Can an opinion be slanderous?
depends if it is an honestly held belief that is not unreasonable then normally no.
The thing is TJ, it’s already been admitted by WADA that their upper limit was set without any reference to performance enhancing.
i can’t recall the publication now but I think cycling news had an interview with a WADA official who quoted a few studies that apparently provided evidence that salbutamol could be a PED.
i looked up & read all of these studies and found without any exception that these studies had been at best misunderstood and at worst chronically misrepresented.
Now I’m quite sad; my postgrad dissertation was a discourse analysis using rhetorical interaction analysis that looked at the way authors & journalists use quotes and cite academic journals to support their argument. If the study didn’t really support it many authors used it anyway knowing that the general public won’t bother looking.
in the case of Froome, this article cited a study published in the Lancet whereby a Dr had expressed concern over the number of elite level athletes using asthma medication. He was specifically looking at exercise induced asthma and pretty much concluded that this condition was far more widespread than previously thought. However, this was reported in a way that implies his conclusions were that he was concerned by elite level athletes using asthma treatments as PEDS. Not at all.
So what got from the article was that even WADA realised there was a problem with the limit for salbutamol, which was initially made for health and not PED reasons, but then was assumed to be for PED reasoana because someone somewhere told a bloke that rats lost weight and bench pressed their mates when using a totally different beta-agonist... but let’s face it we’re a lot like rats and all drugs are the same, aren’t they...
I am just pointing out how ridiculous it is to throw words like slander around when you clearly have no idea what they mean
I have a clear understanding of their meaning.
But enough's enough at some point. Your entitled to an opinion like everybody. But you just keep on and on with the same opinion over and over again despite not having any evidence to back up your assertions. So I called you out on this one. At what point will you just give it a rest.
P.s
Sorry if my comments came across as personal. I read many of your posts with interest, just not on this topic.
Apology accepted. We all get het up at times even me 😉
You may have not noticed but I refrained from commenting for a couple of weeks or more but did once the results came out and then folk got tore into me again
BTW – to call me prejudiced is slander ( actually libel as its written)
Can an opinion be slanderous?
depends if it is an honestly held belief that is not unreasonable then normally no.
Is it not unreasonable to think that you are heavily biased against Sky?
Now I’m quite sad; my postgrad dissertation was a discourse analysis using rhetorical interaction analysis that looked at the way authors & journalists use quotes and cite academic journals to support their argument. If the study didn’t really support it many authors used it anyway knowing that the general public won’t bother looking.
Oh indeed they do. I have read enough research and the papers stories on it to know this is very true - which is why when a study is quoted I like to look at it.
and then folk got tore into me again
You were among the two or three most vocal proponents of the 'the numbers are the numbers' argument and calling for a ban prior to the study. You made the bed.....
Probably not jonV - wrong but not unreasonable 😉
When Sky came along I really bought into the " cleaner than clean" story. "NO needles" etc etc. then it came out about Wiggins and Froomes (ab)use of TUEs and all the rest of the dodgy stuff I I felt I had been lied to and conned.
Me too - I feel let down and I'm far from a Sky fanboi as a result, but they don't seem to have actually broken any rules, and even if they have pushed limits as far as they can they were on different matters and to hang Froome because in a different year a different rider got a different TUE from a different doctor is just wrong.
You have to look at each case on its merits which was not done here, to a frankly despicable degree, calling him to be banned before any case was heard is kangaroo courting of the worst sort. Sorry, but that's how I see what several on here were calling for, and now the evidence has been heard by the responsible body and the case dropped, inevitably some noses are going to be rubbed in it. Just as if the case was heard and upheld, they be rubbing our noses now.
What a dislike of the systematic ( at best) pushing of the rules by Sky?
Pushing the rules is not cheating. You can dislike him, but you need some backup to actually accuse him of cheating.
call ~Froome out for cheating
You're working forward from the assumption that he has cheated. You've already decided that, and you're ignoring the evidence that says he hasn't. That's prejudice. It means pre-judging, which is precisely what you've done. You're trying to post-justify that.
...
Now I've just read your de-escalation which is good.. so now I feel like I've attacked again.. sorry 🙂
I've run away from this thread now.........................................
Ah TJ, you really do get your knickers in a twist, don’t you?
Froome’s use of salbutamol wasn’t a TUE, Wiggins use of it was deemed to be within the rules, what’s to complain about? The rules are there for a reason, to draw the line between wrong and right, so if it’s not one, then clearly it’s the other.
TUEs exist not to increase performance, but to restore it, to level the field and not unfairly penalise a rider who has been training for something for a year, suddenly to find themselves uncompetitive due to pollen.
It’s a fair system, it’s a policed system, it’s goverened by rules that haven’t been broken.
Save your judgement for those actually convicted of a crime due to breach of the rules and let the rest get on with riding.
I’ve run away from this thread now…………………………………..
The Edinburgh Escape.
I know Froomes use of salbutomol was not under TUE
I also know that every one of skys grand tour wins ( bar one - Froomes Vuelta?) that the main rider was so ill with asthma the week before they needed powerful steroids under TUE the week before - injected in Wiggins case, oral in Froomes.
Now you tell me that is not gaming the system at best? It stinks to high heaven
and with that I really will go away and procreate
Well, I should probably add a 2p that if he's cleared by WADA that's it, in the clear imo. Doesn't change any of my opinions on Sky's or anyone else's grey practices but that opinion also doesn't taint riders on a team that haven't got clear evidence or a real pile of murkier stuff against them. That said, there's too much mess in the past for me to think it's as cut+dry as innocent until proven guilty even if here it seems like a non-issue. Probably. There's not much more of this that can happen before it's a smoke>fire thing.
I also know that every one of skys grand tour wins ( bar one – Froomes Vuelta?) that the main rider was so ill with asthma the week before they needed powerful steroids under TUE the week before – injected in Wiggins case, oral in Froomes.
Tell us about Froome's oral consumption of 'powerful steroids' before every one of his GT wins bar the Vuelta. I wasn't aware of that.
Now you tell me that is not gaming the system at best?
If this upsets you, may i suggest you take up spectating non-competetive-tiddly-winks as i don't think professional sport is for you.
Just imagine if Froome &co were clean*. Imagine how it'd feel you read this thread. A load of keyboard warrior MTBers tearing into you every single time your name is mentioned, when you've done nothing wrong, smearing your character with nothing better than 'they're all at it grumble whine whinge'. It's pretty shitty.
^
Those who win clean are heroes. Those who ride on teams that kid the fans can expect doubt. Fair enough, I think. Road racing has a history that it's still far from clear of.
The rules are what they are. Not sure it makes much sense to criticise people for sticking to them...?
TJ, this helps explain it:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4723/what-the-newest-salbutamol-study-means-for-froome
That study has not been without criticism, however, e.g. read Ross Tucker's take on it here:
http://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/993413989890707457
They built a computer model and ran simulations on it to predict the urine concentration in the simulated tests.
As pointed out in the first link, the same team published a study which claims to demonstrate that there was no performance boost from EPO in a controlled hill climb, and here's a quote from one of the researchers behind the Salbutamol study:
Heuberger, who was also involved in a controversial EPO study undertaken by the same group in 2017, goes further. “There’s no evidence that [PEDs] improve performance, definitely not for elite athletes.”
I'd say that's quite a bold claim to make...
There's a precis of the Froome defence from Sky themselves, in the press release they issued today:
http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/07/02/team-sky-statement-02-july-18
“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" (David Brailsford)
“The likes of TJ saying they want access to all the evidence so they can make their minds up is laughable !!”
Whats laughable is you trying to deny folks the right to make up their own mind! What other censorship would you like to impose Herr Dictator? It’s a free world &, if/when, the evidence is presented then we can all make up our own minds as to how we chose I’ll thank you very fing much! It’s a free World & if you want to accept that he’s clean that’s just dandy - others may chose to think different & that’s equally peachy. They are no less entitled to their opinion than you are to yours!
What are you after? A safe place where folks are restricted to only saying things you agree with??
What a joke this place is sometimes..
🤣
Whats laughable is you trying to deny folks the right to make up their own mind!
Not a problem if people start their analysis with their qualifications and experience in the area.
Can you not accept that WADA the UCI and all other bodies who do this regularly and often ban people are satisfied ? This is what they do, day in day out, they check, monitor and then dish out punishment.
Lets assume for a second they posted the report full of figures of "XYZ at this consistent figure" and "ABC at this...." what would it actually tell you unless you were an expert in the field ? Would you really gain anything from the knowledge they provide ?
Or would you just pick out say "exceeded limit by 5%" and use that as your beating stick for the dead horse ?
He's been found not guilty... is it really not that simple ? No wrong-doings ... that's it ?
Not a problem if people start their analysis with their qualifications and experience in the area.
This is STW, there is bound to be someone whose day to day job is research relating to the metabolism and excretion of inhaled corticosteroids in elite athletes. 🙂
I'm sorry but I like to make up my own mind - you can either accept it or allow it to p1ss you off.
I care not one jot either way & I don't need your approval either.
Good day to you.
Whats laughable is you trying to deny folks the right to make up their own mind! What other censorship would you like to impose Herr Dictator? It’s a free world &, if/when, the evidence is presented then we can all make up our own minds as to how we chose I’ll thank you very fing much! It’s a free World & if you want to accept that he’s clean that’s just dandy – others may chose to think different & that’s equally peachy. They are no less entitled to their opinion than you are to yours!
What are you after? A safe place where folks are restricted to only saying things you agree with??
What a joke this place is sometimes..
Christ that's some excellent hysteria even by STW standards.
Everyone (yes, even TJ) is entitled to their opinions. However, they must remember that they are just that - opinions. And when they have been proven to be wrong by facts, holding onto them and insisting others listen to them tends to leave one open to ridicule.
What's that expression?
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts...
That study has not been without criticism, however, e.g. read Ross Tucker’s take on it here:
That reads like someone who just wants people to listen to him. Full of supposition.
The rules are what they are. Not sure it makes much sense to criticise people for sticking to them…?
As long as they are actually sticking to them, at all times (speaking generally), I agree. Personally I'm not criticising, just a starting point of some doubt. Fair enough I think, based on what has gone before (in general again). The rules are complex and I don't doubt that sky play those rules as far as they can in terms of substances that can help recovery or performance. Could say 'why not', I can't really disagree. Rules is rules. Let the teams manage their ethics within that.
"Christ that’s some excellent hysteria even by STW standards."
I was laughing as I wrote it to - I found the attempt at trying to deny me my own thoughts equally hysterical!
"Everyone (yes, even TJ) is entitled to their opinions. However, they must remember that they are just that – opinions. And when they have been proven to be wrong by facts, holding onto them and insisting others listen to them tends to leave one open to ridicule."
But yes - this, we agree.
However. until Salb is either banned or removed from the AAF list any cyclist found with it in their system is going to be under suspicion. That's an opinion backed up by facts & supported by the current stance of WADA & UCI.
As for ridicule? Time will tell - Froome is innocent for now but then Armstrong never failed a test either.
(I'll admit I'm suspicious of just about every rider in the pro peloton. Why? History & far too much of it. I wish it wasn't so. Which is why when Sky rock up & give the spiel about "no needles" & are then found to be blurring the lines - well, that suspicion just gets reinforced. I dearly wish it wasn't so!)
😉
That reads like someone who just wants people to listen to him. Full of supposition.
I think Tucker is explaining some of the detail in the study, and its limitations, rather that than simply saying "this study proves Salbutamol testing is futile" which is the response that a lot of people have made.
I find it difficult to believe the assertion by the same researchers that PEDs don't work for elite athletes, and that makes me think they have a "unique" approach to the subject.
There is more explanation of the Froome case from a WADA offiicial here:
https://m.facebook.com/1481917892086163/posts/2094926427451970/
Armstrong never failed a test either.
That's not true.
Oh yeah - the EPO test, I forgot that.
No, the steroid failure for which he was allowed to submit a backdated prescription.
That sounds familiar too - my bad. Been a while since I read up on LA, thanks for pointing it out.
"There is more explanation of the Froome case from a WADA offiicial here:"
That's a good read & summary - signposts more interesting & detailed stuff to come.
Wasn't testing less rigorous during LA's era, and wasn't there no test for EPO?
Daffy, not sure the TUE system was fair or policed. I think it is supposed to be, but not sure it was in 2012/13. Like TJ I'm not overly trusting of the information being provided. All the science they provide isn't going to give me a warm glowing feeling that all is well in the world. Being a bit old and long in the tooth, I've been here before, different rider, different team, but with a very similar feel.
If you look back to the TUE issue for Bradley Wiggins, the system was gamed, even Cookson saying Sky had gone close to the limit of the rules. "“The issue of the substances issued to Wiggins appears to have been within the rules,” Cookson said. “But I think there is an argument to be had about whether TUEs for that kind of substance are valid.” Dr Zorzoli (the Dr who prescribed the TUE for Wiggins) has said that he knew riders who were looking to win would take Corticosteroids on a TUE, but for performance benefits. (At least that's what the select committee report said. ( https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/366/36606.htm)
Wasn't it Kenacort injections just before the Tour and Giro that Wiggins had? Isn't Wiggins the same person who said he had never had any needles/injections? Also didn't Team Sky also say they had a no needle policy? Wasn't it the Team Sky doctor who organised the injections for Wiggins? Also injecting riders with Fluimucil to help aid recovery?
So whilst no rules are broken, with our sport having a murky history, I can see why TJ may not believe all of the information as it is currently being sold.
Froome's TUE's, I don't have an issue with by the way. I personally feel Froome has handled himself very well as a Professional, he appears to have always been open and honest about his ailments. Whether that is very good PR from him I don't know, even the Bilharzia, I could possibly buy.
In terms of the TUE system, things have improved since the Wiggins era. But the history is still there.
Armstrong never failed a test either.
He failed several tests over the years. People also spoke out about his use of EPO and other PEDs. Not just wild accusations either, but stuff that people had personally heard or seen from him. Armstrong's drug use was a lot more obvious.
I'm as disappointed as anyone with Sky's cleaner than clean image they painted for themselves, only to find out they've been gaming the system with TUEs, etc. Though it doesn't really surprise me, and I'm certain they're not the only team doing it.
However, none of the evidence for that is directly linked to Froome himself, and it predates his success. He has actively made a point of not taking TUEs. I'm not too naive, and I think there is more behind his polite persona, but his AAF in the third week of the Vuelta makes no sense at all from a doping perspective, and I'm quite happy to accept the explanation given by WADA. It's disappointing that it appears the UCI and WADA we're pressured into rushing their decision, and perhaps have not been as thorough as they would have liked, but I guess that's what the public wanted.
Right now, I don't see any compelling evidence that Froome has in any way cheated. The whole thing has been a storm in a tea cup.
“Wasn’t testing less rigorous during LA’s era, and wasn’t there no test for EPO?”
Quite possibly.
Althought there was a test for EPO - designed by Robin Parisotto I believe.
There wasn't any test for EPO initially. Only the testing of hematocrit levels which are raised by EPO. That only led to the riders balancing their hematocrit just below that limit.
The Robin Parisotto test was carried out retrospectively (about 2005?). I believe it was done several times and showed EPO in his blood samples.
When you look back at it all now, it's kinda ridiculous how obvious it was.
point of order
I am quite happy with information coming from the UCI, WADA etc. don't believe a word sky say.
What I want to see is either the raw data or preferably an independent analysis of the data.
I have to say having read a load more yesterday and today my view is shifting from: " guilty string 'em up" to - "is there some doubt here?" and may move further as more info appears.
What I want to see is either the raw data or preferably an independent analysis of the data.
Isn't that what WADA have done though ? They clearly have no bias towards finding him innocent.
What do you think the raw data will tell you with your knowledge of the subject ?
Butcher, not sure how closely you followed the Vuelta, but from a doping perspective, it made perfect sense to think something untoward may have happened. And for those of us old enough to remember the blood bag years, you may see why we need to question what's happened.
Froome wasn't looking overly strong, Team Sky were doing all they could to help him in the preceding stages but they were looking tired, he did win the Time Trial, but then that is one of his specialities. The tactics from the other teams were to try and isolate Froome. Stage 17 he lost 42 seconds to Nibali and he looked pretty cooked. He really didn't look good....But I'll also concede, it could be that this was due to his asthma or other illness as well.
Stage 18 (the AAF stage). Froome attacks and distances Nibali on the final climb to extend his lead.
This isn't to say, ah, he must cheat because other people used to cheat. But its just a reply to Butcher's line of "makes no sense from a doping perspective". From a historical and from a racing perspective, it made perfect sense to cheat. (And no, I don't think he did, and no I don't think Salbutamol is a PED)
