Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

mattsaw

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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

ddraver

TailWindHome wrote:

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?

Yup, because, as discussed, adding in my amendment kills your argument

Vino'sGhost

OMG the best thing is Im accused of being a troll assigned labels and yet im not the one who thinks we should just agree to what paid for witnesses say.

I honestly dont carer abouit Froome but you guys need help. Lololol

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

OMG the best thing is Im accused of being a troll assigned labels and yet im not the one who thinks we should just agree to what paid for witnesses say.

I honestly dont carer abouit Froome but you guys need help. Lololol

If there was contradictory evidence from and opposing expert witness I wouldn't just accept it but in the absence of that and being able to admit that I don't know more about everything than anyone else :shock: then yes I accept the word of an expert witness. In this case the Sky defence team put forward evidence from their paid expert witness and WADA's expert witness agreed with it so why would I doubt it? Also, I work for a company that acts as expert witness in their field and know the one thing you never do - no matter how much you are being paid - is put forward evidence you don't believe to be true or embellish the facts to suit your case. Would you choose to ignore the evidence of a forensic scientist or pathologist paid by the prosecution in a murder case if the defence didn't offer counter evidence?

Vino'sGhost

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

OMG the best thing is Im accused of being a troll assigned labels and yet im not the one who thinks we should just agree to what paid for witnesses say.

I honestly dont carer abouit Froome but you guys need help. Lololol

If there was contradictory evidence from and opposing expert witness I wouldn't just accept it but in the absence of that and being able to admit that I don't know more about everything than anyone else :shock: then yes I accept the word of an expert witness. In this case the Sky defence team put forward evidence from their paid expert witness and WADA's expert witness agreed with it so why would I doubt it? Also, I work for a company that acts as expert witness in their field and know the one thing you never do - no matter how much you are being paid - is put forward evidence you don't believe to be true or embellish the facts to suit your case. Would you choose to ignore the evidence of a forensic scientist or pathologist paid by the prosecution in a murder case if the defence didn't offer counter evidence?

My comment wasnt specific to this particular case but to blindly accepting "expert opinion". i.e. im a tinfoil hat wearer for not accepting the opinion of experts. Apparently i make decisions on feeling.

In the Froome case there appear to be plenty of expert opinions floating around. (and on here even more less expert ones). There appears to be some disagreement and the only way to settle it is to recreate the conditions and the AAF. Since that isn't possible we find ourselves where we are.

I have no idea if Froome was abusing the stuff and actually I really dont care and beyond the AAF ive no compelling reason to doubt him.
Do i think Sky are dodgy? well theres something fishy there. Do i know what? no I don't Are they on the gear? well they might be but more than that is the culture and arrogance revealed by a long catalogue of things coming out .

Did i believe that Wiggins was dirty? Absolutely.

tangled_metal

You make a good point about the job role of an "expert witness". That individual tends to get that role through knowledge, experience and reputation for integrity. That is in legal or quasi-legal dealings like this situation. Expert for hire in TV, radio or Internet is another function. Not the same. It is perhaps the latter that is wrecking the publics acceptance of the former which is different.

I used to work in the same building as a consultant in various engineering sectors. He often got jobs as an expert witness. In fact he worked on different jobs for both sides of the debate in his sector of expertise, the developing company and the protesting locals. Both opposing sides recognised his reputation and skills, but above all else his integrity.

It's understanding and spotting this difference that allows you to start to get to the truth. Leave the twitter experts alone. Leave the media experts alone. Look at what the developer of the test (based on research in swimming FFS!). What the WADA said their experts advised. What UCI said their experts advised. Ignore the fact Sky's experts presented the evidence, it was the two institution's experts that effectively agreed with enough of it to close the AAF. They did throw out some of it at irrelevant. IMHO shows independence, integrity and balance.

The death of the expert to the general public is a terrible consequence of modern media I reckon. We gain and lose critical thought. In the past it could say the experts did the critical thought for us and we accepted it. Now we're trying to do the critical thinking for ourselves but as a general population we're shoot at it. We're mistaking conspiratorial thinking as critical thought perhaps.

Vino'sGhost

Tangled Metal, good post.

Its also worth noting that different courts and tribunals in different countries have different standards relating to the submissions of "expert witnesses" in particular to address the problem of the submission of erroneous, misleading or incomplete information. It is quite normal to assess and determine the reliability of expert opinion.

For example; in the uk for criminal cases the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Criminal Practice Directions list the matters which must be included in an experts report in order that the court can assess the report and also the factors the court can take into account to determine the reliability of expert opinion. obviously with reference to common law.

a good example of the need to assess the integrity of an "expert or his evidence" can be found after Sally Clark was jailed for killing her infant son after Expert Witness from Professor Sir Roy Meadow testified that the probability of two natural unexplained cot deaths to a single family was 73,000,000 to 1.

Some what longer odds than england had to get this far.

The conviction was overturned and the GMC struck Professor meadow off for his erroneous and misleading information. This isnt a stand alone case but did trigger a law commission consultation and and report along with a draft Bill to address the issue of sufficiently reliable expert evidence.

tangled_metal

Still doesn't mean you can't trust WADA/UCI expert opinion. There has to be trust in there somewhere or you'll never get closure on any matter like this.

Generally I consider someone who's reached professor status in a reputable / respected University as being trustworthy wrt their opinions on a topic. I know that even within such respected institutions the best aren't always the professors. I know of a few leaders in their field, with a publication/contribution list a mile long and chairs of the review panels of journals and editorials of journals too but only a lecturer. Senior and respected but not given a professor role. Politics in everything not just merit.

Still it worries me that someone I disagree with over this Froome matter finds my post a good one. No offence meant but it makes me wonder if I really typed what I was thinking.

Vino'sGhost

Tangled Metal wrote:

Still doesn't mean you can't trust WADA/UCI expert opinion. There has to be trust in there somewhere or you'll never get closure on any matter like this.

Generally I consider someone who's reached professor status in a reputable / respected University as being trustworthy wrt their opinions on a topic. I know that even within such respected institutions the best aren't always the professors. I know of a few leaders in their field, with a publication/contribution list a mile long and chairs of the review panels of journals and editorials of journals too but only a lecturer. Senior and respected but not given a professor role. Politics in everything not just merit.

Still it worries me that someone I disagree with over this Froome matter finds my post a good one. No offence meant but it makes me wonder if I really typed what I was thinking.

Agreed to a point again :shock:
LOL well i'm not sure you did type what you meant but if you didn't, you did it again as the example i gave was of a professor generally considered to be the top of his tree giving dodgy evidence on cotdeath that led to a massive miscarriage of justice. sadly hes not alone. The point i was making was that it would be wise to question the veracity and bias of expert witness statements before acknowledging and accepting them.

In the Froome case the quality of his expert witness and all the evidence was never TESTED which is a shame in a way because he's now got a cloud over him.

shirley_basso

But it was a group of experts all agreeing. Even the founder of the test (I think) said it was flawed.

larkim

Testing is the wrong word here. What Froome's evidence was subject to was closer to "peer review" in the academic world. Froome's team (clearly) put forward evidence and research which supported their position that a) he hadn't ingested too much or b) at the very least you cannot satisfactorily conclude with any certainty that he took too much.

WADA / UCI didn't just accept that at face value. Experts they trust scrutinised that info and drew their own conclusions. If you can't give credit to WADA or UCI for being able to draw solid conclusions based on their professional backgrounds and qualifications, then I don't quite know how else you are going to resolve cases like this?

Vino'sGhost

Shirley Basso wrote:

But it was a group of experts all agreeing. Even the founder of the test (I think) said it was flawed.

were they all in agreement that he couldnt have ingested too much?

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

Testing is the wrong word here. What Froome's evidence was subject to was closer to "peer review" in the academic world. Froome's team (clearly) put forward evidence and research which supported their position that a) he hadn't ingested too much or b) at the very least you cannot satisfactorily conclude with any certainty that he took too much.

WADA / UCI didn't just accept that at face value. Experts they trust scrutinised that info and drew their own conclusions. If you can't give credit to WADA or UCI for being able to draw solid conclusions based on their professional backgrounds and qualifications, then I don't quite know how else you are going to resolve cases like this?

on the internet or by twitter.

StillGoing

How about we club together so the troll can go and stand at the side of the TdF route with his anti Sky placard and put an end to his drivel. Even on block I see his quoted rubbish.

larkim

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

But it was a group of experts all agreeing. Even the founder of the test (I think) said it was flawed.

were they all in agreement that he couldnt have ingested too much?

That's not the point, they don't need to be. They needed the possibility of him ingesting too much being substantially lower than the possibility that the readings were due to natural variations and limitations of the test.

tangled_metal

I don't see why Froome has a cloud over him. He's not even been cleared of anything. It had only been determined that a single unusual test is not able to prove that he had overdosed on a permitted drug he's been prescribed within the rules of sports anti doping regulations. As I see it. It's been a series of police interviews of a suspect to a possible crime only to find out there was no crime in the first place.

IMHO there should be no cloud over him. However it's clear there's enough people around who see clouds where there's blue skies. Let's hope they don't start seeing rain before the end of the tour.

Vino'sGhost

philthy3 wrote:

How about we club together so the troll can go and stand at the side of the TdF route with his anti Sky placard and put an end to his drivel. Even on block I see his quoted rubbish.

Another fanboy that can’t read. Dear dear

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

But it was a group of experts all agreeing. Even the founder of the test (I think) said it was flawed.

were they all in agreement that he couldnt have ingested too much?

That's not the point, they don't need to be. They needed the possibility of him ingesting too much being substantially lower than the possibility that the readings were due to natural variations and limitations of the

I’m not sure that’s actually the case here. However it doesn’t matter much because they’re not going any further with it.

rick_chasey

We've established that Vino can't name the banned drug(s) Froome and/or sky are on, can't offer any evidence beyond success that Sky are using banned products.

We can establish Vino reckons the conditions are ripe for doping, yet he seems to focus all his attention on here on Sky, rather than the broader peloton, who, presumably, have similar incentives to dope.

I mean, what else is there to say?

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

We've established that Vino can't name the banned drug(s) Froome and/or sky are on, can't offer any evidence beyond success that Sky are using banned products.

We can establish Vino reckons the conditions are ripe for doping, yet he seems to focus all his attention on here on Sky, rather than the broader peloton, who, presumably, have similar incentives to dope.

I mean, what else is there to say?

this is a thread about Froome, Froome rides for sky. This is the right place for a discussion about that.

I know some people believe theres nothing to see, believe that unless youre actually convicted of an offence you haven't done anything wrong. This is a symptom of a wider malaise by people who in some cases condone drugtaking Rick.

had you read any of my comments over the last couple of days you will have seen they have actually been rather general albeit still associated with the title of the thread. Chris Froome and Salbutomol feature large in the title.

Had you read the comments you would have seen me say that other than the AAF i have no compelling reasons to believe Froome is on the gear.

You would have seen me say quite clearly that i think theres something untoward about Sky, this is based on FACTS Facts that are not disputed by anyone sane.

These facts include the seemingly constant back ground of "non events" such as mysterious jiffy bags, hiring dodgy doctors who lose the records that could clear riders, dodgy TUEs and Chris Froomes AAF. Is it any wonder that after a while I might conclude that something untoward might be happening.

Youd also know that Ive said Ive no idea if theyre all on the gear or not.


I also note that you have been broadly pro PED use as long as its not as bad as the epo years.

larkim

For the record, the doc didn’t lose the records. His laptop was stolen, and this has been backed up with police records shown to the UKAD team (this was confirmed as part of the Select COmmittee hearings). So bandying around that sort of loose accusation doesn’t help your position if you’re trying to say there are facts which paint Sky in a poor light.

orraloon

That song from 'Frozen' keeps coming to mind. "Let it go, let it go..."

tim000

orraloon wrote:

That song from 'Frozen' keeps coming to mind. "Let it go, let it go..."

he cant . life wont be worth living . it`s all he has .

bobmcstuff

Chris Froome didn't have an AAF... just for accuracy... they decided it didn't constitute an AAF and dropped it...

iainf72

WADA add a whole lot more

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... her-froome

bompington

iainf72 wrote:

WADA add a whole lot more

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... her-froome

Pah, we don't listen to experts, Sky (sorry, SKY) bought the UCI off, Brailsford bullied WADA, Murdoch put happy pills in their cornflakes, pass me my tin foil hat, ...

iainf72

bompington wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

WADA add a whole lot more

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... her-froome

Pah, we don't listen to experts, Sky (sorry, SKY) bought the UCI off, Brailsford bullied WADA, Murdoch put happy pills in their cornflakes, pass me my tin foil hat, ...

I'm not sure why none of them mention the "dog models" which Ross said the whole thing was based on. It's almost like he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.

larkim

Short of giving all the readings that's a helpful document to give some clarity.

shipley

larkim wrote:

For the record, the doc didn’t lose the records. His laptop was stolen, and this has been backed up with police records shown to the UKAD team (this was confirmed as part of the Select COmmittee hearings). So bandying around that sort of loose accusation doesn’t help your position if you’re trying to say there are facts which paint Sky in a poor light.

Just on that point...this is the 21st century. There isn’t a corporately (if that’s a word !) owned laptop that doesn’t have an automated backup in place. Especially one owned by SKY. The SKY acceptable use policy governing all digital media (which includes the cycling team and the broadcasting element) ensures that whether directly or wirelessly connected to (their own) internet connection based cloud storage system, automated backups are triggered.

To circumvent this is difficult, either you have to consciously cancel the backup routine, or manually ensure the device never connects to the internet.

This will make sure that if a device is stolen, the data is already replicated offsite in ‘the cloud’.

I therefore don’t for one minute believe the story from the team doctor saying ...”sorry it was stolen and all the data was on it.....and I can’t remember any details”

That is what our American cousins would define as........’Horseshit’

shirley_basso

While I agree, it is possible that doctor was using local files rather than ones on a shared drive.

I don't have the ability to work with offline files that then sync. It's either local version or online version then I have to remember to copy my version over. Been like that at my last 2 jobs.