossible to get preciseley the same temperature sun position and pollen content in the air to prove your theory were going to let you off because it would be

A, unfair if theres even the slightest possibility that possibly maybe in another reality their is an infintesimally small chance test is wrong. Wed normally ask you to repeat the conditions to prove your outlandish theory but it's just not possible for you.

B, we just cant afford financially to test this through to the end and anyway everyone will then know how to deal with us.

you got away with it son.

Sorry, we thogught long and hard but it was going to get far too messy what with ASo calling our bluff and the lawyers circling.

That is so far from the actual situation that it doesn't come close to representing it. The guy that carried out the study that the limit was based on has said that it is flawed when used in such a situation as it was in this case. That's got nothing to do with money or a hypothetical situation. You really need to get over it and let it go. This is a good thing that has happened for anti doping and all athletes who need salbutamol.

topper_harley

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

If, after eights seasons of podium finishes, your best bit of evidence against Froome is TUEs given to a different rider when Froome's TUEs were leaked themselves, then it's pretty weak.

lol only if you think environment is irrelevant.

only if you think his AAF is irrelevant

btw the AAF didnt progress to a anti doping sanction because he couldnt reproduce his results, not because there was no evidence or because they thought he was innocent.

Froome didn't have that

topper_harley

but before you start

WADA’s announcement follows that of the UCI earlier today, which announced that the anti-doping proceedings involving Mr. Froome have now been closed. Based on careful consideration of the facts, the Agency accepts that the analytical result of Mr. Froome’s sample from 7 September 2017 during the Vuelta a España, which identified the prohibited substance Salbutamol at a concentration in excess of the decision limitof 1200 ng/mL(1), did not constitute an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF).

Dorset_Boy

What is unique about Froome's case is the sheer number of tests he has undergone.
To me, it seems clear that they were able to show that his readings fluctuate over the course of a GT, with the average reading being well under the WADA limit, and in this case they probably were able to show that there were a number of lower than average readings followed by a spike, followed by more typical readings for him.

Other riders and athletes haven't had the frequency of tests to help back up their cases.

andytee87

frisbee wrote:

I'm watching the Tour de France and they all seem to be going a lot faster than a normal person can run. Clearly they are all on something that gives them a significant advantage.

I can see the headlines on Cycling News already:

Dirty cheating cyclists in mechanical doping scandal!
Apparent use of bikes to go faster than runners

tailwindhome

WADA experts say Salbutamol is a PED
WADA experts reviewed Froome's submission and concluded no AAF
WADA experts say test is fine.

Which WADA experts are to be relied upon?

tailwindhome

Dorset Boy wrote:

What is unique about Froome's case is the sheer number of tests he has undergone.
To me, it seems clear that they were able to show that his readings fluctuate over the course of a GT, with the average reading being well under the WADA limit, and in this case they probably were able to show that there were a number of lower than average readings followed by a spike, followed by more typical readings for him.

Other riders and athletes haven't had the frequency of tests to help back up their cases.

How did they prove the input of Salbutamol each day for each tested output?

cougie

I don't know why we are still arguing. We didn't have all the information. WADA did. They ruled no offence - so that's it.

Even Lance said all his millions couldn't save him from WADA.

ddraver

TailWindHome wrote:

WADA experts say Salbutamol is a PED
WADA experts reviewed Froome's submission and concluded no AAF
WADA experts say test is fine.

Which WADA experts are to be relied upon?

It's easy if you obscure the detail innit

TailWindHome wrote:

WADA experts say Salbutamol is a PED when injected in far greater quantities than can be achieved by inhaler. Amounts that would be x100 what the limit is, not some poxy x1.5
WADA experts reviewed Froome's submission and concluded no AAF
WADA experts say test is fine.

Which WADA experts are to be relied upon?

FTFY

kleinstroker

TailWindHome wrote:

WADA experts say Salbutamol is a PED
WADA experts reviewed Froome's submission and concluded no AAF
WADA experts say test is fine.

Which WADA experts are to be relied upon?

Not quite right, they say it is a PED if it is over a certain value or if it can be shown to be taken orally or by injection

Vino'sGhost

Unfortunately it’s not possible to recreate the conditions that led to the aaf to demonstrate either he did or did not exceed the permitted level. Case closed

slim_boy_fat

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Unfortunately it’s not possible to recreate the conditions that led to the aaf to demonstrate either he did or did not exceed the permitted level. Case closed

Are you just wilfully ignoring what has been said?

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.
...

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Vino'sGhost

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Unfortunately it’s not possible to recreate the conditions that led to the aaf to demonstrate either he did or did not exceed the permitted level. Case closed

Are you just wilfully ignoring what has been said?

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.
...

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Said one expert witness to another

slim_boy_fat

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Unfortunately it’s not possible to recreate the conditions that led to the aaf to demonstrate either he did or did not exceed the permitted level. Case closed

Are you just wilfully ignoring what has been said?

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.
...

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Said one expert witness to another

That's it, that's your come back? If you actually brought something to the table other than innuendo it might help your case but you've got absolutely nothing.

orraloon

This poster / forum / country / world / delete as appropriate has had enough of experts. Innit.

ddraver

orraloon wrote:

This poster / forum / country / world / delete as appropriate has had enough of experts. Innit.

I normally don't engage but I couldn't resist with this one...

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/statu ... 71969?s=19

'Sociologists of pro cycling'

Jesus Wept FFS!!!

orraloon

Sh!t. I was joking. 'kin internetz. Innit.

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

orraloon wrote:

This poster / forum / country / world / delete as appropriate has had enough of experts. Innit.

I normally don't engage but I couldn't resist with this one...

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/statu ... 71969?s=19

'Sociologists of pro cycling'

Jesus Wept FFS!!!

A tweet from a tin foil hatter saying that "No data can be trusted" retweeted by an actual sports scientist, because he cares more about a small amount of fame.

I maintain that inadvertently the defining quote of our age is Michael Gove saying "People in this country have had enough of experts"

mattsaw

orraloon wrote:

This poster / forum / country / world / delete as appropriate has had enough of experts. Innit.

.

This basically.

There is a certain kind of person who doesn't believe experts.

They know best, their feelings are more important than an expert who is telling them that they are wrong. They'll willfully ignore facts if they don't fit with their version of events.

They won't engage when their view of the world is challenged and will respond with innuendo and get defensive when called out.

Funny how it transcends different topics

tailwindhome

ddraver wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

WADA experts say Salbutamol is a PED
WADA experts reviewed Froome's submission and concluded no AAF
WADA experts say test is fine.

Which WADA experts are to be relied upon?

It's easy if you obscure the detail innit

TailWindHome wrote:

WADA experts say Salbutamol is a PED when injected in far greater quantities than can be achieved by inhaler. Amounts that would be x100 what the limit is, not some poxy x1.5
WADA experts reviewed Froome's submission and concluded no AAF
WADA experts say test is fine.

Which WADA experts are to be relied upon?

FTFY

Thanks, but I'm afraid I must reject your amendment to my post.

While the Froome 'case' was ongoing one strand of the discussion on this forum was that Salbutamol wasn't even a PED and the whole thing was silly.

So I'll ask the question again

WADA experts say Salbutamol is a PED
WADA experts reviewed Froome's submission and concluded no AAF
WADA experts say test is fine.

Which WADA experts are to be relied upon?

Vino'sGhost

Mattsaw wrote:

orraloon wrote:

This poster / forum / country / world / delete as appropriate has had enough of experts. Innit.

.

This basically.

There is a certain kind of person who doesn't believe experts.

They know best, their feelings are more important than an expert who is telling them that they are wrong. They'll willfully ignore facts if they don't fit with their version of events.

They won't engage when their view of the world is challenged and will respond with innuendo and get defensive when called out.

Funny how it transcends different topics

And some halfwits always believe expert opinion.

Pross

I'm not sure why so many of you are still engaging in this 'discussion'. Vino is Pro Race's resident troll and for whatever reason, on this subject, TWH is being deliberately obtuse in ignoring key words - he knows what was actually said but just won't accept it. For example, the comment on salbutamol being performance enhancing and I'm sure he realises those on here arguing that it isn't were talking about when it is inhaled. Even the performance enhancements quoted (muscle gain) would be of limited benefit to a cyclist in a GT and presumably requires regular use to have any effect.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

So I'll ask the question again

WADA experts say Salbutamol is a PED
WADA experts reviewed Froome's submission and concluded no AAF
WADA experts say test is fine.

Which WADA experts are to be relied upon?

WADA experts are inconclusive as the whether it is a PED to they have it on the list in case. However, the circumstances is which it might be were not the circumstances of the Froome cases. Lots of salbutamol cases end in just a warning.

WADA have indeed dropped the case

WADA do not seem to have said that the test was fine, but in any case it was never meant to be taken in isolation. It was just a starting point for an investigation. It appears that plenty of cases get dropped.

None of the 'WADA experts' you mention are giving black and white binary opinions.

tangled_metal

Experts only give a statement of opinion based on current evidence. They're quite willing to change their position if the new evidence presented indicates that. I suspect that is happening with Salbutamol. The administrators and politicians see a problem with about turns in these matters. It takes them time to come to terms with the changes. So they take a lot longer than they should do.

I think science looks to what is the current understanding. Administrators look to what has gone before and worry about the consequences of the change in policy that the science brings.

Of course internet warriors use the confusion these differences in views / focus to exploit the changes in practice as they're occurring to cast doubt.

I could be totally wrong though.

mattsaw

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

orraloon wrote:

This poster / forum / country / world / delete as appropriate has had enough of experts. Innit.

.

This basically.

There is a certain kind of person who doesn't believe experts.

They know best, their feelings are more important than an expert who is telling them that they are wrong. They'll willfully ignore facts if they don't fit with their version of events.

They won't engage when their view of the world is challenged and will respond with innuendo and get defensive when called out.

Funny how it transcends different topics

And some halfwits always believe expert opinion.

Intesd I'll choose to ignore them and make up my own tinfoil-hatted theory based on what I want to believe is true based on my feelings

Vino'sGhost

Mattsaw wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

orraloon wrote:

This poster / forum / country / world / delete as appropriate has had enough of experts. Innit.

.

This basically.

There is a certain kind of person who doesn't believe experts.

They know best, their feelings are more important than an expert who is telling them that they are wrong. They'll willfully ignore facts if they don't fit with their version of events.

They won't engage when their view of the world is challenged and will respond with innuendo and get defensive when called out.

Funny how it transcends different topics

And some halfwits always believe expert opinion.

Intesd I'll choose to ignore them and make up my own tinfoil-hatted theory based on what I want to believe is true based on my feelings

you seem to be getting angry, and calling names. Only the very naive would take as gospel the paid for opinion of an expert in isolation.

I suspect your emotions are getting the better of you, have a lie down pet.

above_the_cows

ddraver wrote:

orraloon wrote:

This poster / forum / country / world / delete as appropriate has had enough of experts. Innit.

I normally don't engage but I couldn't resist with this one...

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/statu ... 71969?s=19

'Sociologists of pro cycling'

Jesus Wept FFS!!!

I would like to consider myself a sociologist of pro-cycling, being well versed in both the general discipline of sociology and the specifics of Science and Technology Studies and knowing something about pro-cycling and well, in my expert opinion, I say they are talking bobbins. That we understand how facts come into being and data comes to be produced, that we understand the literal matter of facts is not to say that no data can be trusted.

above_the_cows

Tangled Metal wrote:

...I think science looks to what is the current understanding. Administrators look to what has gone before and worry about the consequences of the change in policy that the science brings... I could be totally wrong though.

Nope. That is pretty much what the academic literature that looks at the role of science in policy making and administration says.

Vino'sGhost

so were agreed then, Mattsaw stop using experts witnesses as your tin foil hat and look out at the view.