Jump to content
pieman

Froomey banned from tour (and then not banned)

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, xblane said:

I dunno, Gabriel Gaté manages to spice it up ;) 

I don't know why, but I've never warmed to Gabriel. And with the plethora of cooking shows on TV these days, I'm even less tolerant of this section of the show. I'd prefer they do a bit longer preview of the day's stage, or review yesterdays while waiting for their coverage from France to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mhvh said:

I generally don't get past Tate of the Tour!

Thank God for Foxtel and their 200 repeats each day!

8:30 starts this year they were advertising last night

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kim jong-un said:

8:30 starts this year they were advertising last night

 Great! Thanks KJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest the performance enhancement offered by salbutamol seems to be without much evidence to support it... http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada . It's nothing like EPO or steroids although according to the article there is some research that suggest large amounts of salbutamol could act like a steroid and help increase muscle mass. From my reading that is only a suggestion and there is no actual result where this has actually happened and would require larger sustained doses beyond Froome's level. More likely than not, it is simply an honest mistake with the dosage at the time possibly due to incorrectly taking into account other factors which might influence the levels present in the blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kim jong-un said:

8:30 starts this year they were advertising last night

What are your thoughts on the nuclear arms race at Sky Kim? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delgado didn't stop me watching.

The EPO fuelled 90's didn't stop me watching.

The Lance era didn't stop me watching.

Operation Puerto/Landis didn't stop me watching. 

Contador/Schleck didn't stop me watching.

Sky didn't/won't stop me watching.

 

What's the definition of madness again?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nick777 said:

What's the definition of madness again?

Watching Grand tours? Or Test cricket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, xblane said:

Watching Grand tours? Or Test cricket

At least most of the tests are on at a civilised hour (or aren't on FTA TV so I can't watch them anyway).

Winterfish is going to start getting real difficult from next week.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slowman said:

More likely than not, it is simply an honest mistake with the dosage at the time possibly due to incorrectly taking into account other factors which might influence the levels present in the blood.

Straight from the SKY excuse generator.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

 

Winterfish is going to start getting real difficult from next week.

Cmon.... 

Your my carrot at the end of the stick. 

 

😎🤘

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kim jong-un said:

8:30 starts this year they were advertising last night

Does Denis enjoy hanging out with you watching le tour?

 

C6FC1502-6582-418C-883B-4ECA52A9413E.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Slowman said:

To be honest the performance enhancement offered by salbutamol seems to be without much evidence to support it... http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada . It's nothing like EPO or steroids although according to the article there is some research that suggest large amounts of salbutamol could act like a steroid and help increase muscle mass. From my reading that is only a suggestion and there is no actual result where this has actually happened and would require larger sustained doses beyond Froome's level. More likely than not, it is simply an honest mistake with the dosage at the time possibly due to incorrectly taking into account other factors which might influence the levels present in the blood.

 

8 hours ago, Tyno said:

Straight

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Slowman said:

To be honest the performance enhancement offered by salbutamol seems to be without much evidence to support it... http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada . It's nothing like EPO or steroids although according to the article there is some research that suggest large amounts of salbutamol could act like a steroid and help increase muscle mass. From my reading that is only a suggestion and there is no actual result where this has actually happened and would require larger sustained doses beyond Froome's level. More likely than not, it is simply an honest mistake with the dosage at the time possibly due to incorrectly taking into account other factors which might influence the levels present in the blood.

Screwing up your doping protocol might be an honest mistake, but it's still doping.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

Screwing up your doping protocol might be an honest mistake, but it's still doping.

Exactly this. The fact that others have been done for exactly the same thing and he walks away just screams Lance Pharmstrong treatment by the UCI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, FFF1077 said:

Cmon.... 

Your my carrot at the end of the stick. 

 

😎🤘

Don't worry. I said difficult, not impossible. I may do a few after-work swims. :)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Slowman said:

To be honest the performance enhancement offered by salbutamol seems to be without much evidence to support it... http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada . It's nothing like EPO or steroids although according to the article there is some research that suggest large amounts of salbutamol could act like a steroid and help increase muscle mass. From my reading that is only a suggestion and there is no actual result where this has actually happened and would require larger sustained doses beyond Froome's level. More likely than not, it is simply an honest mistake with the dosage at the time possibly due to incorrectly taking into account other factors which might influence the levels present in the blood.

It's something that never really gets a mention - the level of performance enhancement with particular drugs. Perhaps bans need to be adjusted accordingly. Phenylephrine is a decongestant which was supposed to have an effect on stimulating the heart. Performance enhancement is virtually negligible, hence the reason it's been taken off the banned list. But a number of athletes have tested positive for this and been banned. How many other banned drugs out there give only negligible performance enhancements? Compare that to EPO, what was the data for the age grouper in Icarus - 240w FTP to 380W after 6 months of EPO, something like that. At the moment it's black and white,  if you test positive for a banned substance, you're just as guilty as LA, doesn't matter if it's EPO or something you too to help with the sniffles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, zed said:

It's something that never really gets a mention - the level of performance enhancement with particular drugs.

But then how do you measure performance enhancing. UCI are about to ban Tramadol from the start of next year. For me, I would get no benefit, but it is used as a pain-killer by a number of cyclists to allow them to compete when maybe their body is saying they shouldn't, or to push past where they would normally be able to.

It has been on the watch list for a while now (and been observed in many of the test samples taken at races) & will be banned from January. I wonder how many are going to get caught like Sharipova in the Meldonium scandal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

But then how do you measure performance enhancing. UCI are about to ban Tramadol from the start of next year. For me, I would get no benefit, but it is used as a pain-killer by a number of cyclists to allow them to compete when maybe their body is saying they shouldn't, or to push past where they would normally be able to.

It has been on the watch list for a while now (and been observed in many of the test samples taken at races) & will be banned from January. I wonder how many are going to get caught like Sharipova in the Meldonium scandal?

Perhaps like recreational drugs have different classes. EPO would be A, similar to smack, Tramadol would be C similar to weed. Length of bans would be determined by the class. Now that I think about it, it seems mad a professional athlete would risk their entire career and livelihood on a drug that only gives marginal (if at all) performance enhancements. 19/20 of Froome's samples  during the season were clear only 1 had an anomaly, levels of salbutamol  15% higher than the accepted level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

Screwing up your doping protocol might be an honest mistake, but it's still doping.

Do tell. Are you implying salbutamol is part of some established doping protocol or some kind of masking agent? If you know something, you can't just let the cat half out of the bag! 

I mean we knew about EPO and how it worked it was just hard to detect it initially before it disappeared from the system, Anyone know how salbutamol is used to any great effect? Or are we just suspecting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Slowman said:

Do tell. Are you implying salbutamol is part of some established doping protocol or some kind of masking agent? If you know something, you can't just let the cat half out of the bag! 

I mean we knew about EPO and how it worked it was just hard to detect it initially before it disappeared from the system, Anyone know how salbutamol is used to any great effect? Or are we just suspecting?

Since when has EPO disappeared? There have been 13 doping sanctions this year alone for cyclists using EPO.

Salbutamol may have anabolic effects at certain dosages. That's why WADA has placed it on the prohibited list but as a specified substance with a limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

UCI are about to ban Tramadol from the start of next year. For me, I would get no benefit, but it is used as a pain-killer by a number of cyclists to allow them to compete when maybe their body is saying they shouldn't, or to push past where they would normally be able to.

It has been on the watch list for a while now (and been observed in many of the test samples taken at races) & will be banned from January. I wonder how many are going to get caught like Sharipova in the Meldonium scandal?

I was on the Trams for a slipped disc a couple of years ago and I could barely walk for the Hendrix that was playing in my head and the purple elephants that were dancing around me in the room.

How anyone could race a bike on that stuff has me stuffed .....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Rimmer said:

I was on the Trams for a slipped disc a couple of years ago and I could barely walk for the Hendrix that was playing in my head and the purple elephants that were dancing around me in the room.

How anyone could race a bike on that stuff has me stuffed .....

Explains Vocklers facial expressions then.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

Here's what WADA expert says:

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada

 

But really it doesn't matter whether ergogencity has been proven. It's prohibited above a given dosage.

Like caffeine was, then wasn't? If WADA is going to ban things it needs to be credible - this is probably a separate argument. 

Anyway, that's funny; that is the link I also provided (see above) and the article questions whether there is any real performance enhancement and the research only suggests it may have a steroidal effect if taken in large enough doses... which is unproven, and in Froome's case it was not a large excess and only once. 

If we're going to compare Froome with LA, I think we are going to need far more evidence than than this. I think there's a certain amount of group think going on here and somehow based on the sheerest of anomalies he's now up there with the greatest systematic doper of all times. On the evidence so far I think not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slowman said:

If we're going to compare Froome with LA, I think we are going to need far more evidence than than this.

I think a lot of the issue is the fact that it has taken so long to sort out after remaining hidden for so long. As soon as it was likely to affect him starting a race, it was resolved. And other riders have been banned for the same thing, but Froome gets off. Likely if the leak hadn't made the press, this would never have been known to the public, which makes people think how often has this happened?

This are the things that make it look "Armstrongish".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From nothing particularly outstanding to the greatest of his generation by some margin.  The man with a team of domestiques that appear to be superior to most of the GC contenders.  Regular allegations met with claims of transparency that never happen.

Absolutely right, I can't see why anyone would draw parallels.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slowman said:

Like caffeine was, then wasn't? If WADA is going to ban things it needs to be credible - this is probably a separate argument. 

Anyway, that's funny; that is the link I also provided (see above) and the article questions whether there is any real performance enhancement and the research only suggests it may have a steroidal effect if taken in large enough doses... which is unproven, and in Froome's case it was not a large excess and only once. 

If we're going to compare Froome with LA, I think we are going to need far more evidence than than this. I think there's a certain amount of group think going on here and somehow based on the sheerest of anomalies he's now up there with the greatest systematic doper of all times. On the evidence so far I think not.

You can say you can't compare one "anomaly" with Froome to the "greatest systematic doper of all time" - thing is at the time Lance "never tested positive".

It's actually exactly the same argument that surrounded Lance, suspicion, the odd anomaly, but no proof.

Edited by dazaau
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I think a lot of the issue is the fact that it has taken so long to sort out after remaining hidden for so long. As soon as it was likely to affect him starting a race, it was resolved. And other riders have been banned for the same thing, but Froome gets off. Likely if the leak hadn't made the press, this would never have been known to the public, which makes people think how often has this happened?

This are the things that make it look "Armstrongish".

 

1 hour ago, dazaau said:

You can say you can't compare one "anomaly" with Froome to the "greatest systematic doper of all time" - thing is at the time Lance "never tested positive".

It's actually exactly the same argument that surrounded Lance, suspicion, the odd anomaly, but no proof.

I agree this is a worrying development but let's not forget during Lance's time there was no bio passport or random out of competition testing though as he demonstrated adverse test results can be made to not exist. Is it possible Sky could have rebuilt a network of secrecy and corrupt UCI officials in such a short period of time? Does this also mean other teams are also involved in keeping this all secret? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Sky performed so poorly when asked to produce records etc at the recent inquiry, yet claim that their success lies in their meticulous preparation belies belief. If they were so meticulous, they'd have every record of every supplement that every rider took, to see what helped and what didn't.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Slowman said:

Like caffeine was, then wasn't? If WADA is going to ban things it needs to be credible - this is probably a separate argument. 

Anyway, that's funny; that is the link I also provided (see above) and the article questions whether there is any real performance enhancement and the research only suggests it may have a steroidal effect if taken in large enough doses... which is unproven, and in Froome's case it was not a large excess and only once. 

If we're going to compare Froome with LA, I think we are going to need far more evidence than than this. I think there's a certain amount of group think going on here and somehow based on the sheerest of anomalies he's now up there with the greatest systematic doper of all times. On the evidence so far I think not.

Don't conflate matters of doping with matters of performance enhancement. Sleeping, eating and training are performance enhancing too. Doping substances and ergogenic substances are overlapping sets but they are not completely overlapping. There are many prohibited substances with limited ergogenic properties and there are ergogenic substances that are not doping.

Re-read the WADA code to remind yourself what is and is not doping and why things are included on the prohibited list, or in the case of specified substances have limits on their use.

Consider that one of Sky's defences was that the sample was impacted by him having a chest infection on that day. Amazing that you can have a chest infection while also distancing and beating all your GC rivals in a grand tour stage. That's a heck of an illness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The fact that Sky performed so poorly when asked to produce records etc at the recent inquiry, yet claim that their success lies in their meticulous preparation belies belief. If they were so meticulous, they'd have every record of every supplement that every rider took, to see what helped and what didn't.

marginal gains isn't it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stikman said:

From nothing particularly outstanding to the greatest of his generation by some margin.  The man with a team of domestiques that appear to be superior to most of the GC contenders.  Regular allegations met with claims of transparency that never happen.

Absolutely right, I can't see why anyone would draw parallels.

That is exactly correct. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stikman said:

From nothing particularly outstanding to the greatest of his generation by some margin.  The man with a team of domestiques that appear to be superior to most of the GC contenders.  Regular allegations met with claims of transparency that never happen.

Absolutely right, I can't see why anyone would draw parallels.

Yeah how would anyone draw that conclusion - the guy happened to have been surrounded by the best selection of super domestiques - riding the legs of everyone else in the final week of the tour 🙄 but I'm not English so I must be biased 😉 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

Consider that one of Sky's defences was that the sample was impacted by him having a chest infection on that day. Amazing that you can have a chest infection while also distancing and beating all your GC rivals in a grand tour stage. That's a heck of an illness.

I'm currently sitting in a hotel room with a common chest infection. The chance of me making it to the top of the Zugspitze in a gondola today is about the same as me winning today's Tour stage. Giving myself a slightly better chance of making it into town for a gelati for lunch.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok let's have a trash pop poll on which is more probable

A)Froome being clean

B)Kim Jong in giving up nuclear weapons

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le

22 hours ago, Ruley said:

Ok let's have a trash pop poll on which is more probable

A)Froome being clean

B)Kim Jong in giving up nuclear weapons

Let me google this froome guy and get back to you with my response 

3F6F5F4C-83AB-4EE7-8A6D-62BA493E62B7.jpeg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😂😂😂😂😂

Business as usual 😎🤘😂😂

 

Awesome 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/07/2018 at 11:11 AM, Alex Simmons said:

Don't conflate matters of doping with matters of performance enhancement. Sleeping, eating and training are performance enhancing too. Doping substances and ergogenic substances are overlapping sets but they are not completely overlapping. There are many prohibited substances with limited ergogenic properties and there are ergogenic substances that are not doping.

Re-read the WADA code to remind yourself what is and is not doping and why things are included on the prohibited list, or in the case of specified substances have limits on their use.

Consider that one of Sky's defences was that the sample was impacted by him having a chest infection on that day. Amazing that you can have a chest infection while also distancing and beating all your GC rivals in a grand tour stage. That's a heck of an illness.

Yes I reread it, but you have to remember if you are going to take a black letter approach, it is more than just the code. It's the CAS and procedures too. Which do allow TUEs for salbutimol. My guess is this substance in a couple of years will be taken off the list like caffeine was. There has been no evidence to show high doses of it have a steroid effect it is just thought it might.

I'm not unsympathetic to these suspicions about Froome but tying to nail him on a salbutimol infraction, which by the way his lawyers seem to have successfully defended, is really only going to be a misdemeanor when it sounds like something much bigger is going on. 

On 05/07/2018 at 10:32 PM, Ruley said:

Ok let's have a trash pop poll on which is more probable

A)Froome being clean

B)Kim Jong in giving up nuclear weapons

C) Trump ever declaring a conflict of interest

On 09/07/2018 at 10:02 AM, Roy said:

Good article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UCI had already spent US$ 250,000 in legal fees just in preliminaries on the Froome case. Neither they nor WADA could afford to keep pursuing the case. They capitulated accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

UCI had already spent US$ 250,000 in legal fees just in preliminaries on the Froome case. Neither they nor WADA could afford to keep pursuing the case. They capitulated accordingly.

How much did they spend on Lance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

How much did they spend on Lance

They didn't. USADA did. 

 

8 hours ago, Alex Simmons said:

UCI had already spent US$ 250,000 in legal fees just in preliminaries on the Froome case. Neither they nor WADA could afford to keep pursuing the case. They capitulated accordingly.

Yes unfortunately until we have all free legal services (utopia) those with the biggest bank roll can win in certain situations. Or maybe they are saving their resources for a bigger battle in order to win the war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

How much did they spend on Lance

The UCI (or certain individuals) made money from Lance. It was USADA who drained their bank account to fight the case.

Not sure what WADA's legal costs were but I expect something similar. It represents ~1% of each of their annual budgets. Team Sky's annual budget is more than the UCI and WADA.

Froome is personally more profitable than the ASO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×