Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

larkim

My laptop has no such backup. So that's one at least!

larkim

Plus it was a Mac so it wasn't a proper laptop, it was a posers device ;-)

andyrr

I worked for a large American tech company for 20 years (went through multiple parent companies in that time) and our on-call laptops that we took home had no automated synch/backup. I had stuff saved to desktop or to networked locations, depending on my own preferences. I remember some of our network drives weren't always backed up due to lack of storage and our Unix drives were not always safe if they failed so "hi-tech" companies aren't always great at managing their own tech.

shipley

larkim wrote:

My laptop has no such backup. So that's one at least!

So you don’t work for SKY UK Ltd or SKY Plc then

Otherwise you’d have no option but to be included in that IT structure.

Pross

larkim wrote:

My laptop has no such backup. So that's one at least!

Nor mine in all the places I’ve worked for the last 20 years. One of those was a multi-national company with thousands of employees.

Sky’s policy was to back up using Dropbox, Freeman was supposed to do that and was (rightly) criticised for not doing so. I think, but not certain, that the laptop was BC property and not Sky (note that it isn’t SKY!). It was very well planned to report the laptop stolen years before knowing someone might want you to give them information from it as well.

Pross

Shipley wrote:

larkim wrote:

My laptop has no such backup. So that's one at least!

So you don’t work for SKY UK Ltd or SKY Plc then

Otherwise you’d have no option but to be included in that IT structure.

You said there won’t be a corporately owned laptop that wouldn’t have an automated back up now it’s downgraded to something Sky do. Is the cycling team a part of Sky’s corporation? Surely they are just the sponsor? I think you’re just making stuff up again.

gsk82

My work files don't automatically back up either. I'm spotting a trend.

shirley_basso

To be fair it is possible that no information was lost when the laptop was stolen but the theft was used as an excuse for the non provision of information to the investigation anyway.

shipley

SKY owned laptops do.....

Other companies’ policies are irrelevant here.

Pross

Shipley wrote:

SKY owned laptops do.....

Other companies’ policies are irrelevant here.

Who are SKY? Looks like an acronym.

Sky Pro Cycling’s policy, which has been widely reported in this case, was to back up to Dropbox (a policy that had only been brought in after after the death of a soigneur the previous year). Freeman didn’t do this and just kept the information on his hard drive.

Pross

Shipley wrote:

SKY owned laptops do.....

Other companies’ policies are irrelevant here.

I’ve just checked my memory was right and it was - the stolen laptop was British Cycling property so it is actually Sky’s IT policy that is irrelevant here.

bompington

Shipley wrote:

SKY... SKY’

I think I'm going to institute a policy of ignoring anyone who insists on capitalising WORDS for no good reason.
And also anyone who likes to pick UP one assertion that may or MAY not be true and turn it INTO a guilty verdict because it SUITS their preconceptions.

tailwindhome

ddraver wrote:

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

Not really.

Salbutamol is an effective therapeutic remedy for asthma with no known performance-enhancing properties when inhaled at a therapeutic dose. However, if used in excessive doses or by systematic routes (e.g. oral), it can be a stimulant or an anabolic agent, which is why it is on the Prohibited List with a threshold amount.

I think the difference here is that I'm not approaching this from the mindset that Froome must have only been inhaling the salbutamol.

All forum discussion of salbutamol not being a PED is founded on this assumption.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

All forum discussion of salbutamol not being a PED is founded on this assumption.

Salbutamol can theoretically be used as a PED. Just as a spoon can theoretically be used to dig a tunnel. It's possible, but no-one sensible thinks anyone is doing it.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, what else is there to say?

Here's the rub.

If you accept Froome's set of facts you must accept that in the third week of the Vuelta, on the way to his second grand tour of the year, he was increasing his medication due to suffering from the symptoms of asthma, a condition ATC says shouldn't be belittled, he was suffering a 'documented illness' and was still winning the TT, putting time into his GC rivals and attacking to gain points in the points competition just because he could.

No_Ta_Doctor

TailWindHome wrote:

ddraver wrote:

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

Not really.

Salbutamol is an effective therapeutic remedy for asthma with no known performance-enhancing properties when inhaled at a therapeutic dose. However, if used in excessive doses or by systematic routes (e.g. oral), it can be a stimulant or an anabolic agent, which is why it is on the Prohibited List with a threshold amount.

I think the difference here is that I'm not approaching this from the mindset that Froome must have only been inhaling the salbutamol.

All forum discussion of salbutamol not being a PED is founded on this assumption.

That would probably be because none of us can see any half-way rational reason to be ingesting a fat stripping anabolic agent in the third week of your second GT of the year, it would be utterly ridiculous. You can also look at the fact that thresholds are established *not* at the level that is performance enhancing, but at a level that is thought to be greater than standard therapeutic use. You need to catch some glow-time, not just the main dose. And with controls from all the other tests Froome had given - every day he was in red - it should be quite simple to see if enormous doses of oral or intravenous Salbutamol were taken.

rick_chasey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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.

You don’t think taking a broader view is helpful?

Especially in the context that there are teams who actually have had positive doping tests in the last two years? Like Trek? Back in 2016 Katusha had so many positives the entire team was threatened with suspension. And they were for proper doping products.

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.

I’m all for catching dopers.

I’m all for authorities pointing the finger at dopers.

I don’t think anyone was reading about Ricco almost killing himself with a botched blood transfusion and thought “meh, only collateral for my viewing pleasure.” Don’t use a straw man to try to take a higher moral ground here.

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.

Yes that’s precisely what I’m accusing you of. No specifics.

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.

Sabutamol isn’t gear. No one is gonnna win a race because they were taking industrial quantities of sabutamol.

Nor, apparently, is it even cheating, as the experts have deemed it not to be.

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.

You still can’t say what specifically is happening. “Untoward”. I mean, pretty much every team has a Dr who would be considered a dodgy Dr. Quick Step still use the same guy they were using in 1996.

I’m pretty relaxed about the TUE. It was prescbirbed and then signed off by the governing authorities. We also have no idea who else has had them, since it’s supposed to be confidential.

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

Glad that’s cleared it up.

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

Haaaa. Try again.

Pross

TailWindHome wrote:

ddraver wrote:

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

Not really.

Salbutamol is an effective therapeutic remedy for asthma with no known performance-enhancing properties when inhaled at a therapeutic dose. However, if used in excessive doses or by systematic routes (e.g. oral), it can be a stimulant or an anabolic agent, which is why it is on the Prohibited List with a threshold amount.

I think the difference here is that I'm not approaching this from the mindset that Froome must have only been inhaling the salbutamol.

All forum discussion of salbutamol not being a PED is founded on this assumption.

What, so now you're suggesting he was injecting it or taking it orally? I don't think I've seen anyone else suggest that (possibly the worst of the loons on Twitter or in The Clinic but I don't follow them). Can you explain why you are approaching it from that 'mindset' and why, if that were the case, the readings were so low? Also, as others have said, why would an athlete be taking something where the claimed performance enhancement effect is fat stripping at a point where the athlete is likely to be struggling to maintain their weight?

It feels like, although Froome has been cleared by the people who deal with these things for a living and have access to all the available data, we are going around in circles dragging up theories that were de-bunked pretty much as soon as the original test result was leaked. You'll be dragging up the contaminated blood bag theory next. Surely, even if the result was due to taking excess salbutamol, the most obvious reason why that would occur in a known asthmatic would be they'd inhaled a bit too much.

topper_harley

see if he did take it orally/injected/or whatever way suits your argument wouldn't the level he had be sky high? i'm sure I read that somewhere

Pross

Topper harley wrote:

see if he did take it orally/injected/or whatever way suits your argument wouldn't the level he had be sky high? i'm sure I read that somewhere

Don't you mean SKY high?

tangled_metal

I like the way a poster critical of sky and Froome says they're looking out considering the facts, then go on to mention disputed situations like jiffy bag, lost medical records, so called dodgy doctor, Wiggins TUE, etc. Are those actually facts or situations that can not be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction, but the authorities have closed the case anyway? Not facts IMHO.

Unless I'm mistaken there's no facts proving Froome and / or Sky has created or doped. Stating there's facts then giving a list of unsubstantiated events that authorities have closed the case on isn't moving the discussion on. It's re-hashing ground that's been cleared. No facts or Froome / Sky would be in the Dock over them.

I wonder if someone has a good definition of what the word fact means. Enlighten people with a simple explanation of what facts are. Perhaps explain how the cycling and anti doping authorities conduct business on investigating and deciding on doping cases. I think some people need schooling on it. I genuinely do. Education is the only way out of ignorance.

larkim

Those WADA docs (including the additional notes) make interesting reading - I'm not at all qualified to read them definitively, but my amateur reading extracted a couple of notes:-
- the threshold limit is rarely exceed (i.e. it's uncommon for Froome's situation to be noted, though it is not out of the bounds of possibility)
- the threshold limit has been recommended for reduction (though that recommendation rejected) as oral salbutamol use (i.e. tablet, not inhaled) has provided false negative readings in some cases

Neither of which point particularly helps those who are online advocates for Froome, and just leave open doors for the Tuckers of this world to continue to raise doubts along the lines that "UCI couldn't *prove* anything, but there remain significant doubts in some people's minds..."

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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.

You don’t think taking a broader view is helpful?

Especially in the context that there are teams who actually have had positive doping tests in the last two years? Like Trek? Back in 2016 Katusha had so many positives the entire team was threatened with suspension. And they were for proper doping products.

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.

I’m all for catching dopers.

I’m all for authorities pointing the finger at dopers.

I don’t think anyone was reading about Ricco almost killing himself with a botched blood transfusion and thought “meh, only collateral for my viewing pleasure.” Don’t use a straw man to try to take a higher moral ground here.

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.

Yes that’s precisely what I’m accusing you of. No specifics.

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.

Sabutamol isn’t gear. No one is gonnna win a race because they were taking industrial quantities of sabutamol.

Nor, apparently, is it even cheating, as the experts have deemed it not to be.

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.

You still can’t say what specifically is happening. “Untoward”. I mean, pretty much every team has a Dr who would be considered a dodgy Dr. Quick Step still use the same guy they were using in 1996.

I’m pretty relaxed about the TUE. It was prescbirbed and then signed off by the governing authorities. We also have no idea who else has had them, since it’s supposed to be confidential.

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

Glad that’s cleared it up.

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

Haaaa. Try again.

HAHAHAHA what a muppet. I answered your question and then you took a part of my comment not relating to your answer to show i "hadnt" answered. Then you took the comment replying to the general no specifc element of your earlier rant to claim it was general.

Thats before dismissing all the stuff thats happened at sky jiffy bags dodgy TUEs and the rest as not relevant to give a feeling that somethings untoward. You're in denial Rick.

BTW the other doctors working with Sky were so concerned about the legitimacy of the tue system and Freeman that they effectively blocked freeman out the system that followed. don't let some good facts get in the way of twu belief.

Vino'sGhost

Tangled Metal wrote:

I like the way a poster critical of sky and Froome says they're looking out considering the facts, then go on to mention disputed situations like jiffy bag, lost medical records, so called dodgy doctor, Wiggins TUE, etc. Are those actually facts or situations that can not be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction, but the authorities have closed the case anyway? Not facts IMHO.

Unless I'm mistaken there's no facts proving Froome and / or Sky has created or doped. Stating there's facts then giving a list of unsubstantiated events that authorities have closed the case on isn't moving the discussion on. It's re-hashing ground that's been cleared. No facts or Froome / Sky would be in the Dock over them.

I wonder if someone has a good definition of what the word fact means. Enlighten people with a simple explanation of what facts are. Perhaps explain how the cycling and anti doping authorities conduct business on investigating and deciding on doping cases. I think some people need schooling on it. I genuinely do. Education is the only way out of ignorance.

Well heres some education for you.

there was a jiffy bag, its contents were not established, the doctor couldnt make the hearing, the doctor lost his notes and there was no back up, impossible to prove it was doping. by the same token impossible to prove it wasnt.

Which of those established facts are not actually facts in whatever lala world you live in?

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

Those WADA docs (including the additional notes) make interesting reading - I'm not at all qualified to read them definitively, but my amateur reading extracted a couple of notes:-
- the threshold limit is rarely exceed (i.e. it's uncommon for Froome's situation to be noted, though it is not out of the bounds of possibility)
- the threshold limit has been recommended for reduction (though that recommendation rejected) as oral salbutamol use (i.e. tablet, not inhaled) has provided false negative readings in some cases

Neither of which point particularly helps those who are online advocates for Froome, and just leave open doors for the Tuckers of this world to continue to raise doubts along the lines that "UCI couldn't *prove* anything, but there remain significant doubts in some people's minds..."

Good summary, yes i think its reasonable to have doubts. probably more so than having non.

shirley_basso

Guess you'll have to go to your grave not knowing.

The fact it works you up so much provides more satisfaction than if he were cleared.

Vino'sGhost

Shirley Basso wrote:

Guess you'll have to go to your grave not knowing.

The fact it works you up so much provides more satisfaction than if he were cleared.

the fact that trolling provides you with satisfaction is quite an admission to make Shirley

bobmcstuff

No tA Doctor wrote:

That would probably be because none of us can see any half-way rational reason to be ingesting a fat stripping anabolic agent in the third week of your second GT of the year, it would be utterly ridiculous. You can also look at the fact that thresholds are established *not* at the level that is performance enhancing, but at a level that is thought to be greater than standard therapeutic use. You need to catch some glow-time, not just the main dose. And with controls from all the other tests Froome had given - every day he was in red - it should be quite simple to see if enormous doses of oral or intravenous Salbutamol were taken.

This, basically.

There's plenty of evidence of e.g., weight lifters taking lots of it to help fat stripping, but that's oral or injected and would result in a reading much higher than 2000 ng/l.

bobmcstuff

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Guess you'll have to go to your grave not knowing.

The fact it works you up so much provides more satisfaction than if he were cleared.

the fact that trolling provides you with satisfaction is quite an admission to make Shirley

Shirley you can't be serious?

Vino'sGhost

bobmcstuff wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Guess you'll have to go to your grave not knowing.

The fact it works you up so much provides more satisfaction than if he were cleared.

the fact that trolling provides you with satisfaction is quite an admission to make Shirley

Shirley you can't be serious?