Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

[g-boaf]

How so? I am not a fan of the Sky train control of the race, but I have seen some very different racing from Froome over the last 2 years than before that. I was watching the stage from last year TDF live and started viewing just as Froome attacked on the descent and won the stage. I did not believe it was real footage from the race it seemed so unlikely. Over the last couple of years we have seen him attack at unexpected times and mostly not up ascents. He has kept his opponents guessing. We have seen him ride ascents his own way while others attack each other (which may not be your cup of tea). He is doing things differently recently and it makes the race more exciting to watch. The Sky train is still there most of the time... but not all the time like it was. Even then, the Sky train is probably not anything an individual rider could change... and is something that will happen to any protected rider at Sky.

I still disagree, not with the above but the previous comment on changing the riding style to be more exciting. With the strong Sky Train I view Froome as a very protected rider where his team mates are almost always on-hand to immediately close down any challenges and his own moves are very calculated. It is part of tactics but I don't see team sky and Froomey taking the same risks in racing which others contenders are forced to, to have a chance. Of course it is part of the game, but for me it has been far less compelling to watch.

And worst still, the shadow of the 'tainted sport' and my naive wish to watch professional cycling where all the competitors are fair sports.

That's what the teams are supposed to be doing. Protect their top guy, and shut down other threats. Unless you totally ban teams from cycling and everyone is individual, but that's not going to happen.

[vosadrian]

It really seems to be an issue with Sky and the high budget they have to work with compared to other teams. They can employ the best support riders and this is the only way you can generate their sky train tactics of setting a high tempo pace to deter other riders from attacking. This being the case, any lead rider on team Sky would be tarred with the same brush, and really it sounds like the issue is not directed at Chris Froome personally.

My opinion of Chris Froome has changed over time. He is not a Wiggins who gains time only on TT and then relies on the team to prevent others taking time back. From his first TDF, he was active attacks on ascents that pulled big time on his rivals. He was also strong at TT like Wiggins. I did not really like him back then because he complained about other riders attacking on descents, and he really relied on his team to set him up for his attack on a climb and then he unleashed his best effort to gain time.

More recently I have seen Froome being a lot more unpredictable. The Sky train is still there, but he has become a great descender and used that to good effect. He has been in breakaways without team support and looked after himself. He has ridden his own race on big climbs creating some interesting times as he lags behind his rivals when they attack only for him to slowly real them in and then leave them behind. He has used some good racing tactics when attacking and responding to rivals. He is willing to roll the dice and take some risks and not just play the safe strategy.

I have found him to be more interesting than many of his rivals. I was cheering on Quintana the first year he became a name when he pushed Froome in the TDF. These days I have found Quintana has become predictable and not taken the risks for greater rewards.

Anyway, this is a slight aside from the PEDs that Froome is caught up in. I think Froome's association with Sky has made many hate him and the media is biased by this in its coverage. Froome probably tried to do the right thing and pushed the limits as Sky like to do. Maybe this time he pushed them to farand the rest of his career (and his past career) will be tainted as a result. But I see this as quite different to riders who have knowingly and intentionally cheated using PEDs. The simple fact it is easily tested and there is a precedent of penalty for similar findings in the past would surely mean he could not have done it intentionally as the most tested rider in cycling.

[AUbicycles]

That's what the teams are supposed to be doing. Protect their top guy, and shut down other threats. Unless you totally ban teams from cycling and everyone is individual, but that's not going to happen.

No arguments about that - the reverse is true where strong riders with weak or less skilful/supportive teams impact the changes. The domination and predictability makes it less compelling.

Won't argue that Froomes descent caught attention and one him a chunk of time. His unplanned 'Running Man' also grabbed attention and they were highlights.

But can we presume innocence? The history of Team Sky unfortunately suggests that it was not sportsmanlike.

[RonK]

But can we presume innocence? The history of Team Sky unfortunately suggests that it was not sportsmanlike.

Sportsmanlike?

Can a rider who was disqualified from the the Giro for taking a tow from a vehicle be considered sportsmanlike, moral or ethical?

I think not.

[AUbicycles]

And when it goes into race organisation who play favourites - the sponsors and cycling fans get tired.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

But I see this as quite different to riders who have knowingly and intentionally cheated using PEDs. The simple fact it is easily tested and there is a precedent of penalty for similar findings in the past would surely mean he could not have done it intentionally as the most tested rider in cycling.

Whilst it's not black and white, the problem he faces is that the levels in the sample were far higher than anyone in the past has been found to have in their system (including himself quite tellingly), nearly an order of magnitude greater than is typical for a therapeutic dose and those who went over the generous threshold limit have been unable to demonstrate validity and received a sanction for an anti-doping rule violation.

IOW he will need to demonstrate with independent scientific rigour that he generates such high numbers with a permissible therapeutic dose. Higher than has ever been demonstrated before.

I expect this will be quite drawn out, all angles (medical, scientific and legal) will be used in defence but ultimately he'll likely receive a modest sanction and lose his Vuelta and World Championship results and then we can all get back to the pro cycling sausage making.

[fat and old]

But can we presume innocence? The history of Team Sky unfortunately suggests that it was not sportsmanlike.

Sportsmanlike?

Can a rider who was disqualified from the the Giro for taking a tow from a vehicle be considered sportsmanlike, moral or ethical?

I think not.

As much as I like to bag Froomay, wasn't it a case of him first withdrawing, then copping a tow? Or was that just his story to cover it?

[G@v]

We didn't see this coming with Froome, but the warning signs were there. I'm convinced he's guilty along with Team Sky.

This is a good link and site to read: The truth behind Chris Froome's doping
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12 ... es-doping/

A good point was made about how journo David Walsh (who helped to bust Armstrong) spent a year with Team Sky and never mentioned anything about Froome's asthma.

The following was mentioned in 2013 https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/07 ... om-froome/

Froome, on the other hand, has all the qualities of a top-tier level doper. He boldly proclaims his cleanness. He destroys his rivals by massive margins. He throws out wattage — 6.3 w/kg and more — that are impossible in an undoped state. Best of all, he is backed by the drug enabling quotes of Brailsford, who tosses off bizzaricisms like “At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past.”

[Alex Simmons/RST]

We didn't see this coming with Froome, but the warning signs were there. I'm convinced he's guilty along with Team Sky.

This is a good link and site to read: The truth behind Chris Froome's doping
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12 ... es-doping/

A good point was made about how journo David Walsh (who helped to bust Armstrong) spent a year with Team Sky and never mentioned anything about Froome's asthma.

The following was mentioned in 2013 https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2013/07 ... om-froome/

Froome, on the other hand, has all the qualities of a top-tier level doper. He boldly proclaims his cleanness. He destroys his rivals by massive margins. He throws out wattage — 6.3 w/kg and more — that are impossible in an undoped state. Best of all, he is backed by the drug enabling quotes of Brailsford, who tosses off bizzaricisms like “At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past.”

The wattage comment is nonsense and shows a poor understanding of the limits of human physiology.

[RonK]

But can we presume innocence? The history of Team Sky unfortunately suggests that it was not sportsmanlike.

Sportsmanlike?

Can a rider who was disqualified from the the Giro for taking a tow from a vehicle be considered sportsmanlike, moral or ethical?

I think not.

As much as I like to bag Froomay, wasn't it a case of him first withdrawing, then copping a tow? Or was that just his story to cover it?

He was caught getting a tow by a moto and was disqualified.

After, his cover story was that he was only getting a tow to the top of the Mortirolo so he could withdraw. But the UCI commissionaires did not buy it and he was disqualified, not withdrawn.

[G@v]

The wattage comment is nonsense and shows a poor understanding of the limits of human physiology.

I think it's fair to be skeptical of performances that match or better guys that were tanked up on EPO.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The wattage comment is nonsense and shows a poor understanding of the limits of human physiology.

I think it's fair to be skeptical of performances that match or better guys that were tanked up on EPO.

One can be skeptical but that doesn't change the physiological facts with respect to the limits of human performance. Many of these commentators are pretty fast and loose with their views.

[vosadrian]

But I see this as quite different to riders who have knowingly and intentionally cheated using PEDs. The simple fact it is easily tested and there is a precedent of penalty for similar findings in the past would surely mean he could not have done it intentionally as the most tested rider in cycling.

Whilst it's not black and white, the problem he faces is that the levels in the sample were far higher than anyone in the past has been found to have in their system (including himself quite tellingly), nearly an order of magnitude greater than is typical for a therapeutic dose and those who went over the generous threshold limit have been unable to demonstrate validity and received a sanction for an anti-doping rule violation.

IOW he will need to demonstrate with independent scientific rigour that he generates such high numbers with a permissible therapeutic dose. Higher than has ever been demonstrated before.

I expect this will be quite drawn out, all angles (medical, scientific and legal) will be used in defence but ultimately he'll likely receive a modest sanction and lose his Vuelta and World Championship results and then we can all get back to the pro cycling sausage making.

I don't disagree with your assessment given the results, but my question is... what went wrong? If he was intentionally seeking performance benefit by using this drug.... how did he so easily get caught?

* Was it because they have managed to prevent prior positive findings being released?
* Was he really stupid enough to think he would not get caught?
* Did they run out of a drug that suppresses the markers they test for and he has been doing this for years?

There are lots of questions like that. The glaring thing for me is why would the most tested cyclist in the world intentionally take a drug he knows he will get caught for that probably gives no performance benefit anyway?

[AUbicycles]

* Was he really stupid enough to think he would not get caught?

Let's rule this one out. The doping programs are fairly tight and as an athlete it is in your interest to stick closely to it to avoid detection. Without a reasonable explanation - it is more likely an error.

Perhaps the stupidity is thinking that you can achieve fulfilment through cheating.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I don't disagree with your assessment given the results, but my question is... what went wrong? If he was intentionally seeking performance benefit by using this drug.... how did he so easily get caught?

It's a remarkably high level and given he hasn't tripped the threshold previously that we are aware of (this drug is checked for with every urine sample), then a history of high-ish concentration in previous samples doesn't seem to exist despite his seemingly regular use of the drug.

They could have simply screwed up his dosage/timing. It happens.

[g-boaf]

The wattage comment is nonsense and shows a poor understanding of the limits of human physiology.

I think it's fair to be skeptical of performances that match or better guys that were tanked up on EPO.

One can be skeptical but that doesn't change the physiological facts with respect to the limits of human performance. Many of these commentators are pretty fast and loose with their views.

I agree with you Alex on that. I think also that people are training better/smarter these days too. That's got to be beneficial. That said, it's still pretty unusual this whole event.

[MichaelB]

They could have simply screwed up his dosage/timing. It happens.

That would have to be more than a screwup given the residual amount though !!!!!

[vosadrian]

They could have simply screwed up his dosage/timing. It happens.

Ok, so he was intentionally taking more than allowed, and they made an error and he took too much and got caught (which I find unlikely, but then again the findings are unlikely anyway). Did it really benefit him enough to turn a bad day losing time into a good day gaining time? It seems performance gains are questionable from this substance. I guess if you have an asthma issue it may provide more benefit than people with no issue.

[Thoglette]

They could have simply screwed up his dosage/timing. It happens.

More likely they screwed up something else and this was the unintended side effect.

For some reason I keep thinking of the team that retired from a grand tour after one domestique was found to have someone else's blood in him.

[find_bruce]

Ok, so he was intentionally taking more than allowed, and they made an error and he took too much and got caught (which I find unlikely, but then again the findings are unlikely anyway). Did it really benefit him enough to turn a bad day losing time into a good day gaining time? It seems performance gains are questionable from this substance. I guess if you have an asthma issue it may provide more benefit than people with no issue.

Taking more than allowed is just one non-innocent explanation. Another is taking the drug by a prohibited method. The reasons oral & IV are prohibited methods are that (1) there is a performance benefit & (2) those methods are not used for the treatment of asthma.

That would have to be more than a screwup given the residual amount though !!!!!

There is not a linear relationship between dose, time of use and nanograms per ml of urine. The will have tested specific gravity and / or creatinine, which gives some indication of hydration, but there are many other variables - its part of why Froome, his lawyers & pharmacological experts will have a hard time proving (1) a plausible innocent explanation & (2) that explanation is actually what happened.

Perhaps he just got the wrong jiffy bag - nobody seems to know what is in those anyway

[biker jk]

Yes it does appear Froome took an illegal oral dose of Salbutamol. As find_bruce mentioned, oral doses are definitely performance enhancing.

Froome looks to be in a spot of bother proving his innocence.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p2213850

[fat and old]

* Was he really stupid enough to think he would not get caught?

Let's rule this one out.

I think not. While unlikely perhaps in this case, cycling history is rife with the best cyclists of their day doing just that. Maybe sub in "stupid enough to think he'd get away with it after being caught".

I have more time for Anquetil's attitude than any other cyclist in history. "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."

[AUbicycles]

I enjoy watching classic cycling and the way the drama is presented but still, a lot of popular cyclists of the day get to retain a good reputation now, so it is still tainted.

But IMO, Team Sky or Froome would not be stupid to think they won't get caught because any activity is calculated.

Stupid is using dogs blood instead of your own or being careless. This is the first big black mark against Froome to challenge his honesty even though the rider (like many) have attracted suspicion following the apparent overnight ability to be a GC rider and the Team Sky scandals.

And like many before - even if both samples are positive and all evidence is against you, you feel like a winner and get the backing of the right sports bodies (national and global) - then this uncertainty is enough to fight for.... especially if you only did it once.

[vosadrian]

* Was he really stupid enough to think he would not get caught?

Let's rule this one out.

I think not. While unlikely perhaps in this case, cycling history is rife with the best cyclists of their day doing just that. Maybe sub in "stupid enough to think he'd get away with it after being caught".

I have more time for Anquetil's attitude than any other cyclist in history. "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."

There have been many cyclists who act on the moment. They are often good racers because they don't think as much as act on instict. They are often quite emotional people and they make decisions that are often not as rationally thought out. Chris Froome is often ridiculed because he is calculating. You can see this in his post race interviews. Others can get angry and show emotion, but it seems with him he has through about every sentence and the right thing to say and how to say it. I can see some riders doing something stupid in the heat of the moment like Nibali grabbing onto the team car to bridge to the breakaway. Using some performance enhancement to dig yourself out of a hole seems to be a play that I see certain riders doing without much thought. Froome could be a great actor, but he does not seem like the type to do any big decision without a lot of thought behind it. But Lance Armstrong was a great actor, so who knows!

I can believe they calculated a way to enhance performance without getting caught and someone made an error and got caught. It seems unlikely but certainly possible. I don't see that this could be something that they choose to take a risk and eventually got caught out. Back in the Armstrong days they were really taking some risks and burying positive tests with intimidation and $$. Not sure that is possible in the current climate

[biker jk]

Paul Kimmage interview on Froome and Team Sky.

https://goo.gl/4h2sva