Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

ShutupJens

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

How do you know? I’m not insinuating they have, but we just don’t know.

With those riders we do know. Apart from Lopez, they are all on teams who have committed, as part of their MPCC membership, to withdrawing from competition any rider who incurs an AAF. Lopez's team obviously isn't a member but interestingly, Lopez has apparently joined as an individual.

So is your argument that a rider and / or team that has broken the mandatory rules of their sport should be trusted to follow the rules of a voluntary organisation even when, if due process is followed, that organisation should not even be aware of the presence of an AAF?

I wasn't aware that I was making an argument. I thought I was merely responding to Tangled Metal's wish to know about all other AAFs with some background information that might help shed some light on how many AAFs there are to know about.

OK, if you don't like the word argument you were making the case we know those riders do not have an AAF hanging over them as they are still riding and are MPCC members. It still seems tenuous grounds on which to claim we 'know' for the reasons stated.

Exactly, spot on Pross. Seen various rules from the MPCC being flouted over the years with no consequence, can't quite see a team voluntarily suspending a rider if they don't need to
What grounds do you have for suggesting that one or more of these teams is lying about this?

None, I'm not claiming they are but that's not the same as knowing they aren't. But to turn it on its head, why are you prepared to accept that they are definitely following the rules of a voluntary code when I suspect we will all agree that there are riders, and possibly teams, that don't abide by the mandatory rules of the sport?

ademort

Would be fantastic to see Froome exonerated of any wrongdoing . I would love to see Hinaults face then. Do you think the ignorant French git will apologise. I can,t see it personally.

Nick Payne

ademort wrote:

Would be fantastic to see Froome exonerated of any wrongdoing . I would love to see Hinaults face then. Do you think the ignorant French git will apologise. I can,t see it personally.

How can he be exonerated? Both his A and B samples tested at twice the permitted level. It's now in the hands of lawyers, and as Jonathan Swift said of lawyers: "a society of men bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose that white is black and black is white according as they are paid".

inseine

Nick Payne wrote:

ademort wrote:

Would be fantastic to see Froome exonerated of any wrongdoing . I would love to see Hinaults face then. Do you think the ignorant French git will apologise. I can,t see it personally.

How can he be exonerated? Both his A and B samples tested at twice the permitted level. It's now in the hands of lawyers, and as Jonathan Swift said of lawyers: "a society of men bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose that white is black and black is white according as they are paid".

A lot or people have a problem grasping how the AAF works. The ´crime is how much he put in not how much he peed out. The lawyers will be trying to show the discrepancy.

tangled_metal

Would someone please repeat the explanation of why am AAF isn't a case of doping where a test shows something is over a certain limit to get you a ban. I don't think I've heard that explanation enough. I think I might get this situation wrong.

BTW does anyone seriously does not understand the difference between doping with a banned substance (possibly above certain levels) and an AAF? Those still posting as if there's no difference are you being thick or opportunistically using it to slag off sky and Froome? I seriously hope he gets a ban now because I suspect some will be mentally damaged if he is exonerated. They've invested too much effort into it to leave healthy if he doesn't get banned.

inseine

Clearly anyone who thinks their mental health will be affected if a non guilty rider doesn't get banned has got bigger problems than the sport of cycling.

wongataa

Nick Payne wrote:

ademort wrote:

Would be fantastic to see Froome exonerated of any wrongdoing . I would love to see Hinaults face then. Do you think the ignorant French git will apologise. I can,t see it personally.

How can he be exonerated? Both his A and B samples tested at twice the permitted level.

If it can be shown that you can exceed the permitted level of the drug in urine samples without actually taking more than you are allowed to then he should be exonerated. Drug levels in urine is not always the best way to determine how much of the drug was actually taken.

inseine

wongataa wrote:

Nick Payne wrote:

ademort wrote:

Would be fantastic to see Froome exonerated of any wrongdoing . I would love to see Hinaults face then. Do you think the ignorant French git will apologise. I can,t see it personally.

How can he be exonerated? Both his A and B samples tested at twice the permitted level.

If it can be shown that you can exceed the permitted level of the drug in urine samples without actually taking more than you are allowed to then he should be exonerated. Drug levels in urine is not always the best way to determine how much of the drug was actually taken.

It depends on the (arbitrary) rules of the sport. If the rules say you're doping by having a drug in your urine, then you're busted. If the the rules say please explain yourself if you have too much dug in your urine (an aaf) then that's what you have to do.

shirley_basso

Also the amount has been revised down to below 50% above the permitted level.

yorkshireraw

I reckon old Bernard is in a right old dilemma on this one, even aside from not understanding the case at all.

On the one hand, he doesn't want Froome joining the '5 times' club of himself, Jacques A (French, so he's ok by BH), Eddy M (proper cyclist from proper cycling country) and Big Mig (ditto to Eddy).

On the other hand, with Froome out the way, there's a fair chance of Bardet winning, which I suspect Bernard wouldn't actually enjoy too much either - he'd no longer be the last Frenchman to win the Tour nor be able to criticise the current generation for not being as good as him.

redvision

Shirley Basso wrote:

Also the amount has been revised down to below 50% above the permitted level.

It has, but his salbutamol level was still almost 50% higher than the limit.
'Under new WADA rules, a compensation has been made for urine concentration and dehydration, under which Froome’s level has been lowered to 1,429ng/ml rather than 2,000ng/ml.'

shirley_basso

Below 50% = Almost 50%

We are saying the same thing, just depends on your agenda

redvision

Shirley Basso wrote:

Below 50% = Almost 50%

We are saying the same thing, just depends on your agenda

Indeed. But regardless of agendas, it is substantially above the limit.

DeVlaeminck

Shirley Basso wrote:

Also the amount has been revised down to below 50% above the permitted level.

So a bit like rocking up to a race with a haemocrit level of 75 ?

inseine

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Also the amount has been revised down to below 50% above the permitted level.

So a bit like rocking up to a race with a haemocrit level of 75 ?

No, but you know that as well as anyone

bobmcstuff

redvision wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Also the amount has been revised down to below 50% above the permitted level.

It has, but his salbutamol level was still almost 50% higher than the limit.
'Under new WADA rules, a compensation has been made for urine concentration and dehydration, under which Froome’s level has been lowered to 1,429ng/ml rather than 2,000ng/ml.'

Just to complicate it more, while the limit is 1,000 the "action limit" (I.e., the level you'll get pinged) is 1,200.

HTH

tangled_metal

inseine wrote:

Clearly anyone who thinks their mental health will be affected if a non guilty rider doesn't get banned has got bigger problems than the sport of cycling.

It was meant as an attempt at a humorous pi$$take of those who are getting a bit stressed at Froome not being banned. If you can't see that then it's probably my bad sense of humour or you can't take someone making a joke out of some people's obsession with Froome "getting away with it" over this AAF. I'm sure that even you can see that some people are getting very animated over Froome not getting banned already.

inseine

Tangled Metal wrote:

inseine wrote:

Clearly anyone who thinks their mental health will be affected if a non guilty rider doesn't get banned has got bigger problems than the sport of cycling.

It was meant as an attempt at a humorous pi$$take of those who are getting a bit stressed at Froome not being banned. If you can't see that then it's probably my bad sense of humour or you can't take someone making a joke out of some people's obsession with Froome "getting away with it" over this AAF. I'm sure that even you can see that some people are getting very animated over Froome not getting banned already.

Sadly when it comes to cycling and especially Froome your observations seemed completely believable. A bit too close to be a joke (or possibly my lack of a sense of humor). There's no way this isn't going to put a cloud of the Tour, which ever side you take.

tangled_metal

Personally I enjoy watching the tour fit what is in front of me. If I watched the tour for a critique of the rules regarding AAF versus doping then I'd probably move on to another sport. If it's not about the riding on the road then what's the point? There will always be a cloud over pro cycling. As unfair as that sounds. So either you get on with watching the sport or you worry about image, doping, etc. Any cheating sooner or later gets into the open. I doubt any tour is completely clean.

Vino'sGhost

150% of permitted level

greasedscotsman

Does anyone else read the thread title as if it's sung to the Dexy's Midnight Runner's song, Geno?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y66HcrGbo4

tim000

greasedscotsman wrote:

Does anyone else read the thread title as if it's sung to the Dexy's Midnight Runner's song, Geno?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y66HcrGbo4

well not until now i didn`t . thanks a lot .

DeVlaeminck

greasedscotsman wrote:

Does anyone else read the thread title as if it's sung to the Dexy's Midnight Runner's song, Geno?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y66HcrGbo4

Yes, I wondered if it was deliberate but decided it probably wasn't ?

greasedscotsman

tim000 wrote:

well not until now i didn`t . thanks a lot .

You're welcome.

No_Ta_Doctor

Vino'sGhost wrote:

150% of permitted level

There's no such thing as a permitted level. Nor is there an non-permitted level.
There is a level above which you must provide an explanation of how you attained it without taking too high a dose, or face a sanction.

Obviously you know this already, but t suits you to be sloppy with your language as it clouds the argument.

No_Ta_Doctor

tim000 wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Does anyone else read the thread title as if it's sung to the Dexy's Midnight Runner's song, Geno?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y66HcrGbo4

well not until now i didn`t . thanks a lot .

Now I've got that an "Gorka Iza moron" as my misheard cycling earworms.

kleinstroker

DeVlaeminck wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Does anyone else read the thread title as if it's sung to the Dexy's Midnight Runner's song, Geno?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y66HcrGbo4

Yes, I wondered if it was deliberate but decided it probably wasn't ?

It definitely was

Vino'sGhost

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Also the amount has been revised down to below 50% above the permitted level.

So a bit like rocking up to a race with a haemocrit level of 75 ?

Perhaps he'll get a special exemption

Tashman

greasedscotsman wrote:

Does anyone else read the thread title as if it's sung to the Dexy's Midnight Runner's song, Geno?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y66HcrGbo4

Yes, this. I had wondered myself. Had the tune in my head but couldn't remember the song it was from. Been bugging me every time I see the thread title. Thanks you for clearing that up.

m.r.m.

Quite the meet up at the retirement home, just now... :P