8. The difficulty Froome faces when trying to explain how he had nearly double the daily recommendation of Salb.
You can tell by the language whether people are keeping up. There is an intervention level. He was above this and then had to prove that he was within the allowed dose.
Very pleased that this is over before the tour
Are those riders banned for lower salbutomol levels than Froome now going to appeal? Big can of worms opened there.
Big can of worms opened there.
Perhaps that is why it's taken so long to get here
Are those riders banned for lower salbutomol levels than Froome now going to appeal? Big can of worms opened there.
Are there any? Petacchi maybe but he's retired, I'm struggling to think of anyone else.
Last time for the haters he was not twice over the limit for Salbutamol, this was not true as stated today.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">TiRed
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">“But they’ll have bribed the experts, have secret film of illicit liaisons with Giro podium girls”
Genuine LOL there. I wish
</div>
TiRED, did that comment give away a hint that you might have been involved?
Apparently in the end the level he was over was only 19% over the limit, so nowhere near double the limit. So not really a huge amount over the limit, and in all probability a lot less that others who may have been actually abusing the stuff.
riders always had the right to appeal, not sure if those who previously got AAF’s appealed and failed or just didn’t bother, instead opting to take a minor ban. We don’t know if they were supported by their team or left high and dry to fend for themselves. I can’t imagine a team investing significant time, money and reputational risk on some low level grunt, so easier to simply cut them loose. Also the history of others success and failure in their appeals is utterly irrelevant. Each case will be/should be reviewed and considered in isolation on the strengths of that individual case. What happened in other similar cases shouldn’t be taken into account.
I do hate it when facts get in the way of a good ol fashioned witch hunt...
Interesting article with WADA now questioned by:
"Robin Parisotto is a leading anti-doping expert and previously worked as part of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation's Biological Passport programme, which tested professional cyclists."
This is key for me: "It's now about having full access to the reasoned decision as it's hard to comment without it. This is a case where they need to release the report in order to silence the agitators. I'm bamboozled to be honest.?"
Are those riders banned for lower salbutomol levels than Froome now going to appeal? Big can of worms opened there.
They would have gone through the same process as Froome, and had the same defence options. The outcome of his case has no restrospective bearing on the outcome of their cases.
Apparently in the end the level he was over was only 19% over the limit, so nowhere near double the limit. So not really a huge amount over the limit, and in all probability a lot less that others who may have been actually abusing the stuff.
It doesn't matter how much over a limit you are, if you exceed it. I believe the Salbutamol limit is set at a fairly<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> high level, so if you exceed it, something out of the ordinary has occured. Froome successfully argued that the high reading was due to his particular circumstances.</span>
Cycling news in anti-Froome article shocka
Are those riders banned for lower salbutomol levels than Froome now going to appeal?
Factually, probably too late for them to make a difference other than clearing names; but also just because they failed a AAF reading and Froome was cleared doesn't make the case the same. They may well have been doping and caught, Froome has successfully argued that he wasn't and the reading was flawed for reasons I'm sure we all want to find out.
"Cycling news in anti-Froome article shocka"
So what?
The points raised are valid, namely: without disclosure of the evidence clearing Froome questions & doubts remain. It's only fair on all concerned from fan's to fellow pro's that we know the grounds for which he was cleared.
Jeez, some of you really can't take an opposing POV!
Yes, I get the irony - however don't we all want to know the grounds for his innocence or are we happy to be blindly told the outcome without an explanation.
I, for one, think we are owed it!
"TiRED, did that comment give away a hint that you might have been involved?"
No. But I have reviewed the Clinical Pharmacology of salbutamol in detail.
Yes, I get the irony – however don’t we all want to know the grounds for his innocence or are we happy to be blindly told the outcome without an explanation.
Isn't there also an article on CN where Chris Froome says that the basis of the judgement is going to be released in the next day or two., erm:
'Froome said in an interview on Sky Sports News. "It's very technical data. All of that will be fully communicated in the media in the next few days about how we got to this point.'
So maybe the detailed info will be available.
It isn’t that I can’t accept an opposing point of view, more that it is obvious that Cycling News have an axe to grind. & while they are not exactly the BBC you kinda hope that a cycling media outlet might at least make an attempt at impartiality.
"So maybe the detailed info will be available."
Good stuff - I look forward to reading it!
Question for me would be whether we want all the evidence (which frankly most of us won't understand) or do we want a precis of the evidence from a trusted and reliable interpreter. Which then creates the issue of 'we don't trust experts any longer' and 'WADA aren't blemish free' so who has to interpret it for the layman so that everyone will accept it?
TiRed, Yes, I remember you had a background in pharmacology or something similar, I just thought you were wishing for kick backs and giro girls!
"Question for me would be whether we want all the evidence (which frankly most of us won’t understand) or do we want a precis of the evidence from a trusted and reliable interpreter. Which then creates the issue of ‘we don’t trust experts any longer’ and ‘WADA aren’t blemish free’ so who has to interpret it for the layman so that everyone will accept it?"
One thing you won't be short of is opinions on said evidence! What you make of them will be up to you.....
Does anyone know what is the burden of proof required in the UCI/WADA court for these sort of cases? Is it 'reasonable doubt', 'balance of probability ' etc?
Question for me would be whether we want all the evidence (which frankly most of us won’t understand) or do we want a precis of the evidence from a trusted and reliable interpreter. Which then creates the issue of ‘we don’t trust experts any longer’ and ‘WADA aren’t blemish free’ so who has to interpret it for the layman so that everyone will accept it?
Exactly. Very few of us will be able to interpret this information. That won't stop armchair experts trying, and I don't reckon it'll do any of us any good. If you get upset about doping but don't trust the UCI/WADA's experts then frankly what is the point in watching any sport?
The other jonv - I would be happy with a well analysed precis and am looking forward to reading it to see if it changes my mind.
I would really love to have some faith back in pro cycling / anti doping / team sky.
am looking forward to reading it to see if it changes my mind.
I can save you the suspense...
Why - you seen the evidence? If its good I will change my mind.
I imagine russian hackers are working on the release at this very moment 🙂
From what has been published both prior and during today, Chris was 19% over the nominal limit, but when accounting for dehydration was actually more than 20% below it. This has been supported by the other samples given during the Vuelta. The Salbutamol limit, was always somewhat unscientific, it seems that some science has been brought to it and the matter has been put to bed.
Chris is free to ride and all those that wanted to see him/teamSky/British Cycling get toppled will have to go and self-fornicate for a while longer.
Link Daffy? - cos what I have seen published is 100% over the limit reduced to 60% over to account for dehydration.
I can save you the suspense…
😂
I read something about him being within the variances expected for the test.. Not that I know much about the details or science around it.
As someone who loves cycling, whilst not great that this whole affair became public, its fantastic that we aren't stripping the best rider of a generation of 2 grand tours.. That would have cast a far bigger shadow on the sport.
not great that this whole affair became public
Exactly. With this result we should have never known there was even a potential issue. Whoever the leaker was, I suspect they've achieved their aims.
If its good I will change my mind.
You'll decide it's not good though.. guaranteed.
Chris is free to ride and all those that wanted to see him/teamSky/British Cycling get toppled will have to go and self-fornicate for a while longer.
Can you lend me a hand ?
This is key for me: “It’s now about having full access to the reasoned decision as it’s hard to comment without it.
I wish everyone just wouldn't comment. The whole process should have been confidential, and with the outcome we wouldn't have known anything and neither should we have.
The likes of TJ saying they want access to all the evidence so they can make their minds up is laughable !!
I'll call you out on this TJ you slandered a man on a public forum based on your own petty prejudices not fact. You aren't capable of having a fair balanced opinion on this.
TJ, this helps explain it:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4723/what-the-newest-salbutamol-study-means-for-froome
<span class="sub_abstract_label">CONCLUSIONS: </span>The observed large variability in urine concentrations indicates that determining the administered dose from a single untimed urine sample is not feasible. The current threshold inadvertently leads to incorrect assumptions of violation, whereas many violations will go unnoticed, especially when samples are taken long after drug administration. These issues, combined with the dubious assertion of its anabolic effect, leads us to conclude that the large effort involved in testing should be reconsidered.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29722428/
And I'll call you out on the same taxi - petty prejudices? What a dislike of the systematic ( at best) pushing of the rules by Sky?
Its nothing to do with prejudice - its about hating lying and cheating .
BTW - to call me prejudiced is slander ( actually libel as its written). to call ~Froome out for cheating is not as its fair comment. #check the law.
Ta Mildred
I’ve copied the Conclusions though I can’t see my edit. The gist would seem to be that the test is bobbins and can over & under measure. This is from a respected peer assessed academic journal.
Ta for the pub med link. I still want to see the evidence or a precis of it and as of this moment without seeing that I am very unconvinced. but those links do show new ( to me ) evidence
I think someone else mentioned it earlier, had it not been for a bunch of criminals leaking the aaf, which under UCI & WADA rules is a confidential process, we wouldn’t been any wiser.
I for one am going to let it go & move on.
to call ~Froome out for cheating is not as its fair comment.
Explain how he cheated under the rules as they exist ??
And go on sue me for libel. Your comment just shows what a ridicules little man you actually are.
I really want to see it come out all clear. I really want to believe in team sky, anti doping efforts and the integrity of cycling. At the moment everything is so tainted that I cannot
Taxi - no intention of doing so. No point. I am just pointing out how ridiculous it is to throw words like slander around when you clearly have no idea what they mean Why so personal and nasty? Why can you not accept others have different opinions?
Can you lend me a hand ?
I’m not sure... but I’d lay money on an offering of a (soggy) biscuit... 🤣🤣🤣
What a dislike of the systematic ( at best) pushing of the rules by Sky?
Its nothing to do with prejudice – its about hating lying and cheating
TJ settles down to read the WADA opinion
Can an opinion be slanderous?
no intention of doing so. No point
That's not how you spell "proof", TJ.
