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

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 9314
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:17 am

[quote="AUbicycles]
I would say, The problem I have here is the loss of confidence.

[/quote]

+1

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13316
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

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

Postby AUbicycles » Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:19 pm

Well, that is news I welcome. ASO thinks Froome has a question mark over his his and will affect the reputation of the TDF if he races (like the giro) so he is ‘uninvited’. Sky is not happy but it is their race and I feel the right move.

If Sky gad not delayed and cleared Froomes name sooner... this (if he was clean) would not have occurred... but now their tactics have backfired.

As a spectator... now it is a competition again.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4361
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:21 am

AUbicycles wrote:Well, that is news I welcome.

Tour de France organisers ASO have told Team Sky that Chris Froome will not be allowed to start in this year’s race
Cycling news wrote:The ASO has cited article 28 of its rules, which "expressly reserves the right to refuse participation in - or to exclude from - the event, a team or any of its members whose presence would be such as to damage the image or reputation of ASO or the event."


In breaking not-news Sky have recited the credendum of Froome's innocence and reached for the lawyers.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:35 pm

What I found hilarious is the double standard by the ASO. They're happy to have many known dopers participate in their promotional activities. Hinault himself refused a doping test.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 6236
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby biker jk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:45 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:What I found hilarious is the double standard by the ASO. They're happy to have many known dopers participate in their promotional activities. Hinault himself refused a doping test.


I guess Hinault and Froome have something in common then given the latter missed an out of competition test in dodgy circumstances. Speaking of hypocrisy, Sky are an egregious example having hired a known doping doctor and several ex-riders who doped, while professing their cleaner than clean status.

Fresh
Posts: 466
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:25 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby Fresh » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:39 pm


User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 6236
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby biker jk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:46 pm

Fresh wrote:Well that's that then...

http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-st ... er-froome/


Reading the press release it seems that WADA over ruled the UCI. Interesting. Of course we won't have the evidence which Froome used to explain his abnormal Salbutamol reading. Strange also that WADA informed the UCI on June 28 but the ASO wasn't told. :shock:

"In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome."

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13316
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

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

Postby AUbicycles » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:03 pm

On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome.



So what are the facts... are we cycling fans allowed to know why it was not a doping violation?

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 6236
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby biker jk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:07 pm

AUbicycles wrote:
On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome.



So what are the facts... are we cycling fans allowed to know why it was not a doping violation?


According to Brailsford, Froome's defence argued the test is faulty. So WADA agreed their own Salbutamol test is meaningless. A victory for clean cycling. :lol:

“We said at the outset that there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol. This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled. A review of all Chris’s 21 test results from the Vuelta revealed that the Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation and therefore consistent with him having taken a permitted dose of Salbutamol."

Pettachi: 1352 ng/p/ml - 1 year suspension (2007)
Ulissi: 1900 ng/p/ml, 9 months suspension (2014)
Froome: 2000 ng/p/ml (already a suspect prednisolon case on his name) - gets cleared by UCI...

neild
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby neild » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:18 pm

So it says Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation. Given his result was twice the allowed amount, does that mean other days of the 21 tests were above as well? That seems to be a pretty big range of variation to me.
Norco VFR1 Disc, Merida 903, Mofo Single Speed, Giant MTB, soon to be vintage Gazelle fixie

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:42 pm

Ugh. I'm glad I don't take pro cycling too seriously.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4361
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:07 pm

AUbicycles wrote:So what are the facts... are we cycling fans allowed to know why it was not a doping violation?


Didn't you read the article: There are "specific facts of the case", which we clearly don't need to know about. Afterall the UCI would like "reassure all those involved in or interested in cycling that its decision is based on expert opinions, WADA’s advice, and a full assessment of the facts of the case."

Move along, there's nothing to see here, is the message.

Can't have a repeat of the Floyd Landis affair, which allowed the world to see that the whole process was botched* from beginning to end.

Despite FL rattling like a tin (as we now know).

*that's the polite version :(
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13316
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

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

Postby AUbicycles » Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:16 pm

Wada also now finally published their release
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... roome-case

Very interesting... it says that if an athlete exceeds, they can provide a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) to show that it is not a violation.

But Froome is exempt from the CPKS because the circumstances can't be recreated... it was not 'practicable'. Hence.. it is acceptable, even though it was not qualified under the rules they set.


Interesting comment in the release "chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition"

So Froome is chronically using this which in such circumstances (elite multi-day racing) is also known to have a performance benefits. So... there is no problem when all of the data is released right?

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4361
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:49 pm

AUbicycles wrote:But Froome is exempt from the CPKS because the circumstances can't be recreated... it was not 'practicable'. Hence.. it is acceptable, even though it was not qualified under the rules they set.


So the only reasonable reading is that the second word in your sentence is the "specific fact" of the case. I can't see any other explanation for tearing up the rule book.

The only question is : why? Does someone have incriminating photos of someone at WADA?
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

fat and old
Posts: 3752
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:35 am

The Floyd and Horner interview on CN is even funnier now...

He could win five… Let him do it," Landis said, before both he and Horner broke out in uncontrollable laughter.


One of the best interviews CN ever published :lol: :lol: I spat my coffee when I read that part, imagining those two in the back room of Floyd's shop stoned off their skulls. :lol:

Viva Le Tour! Viva La Vuelta!!! I look forward to the reality show....Real Cyclists of Monaco :lol:

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 9314
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:39 am

One word.

Bollocks.

fat and old
Posts: 3752
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:43 am

biker jk wrote:According to Brailsford, Froome's defence argued the test is faulty. So WADA agreed their own Salbutamol test is meaningless. A victory for clean cycling. :lol:

“We said at the outset that there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol. This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled. A review of all Chris’s 21 test results from the Vuelta revealed that the Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation and therefore consistent with him having taken a permitted dose of Salbutamol."



Yet according to WADA, no appeal from them because

"based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome – including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol – WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose."


?????

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 9314
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:15 am

What they really meant to say is

“Crap. I can’t be bothered to read all 1,500 pages and besides, their lawyers are more expensive than ours, and I’ve got holidays soon.

Man, this is too hard.

Let’s just drop it.

Whaddya think?”

:roll:

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4361
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:00 am

fat and old wrote:The Floyd and Horner interview on CN is even funnier now...

Still got to watch it. But CN nailed it with the subtitle

'It's not about Froome, it's about the inconsistent application of the rules' says Landis
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 6236
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby biker jk » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:00 am

A nice summary by Ross Tucker of the Froome decision's implication for anti-doping.

https://mobile.twitter.com/offtheball/status/1013861112104669184

User avatar
familyguy
Posts: 5892
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:30 pm
Location: Cremorne, NSW

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

Postby familyguy » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:40 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Ugh. I'm glad I don't take pro cycling too seriously.


That.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 9314
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:40 pm

So, can anyone explain to the layman, why throughout the race, Froomes salbutamol levels were OK and normal (i.e. below the AAF limit), yet one reading spiked double the limit, but that is now acceptable ?

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

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

Postby queequeg » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:08 pm

MichaelB wrote:So, can anyone explain to the layman, why throughout the race, Froomes salbutamol levels were OK and normal (i.e. below the AAF limit), yet one reading spiked double the limit, but that is now acceptable ?


If I read the actual rules, I think it says that it's an AAF if you go over the prescribed limit without demonstrating that it went over whilst still taking the allowed dosage.
Looking at the WADA response, I think they have essentially said that if they took an athlete who had taken a known dosage, and they tested that athlete, there is no consistency in the test results. The same athlete could take the same dose at the same time every day, and the test result would never show the same value. Hence, because the test is "dodgy", the result can't be used to show that the dosage taken was above the prescribed limit.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '15 Cervelo S5

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4361
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:16 pm

queequeg wrote:If I read the actual rules, I think it says that it's an AAF if you go over the prescribed limit without demonstrating that it went over whilst still taking the allowed dosage.

Looking at the WADA response, I think they have essentially said bugger the rules

Fixed it for you.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 9314
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:20 pm

Per queequeg’s response - if it is that clear and simple, show us the Independant physical data that proves this.

But because they don’t/won’t/can’t etc, I call BS.

I can’t see how you can be below the limit for 20/21 days, and only one, go double the limit with exactly the same dose. Variation from one day to the next, but not double.

If that works s indeed the case, show us his previous (or anyone else’s, as there would be more than 1 athlete that takes it) data.

Return to “International and National Tours and Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users