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

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 » Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:26 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
vosadrian wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
So you expect us to believe a rider with a chest infection not only manages to get out of bed, they manage to actually ride a bike, but not only that they manage to race their bike, in the 3rd week of a grand tour, on a hilly stage they attack in the finale and distance and/or beat all their GC rivals on a grand tour mountain top stage *and* then they go on to win the tour.

Where can I get such an infection?


Apart from the very good point you make regarding Froome being sick yet outperforming everyone, what about the strict liability rule of other drugs interacting with Salbutamol, that is, it's up to the athlete to ensure that any medicines/supplements don't interact and trigger a positive. I recall that Contador was found guilty on the strict liability rule for not knowing the supplements he took contained albuterol.

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 » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:25 pm

biker jk wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
vosadrian wrote:


Apart from the very good point you make regarding Froome being sick yet outperforming everyone, what about the strict liability rule of other drugs interacting with Salbutamol, that is, it's up to the athlete to ensure that any medicines/supplements don't interact and trigger a positive. I recall that Contador was found guilty on the strict liability rule for not knowing the supplements he took contained albuterol.

Indeed.

Once you get past that nonsense there's always the usual cry of "but XXX isn't really performance enhancing" to deal with, or "why would S/HE risk it?", or "the number of negative tests I've had", or..... and on it goes.

Still, it's only the 20th anniversary of the Festina affair coming up. It's little wonder cycling cannot get blue chip sponsorship.

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:38 am

Vos, I keep hearing the comments “a lot of people don’t like Froome” but I feel that this line of argumentation deflects from keeping a more factual or evidence based view.

The focus on Froome is not about malice against him, rather a growing load of information based on cycling history, team activity, his activity and (team) responses.

It is possible for a rider and team who are truely clean to act and behave proactively so that they are ahead of a broken system.

AndyRevill
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Margate, TAS

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

Postby AndyRevill » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:16 am

Currently in the UK, not sure if it has made the news in Oz yet but Sky have released Froome's data from the Giro
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

Andy
Trek 1.7 dec.
Trek Domane 4.5

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:22 am

AUbicycles wrote:Vos, I keep hearing the comments “a lot of people don’t like Froome” but I feel that this line of argumentation deflects from keeping a more factual or evidence based view.

The focus on Froome is not about malice against him, rather a growing load of information based on cycling history, team activity, his activity and (team) responses.

It is possible for a rider and team who are truely clean to act and behave proactively so that they are ahead of a broken system.

Most of the dopers I've had some interaction with are seemingly really nice people.

On the few occasions I've interacted with Froome or witnessed first hand his interactions with others he has been very polite, respectful and engaging. These have been during races.

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:36 am

Thanks for the BBC link. The info is interesting but the best summary is at the conclusion, second paragraph but first one is included as it is also relevant in this discussion.

Jeremy Whittle wrote: I don't think this will make a difference to the doubters. The problem is Sky are having to release this because of the failure of anti-doping. We, as the public, no longer believe anti-doping measures are effective enough, that we can trust them - and that's not just in cycling.

This doesn't prove anything in terms of propriety or implausibility either. It contributes to our wealth of knowledge. People who believe in Froome will seize it as evidence that he's completely credible. People who disbelieve in Froome will point to the information we don't have.

Sharkey
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:32 pm

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

Postby Sharkey » Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:40 am

AndyRevill wrote:Currently in the UK, not sure if it has made the news in Oz yet but Sky have released Froome's data from the Giro
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

Andy


Wow. Team Sky keep meticulous records of food consumption down to the last gram of food or liquid consumed. It's a shame they aren't so meticulous with their medical record keeping.

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:08 am

And I thought it was going to be useful data.

Just goes to show that they have a HUGE budget.

EDIT : Still haven't seen any sensible reasoning (without all sorts of legal blather) that the layman can understand to show how & why someone that even with correction for dehydration, exceeded the allowable level of a drug by over 40%, also exceeded the allowable level of a drug by almost 20% over the decision limit which is specifically for giving some leeway for outside influences, and then isn't required to submit to a medical study to provide more insight.

Moreover, it then uses previous data to show that this one stage, with an outstanding performance (compared to previous stages) and with a chest infection that was being treated somehow also means that the high level of the substance is nothing unusual or suspect.

Say what ?

And then goes on to say that he's NOT GUILTY, rather than guilty, but with mitigating issues, some doubt and hence no punishment.

Huh ?

I'd love to know how much those 1,500 pages cost Sky .....

Just goes to show that good lawyers can beat anything. :roll:
Last edited by MichaelB on Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:14 am

Sharkey wrote:
AndyRevill wrote:Currently in the UK, not sure if it has made the news in Oz yet but Sky have released Froome's data from the Giro
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

Andy


Wow. Team Sky keep meticulous records of food consumption down to the last gram of food or liquid consumed. It's a shame they aren't so meticulous with their medical record keeping.


Yes meticulous detail, which is why Froome was dehydrated on Stage 18 of the Vuelta (which allowed his Salbutamol reading to be adjusted down). So they talk about nutrition and hydration strategies yet allowed Froome to be badly dehydrated on Stage 18 (which didn't seem to effect his performance).

RobertL
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby RobertL » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:20 am

biker jk wrote:
Sharkey wrote:
AndyRevill wrote:Currently in the UK, not sure if it has made the news in Oz yet but Sky have released Froome's data from the Giro
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

Andy


Wow. Team Sky keep meticulous records of food consumption down to the last gram of food or liquid consumed. It's a shame they aren't so meticulous with their medical record keeping.


Yes meticulous detail, which is why Froome was dehydrated on Stage 18 of the Vuelta (which allowed his Salbutamol reading to be adjusted down). So they talk about nutrition and hydration strategies yet allowed Froome to be badly dehydrated on Stage 18 (which didn't seem to effect his performance).


I think sometimes they plan for a certain level of dehydration - to lower the rider's weight by a kilo or two. It's a dangerous strategy, so "don't try this at home" but it could make a slight difference up a big hill.
Image

vosadrian
Posts: 747
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:58 pm

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

Postby vosadrian » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:40 am

I may come across as a Froome/Sky Fanboi, but that is not what I am. I can't remember watching a tour where I wanted him to win before the last few days. Normally by the last few days, my preferred winners have fallen away, and he becomes my best of the rest and I then barrack for him. In the recent Giro I was barracking for Yates, and then Dumoulin, but I was realistic. I thought it likely that Froome was in with a good chance in the 3rd week being less than 5 minutes down with Yates fading and only 2-3 minutes to Dumoulin. For instance, in the coming TDF, I would love Porte to win, but I have been disappointed too many times by him. He just does not seem to have it for a 3 week tour. Still, I will be barracking for him with Yates also. But being realistic... Froome is going to be tough to beat. If he is within a few minutes in the last week, he is one of the best at finishing it (along with Nibali/Quintana). If it came to him or Nibali or any of Movie star, I would be barracking for Froome.

Froome is the rider everyone loves to hate. He is very gentlemanly and keeps his cards close to his chest and is polite and respectful to other riders. He does not show much emotion so is not as entertaining and I think this is one reason he is hated. The other is that he is on the team that has the most funding and strongest riders and ability to apply race controlling strategy. In any sport, a team with more resources is less popular as we love to back an underdog. His earlier years he rode like a machine and I found him boring to watch. He was a one trick pony that was predictable and boring. He has done much to change that but has gotten little credit for that. He is a great all round rider now having instigated winning gaps in descents/breakaways/TT/climbs.

There are lots of riders out there who have had issues with controlled substances. Many using banned substances for which there is little question of guilt. Many with allowed substances in a controlled manner that have been accidentally over the limit. Froome has copped it more than anyone else... not because if what he did... because of the hate towards him. People are looking for a way to take him down. Initially his case was leaked when this does not seem to happen to others. Throughout the case he was all through the media even though he was just doing what he was entitled to do and others have done. Obviously the resources he has have contributed to him getting off when others with less resource would have failed, so that is unfortunate that there is double standards there based on legal resources.

You guys all have an opinion on why he cheated. They are just opinions. You can go into the science of it, but since nobody here has done actual testing of Salbutamol levels in athletes, we just read what is fed us. My opinion is that he did not intentionally over use Salbutamol. He/Sky are simply not that stupid. Is there a more stupid way to intentionally cheat using a questionable performance enhancer that was guaranteed to be detected? If he used too much, it was accidental (which is slightly easier to believe at that level). If he did it accidentally, he should be penalised as others have, but impossible to know now. Because of the confidentiality, we don't know the circumstances of others who have avoided penalty for the same crime. I read something that said there were 10-20 Salbutamol cases a year, but we only hear about a small fraction of that when they get a penalty.

I do think it is a shame that others in the same situation as him have been penalised in the past when they probably would have been treated similar to Froome had they had the resources to do the same defence. This is something that happens every day in courts outside of sport I guess.

End of the day. Everyone (who knew nothing about his case) wanted him to stop riding because of effect if he is later banned. Turns out he was right to ride on and everyone had nothing to worry about!
Image

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 9982
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

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

Postby g-boaf » Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:24 am

I've also heard that Froome is easy going, quietly spoken - undramatic. This from those who've ridden with him. I've not met him myself and probably won't as I don't follow pro cycling at all.

The information released Sky is interesting for those of us mere mortals who probably don't have much insight into the detail these teams go to in terms of nutrition and the like. 14 gels however, urgh...

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:35 pm

RobertL wrote:
biker jk wrote:
Sharkey wrote:
Wow. Team Sky keep meticulous records of food consumption down to the last gram of food or liquid consumed. It's a shame they aren't so meticulous with their medical record keeping.


Yes meticulous detail, which is why Froome was dehydrated on Stage 18 of the Vuelta (which allowed his Salbutamol reading to be adjusted down). So they talk about nutrition and hydration strategies yet allowed Froome to be badly dehydrated on Stage 18 (which didn't seem to effect his performance).


I think sometimes they plan for a certain level of dehydration - to lower the rider's weight by a kilo or two. It's a dangerous strategy, so "don't try this at home" but it could make a slight difference up a big hill.


2kg fluid loss is around 3% body weight for Froome and most studies suggest that degree of dehydration is definitely deleterious to performance.

fat and old
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:31 pm

vosadrian wrote: I read something that said there were 10-20 Salbutamol cases a year, but we only hear about a small fraction of that when they get a penalty.

I do think it is a shame that others in the same situation as him have been penalised in the past when they probably would have been treated similar to Froome had they had the resources to do the same defence. This is something that happens every day in courts outside of sport I guess.



This is something I questioned earlier....whether there were others out there who'd skipped and maintained confidentiality. On face value, it seems reasonable.

However, all of the rumours and mentions of "other similar cases" that I've read came from Sky.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-de ... l-defence/

"There are a lot of athletes who have been through this process and been cleared of wrongdoing without the cases being made public," Froome says. "People need to remember that. They are comparing mine to two or three others who received suspensions, but have failed to mention — because they aren't public — all the other cyclists and other athletes who have been through a similar process and been cleared. Quite a few reached out to me, shared their information and explained what they have been through. That gave me some hope."

vosadrian
Posts: 747
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:58 pm

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

Postby vosadrian » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:58 pm

fat and old wrote:
vosadrian wrote: I read something that said there were 10-20 Salbutamol cases a year, but we only hear about a small fraction of that when they get a penalty.

I do think it is a shame that others in the same situation as him have been penalised in the past when they probably would have been treated similar to Froome had they had the resources to do the same defence. This is something that happens every day in courts outside of sport I guess.



This is something I questioned earlier....whether there were others out there who'd skipped and maintained confidentiality. On face value, it seems reasonable.

However, all of the rumours and mentions of "other similar cases" that I've read came from Sky.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-de ... l-defence/

"There are a lot of athletes who have been through this process and been cleared of wrongdoing without the cases being made public," Froome says. "People need to remember that. They are comparing mine to two or three others who received suspensions, but have failed to mention — because they aren't public — all the other cyclists and other athletes who have been through a similar process and been cleared. Quite a few reached out to me, shared their information and explained what they have been through. That gave me some hope."


It is mentioned by WADA in an article on cycling news: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-de ... tic-study/

It is not clear to me if this is 10-20 cyclists or all athletes.
Image

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:15 pm

Long response and some valid points, but disagree with some of them, hence the mini quotes below.

I'll point out that I am not a Froome hater, but there is something not quite right, and am not a fan. It's more about the team as a whole, and yes, I tar him with the same brush.


vosadrian wrote:I may come across as a Froome/Sky Fanboi, but that is not what I am. ....
Nope, never said you were, but you do really defend him and believe in his innocence. No problem with that.


vosadrian wrote:Froome is the rider everyone loves to hate. ....
I disagree here. I see a lot more expressed 'hate' for the likes of Gerro, Porte, TJvG et al. What I see more of for Froome is disbelief in his rise from a donkey that was almost dropped from Sky for lack of performance to the most decorated 3 & 1 week stage racer in recent history. A bit too good for some.

vosadrian wrote:The other is that he is on the team that has the most funding and strongest riders and ability to apply race controlling strategy......
More about he is on the team that has the biggest budget and a lot of marketing BS and dodgy characters with touted transparency that doesn't exist. A lot of proven wrongs and sailing close to the wind by the leader (Sir Dave), and some really dodgy timed TUE's by Sir Wiggo.
I think the highest funding means that many REALLY good riders aren't able to shine themselves, but are used as cannon fodder to support one. Meh, that's what team funding is about, but it's the leader that has caused much of the misery and doubt about this team.

vosadrian wrote:..... Many with allowed substances in a controlled manner that have been accidentally over the limit. Froome has copped it more than anyone else... not because if what he did... because of the hate towards him. People are looking for a way to take him down. Initially his case was leaked when this does not seem to happen to others. ....
. I disagree, see aforementioned speed of rise from donkey to superstar. maybe he cops more because he looks like Gollum on the bike. Others have had their case leaked too, but is it only those that have been leaked (vs hacked but nothing to find and make public) that have something to create doubt ?

vosadrian wrote: You guys all have an opinion on why he cheated. They are just opinions. You can go into the science of it, but since nobody here has done actual testing of Salbutamol levels in athletes, we just read what is fed us. My opinion is that he did not intentionally over use Salbutamol. He/Sky are simply not that stupid. .....
Again, my opinions and confusion are based on the fact that he was over the limit, raced successfully and dropped others (and the day before couldn't) whilst REALLY suffering from asthma that bad, AND a chest infection, but the rules don't seem to apply as he/his team had really expensive lawyers and he protested his innocence. I call that credibility.
Many other past dopers have protested their innocence too .......

vosadrian wrote:I do think it is a shame that others in the same situation as him have been penalised in the past when they probably would have been treated similar to Froome had they had the resources to do the same defence. This is something that happens every day in courts outside of sport I guess.
Agree. It's not what you know, but who you know and how deep your pockets are.

vosadrian wrote:End of the day. Everyone (who knew nothing about his case) wanted him to stop riding because of effect if he is later banned. Turns out he was right to ride on and everyone had nothing to worry about!
He did have the right to ride under the rules, no issue there. BUT, the issue I have is that he tested over the limit, even corrected for dehydration, and allowing for the decision limit, yet it's OK, he doesn't need to abide by the rules as others have to. No problem, nothing dodgy there at all .....

Oh but the test is not reliable as the protocol is not right. That hasn't helped any others, so will UCI/WADA look at past cases and rehear them and overturn the bans imposed ? umm......


At the end of the day, the damage is that many more are disillusioned by the whole process and the result, and it impacts cycling in a negative way. UCI & WADA are also at fault here by the way they handled it. maybe there will be a change, but I doubt it.

I wasn't a Froome fan ever, and this hasn't changed that, but I am now more anti Sky than ever before as I think they are as crooked as.

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:17 pm

fat and old wrote: ..
However, all of the rumours and mentions of "other similar cases" that I've read came from Sky.

...


I believe NOTHING that comes direct from Sky. They have proven to bend the truth or obfuscate wherever possible to suit them.

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:18 pm

The Froome claim is certainly not correct with regard to Salbutamol AAFs.

Despite the high number of athletes with asthma, Salbutamol accounted for only three of the 109 AAFs Ukad processed in the three years between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017.

It has been suggested by sources close to Team Sky that AAFs are a relatively common occurrence and many of them never progress to anti-doping charges.

But the Ukad figures only partially support that view, as 77 of the 109 cases, or seven out of 10, did result in charges. And all three of the Salbutamol AAFs led to anti-doping rule violation cases.


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/01/ukad-data-chris-froome-defence-anti-doping-charge

vosadrian
Posts: 747
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:58 pm

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

Postby vosadrian » Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:03 pm

MichaelB wrote:He did have the right to ride under the rules, no issue there. BUT, the issue I have is that he tested over the limit, even corrected for dehydration, and allowing for the decision limit, yet it's OK, he doesn't need to abide by the rules as others have to. No problem, nothing dodgy there at all .....


I take your points Michael. Certainly cycling has suffered due to this. All I have to say is that if due process had been followed, it would not have suffered. If we are to believe WADA, there are 10-20 Subutamol cases a year. We have only heard of a few cyclists over the last few years receiving sanctions. So there is likely at least a few a year that are successfully defending adverse findings. They are probably continuing to ride while under the findings until cleared, as people might wonder if riders just disappeared off rosters without explanation. Chris Froome should have had the right to the same. Someone took that from him so that now he was under intense scrutiny in whatever he did, and he decided not to give them the satisfaction and took his right to ride despite the scrutiny.

You say he broke rules. I think my understanding is different to yours. You seem to have a black and white opinion of an adverse finding. I thought the whole idea of the fact that it was an adverse finding was that it is not black and white. They are setting a rule based on intake and testing based on urine output in full knowledge that this is not even close to a reliable way to determine intake. Therefore they say the finding is adverse. Basically, something does not add up but we can't be sure you broke the rules on intake so we call it adverse and ask the rider to explain. The adverse finding system does not have this hard limit that wish existed for sanction. It seems the limit is set for instigating the adverse finding but that has nothing to do with the outcome of investigation. For whatever reason, a reasonable explanation was presented, so the adverse finding was removed. What rules did he break that others cannot? We will never know how many other cyclists have done the same thing, and we will never know what their output was anyway. All we do know is that Froome/Sky have considerably more resources than most, and this probably enabled them to defend the position that others cannot. So there is a double standard here that is common to most legal environments... Money talks in legal proceedings.

I am no Froome Fanboi, and I am definitely no Sky Fanboi.... but I like playing devils advocate, and in this case the people's court seems to be in session and there is more opinion than fact being thrown around. The facts are simply not available. I see the calls for transparency. It would be good if we could see the facts, but we can't, so we can't just make them up to suit our opinions.
Image

fat and old
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:20 pm

vosadrian wrote:
fat and old wrote:
vosadrian wrote: I read something that said there were 10-20 Salbutamol cases a year, but we only hear about a small fraction of that when they get a penalty.

I do think it is a shame that others in the same situation as him have been penalised in the past when they probably would have been treated similar to Froome had they had the resources to do the same defence. This is something that happens every day in courts outside of sport I guess.



This is something I questioned earlier....whether there were others out there who'd skipped and maintained confidentiality. On face value, it seems reasonable.

However, all of the rumours and mentions of "other similar cases" that I've read came from Sky.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-de ... l-defence/

"There are a lot of athletes who have been through this process and been cleared of wrongdoing without the cases being made public," Froome says. "People need to remember that. They are comparing mine to two or three others who received suspensions, but have failed to mention — because they aren't public — all the other cyclists and other athletes who have been through a similar process and been cleared. Quite a few reached out to me, shared their information and explained what they have been through. That gave me some hope."


It is mentioned by WADA in an article on cycling news: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-de ... tic-study/

It is not clear to me if this is 10-20 cyclists or all athletes.


Rabin only days that it’s not the first case of high sal concentrations that he’s reviewed. Nothing about the outcomes of the others. I would have thought that would be specifically explained.....that the other athletes were “not guilty”....if that had been the case. Maybe a deficiency in reporting? I don’t know; but to me it’s not clear cut based on that report.

Interesting that other riders and presumably teams were happy to help Froomay/Sky out. That aspect hasn’t been reported on at all to my knowledge

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 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:43 pm

vosadrian wrote:
It is mentioned by WADA in an article on cycling news: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-de ... tic-study/

It is not clear to me if this is 10-20 cyclists or all athletes.


It's 10-20 across all sports. I checked the WADA statistics for 2016 and there were 15 salbutamol AAFs. Most of these were also likely dismissed due to TUEs being supplied. So I'm not sure about Froome's claim about the number of others with similar cases to his that were let off.

Also, UKAD stats show 11 salbutamol AAFs over the past decade and all were found guilty of an ADRV. Froome's assertion of lots of other salbutamol AAFs not leading to ADRVs doesn't sound true.

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 » Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:16 am

Cycling may not have suffered now, but when we eventually hear that winning riders had failed tests that were kept under wraps and the rider was cleared by officials, that doesn’t help.

Part of it is the history and the UCI were noted as being complicit in the Armstrong doping cover up (failed tests). When Armstrong announced he had never failed a test, it was not entirely true because it excluded the failed doping tests. Then there are cleancut cases which are attributed to a tainted steak and riders still get to race.

Pro-cycling is a bit like baseball... a tainted sport which keeps on getting setbacks. The result is tgat sponsors pull out specifically because of this like Milram and Telekom and media pulls out like German free TV and through to amateur and junior cycling, sponsors and supporters become unwilling... for me that is one the tragedies along with the honest and clean athletes who chose to giveup because they can’t compete against dopers.

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 Jul 06, 2018 9:45 am

Only thing I'll add is would they (Sky, or any team for that matter) put in the same effort and expense if it was another member of the team such as Lukasz Wisinowski or Ian Stannard.

I think not. Just underlines even more that justice isn't even.

vosadrian
Posts: 747
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:58 pm

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

Postby vosadrian » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:51 am

AUbicycles wrote:Cycling may not have suffered now, but when we eventually hear that winning riders had failed tests that were kept under wraps and the rider was cleared by officials, that doesn’t help.

Part of it is the history and the UCI were noted as being complicit in the Armstrong doping cover up (failed tests). When Armstrong announced he had never failed a test, it was not entirely true because it excluded the failed doping tests. Then there are cleancut cases which are attributed to a tainted steak and riders still get to race.

Pro-cycling is a bit like baseball... a tainted sport which keeps on getting setbacks. The result is tgat sponsors pull out specifically because of this like Milram and Telekom and media pulls out like German free TV and through to amateur and junior cycling, sponsors and supporters become unwilling... for me that is one the tragedies along with the honest and clean athletes who chose to giveup because they can’t compete against dopers.


I agree with all you say here. They need to handle this stuff better. It is difficult because they do allow some substances in controlled amounts. It is pretty easy to test for any presence of a substance that is banned, but difficult to test for something that can be used in controlled amounts and therefore must be tested in urine and we have learned that this is not a reliable test. I think the key here is that they probably need to stop racing until finalised. This would surely accelerate the process. But if they do that, they probably need to be very generous with allowed urine amounts to prevent stopping people racing unnecessarily. It is not really feasible to stop people using normal medications totally so controlled substances seem to be necessary... they just need to work out how to handle them better.

So 15 Subutamol findings in 2016 is consistent with the 10-20 per year. I assume that cyclists could account for around 5. Did we hear about any cyclists in 2016? If not that would imply they were able to explain the test result like what Froome has. I don't put much weight on the UKAD results. That is a small subsection of the total testing, and not many cases, so no reason to imply the results are representative of WADA.
Image

vosadrian
Posts: 747
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:58 pm

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

Postby vosadrian » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:56 am

MichaelB wrote:Only thing I'll add is would they (Sky, or any team for that matter) put in the same effort and expense if it was another member of the team such as Lukasz Wisinowski or Ian Stannard.

I think not. Just underlines even more that justice isn't even.


Of course not..... just like legal stuff in other aspects of society. They run it like a business. They weigh up cost/risk/benefit. There was a large benefit for them in keeping their big rider clean, and they were willing to outlay a lot of cost to do that. Of course they would not for someone who they would prefer to cut loose.

This is an ethical thing of the legal system in modern society in general. People with money or people who are of value to people with money to spend lots of resources successfully defending legal issues that other will be unable to defend and will cop punishment.

This lack of justice is not just a cycling thing.
Image

Return to “International and National Tours and Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users