[Closed] Naughty Froome?

It's in the public interest to know why he doubled the dose during the Vuelta

This is my biggest problem with this story. I thought he has been asked to explain why he had double the permitted amount in his urine. This has been twisted into he has taken double the amount allowed. Two very different things.

As an asthma sufferer and if it flares up then 32 puffs in a day would be very easy to do.

Surely you should be looking at a better control drug, rather than being reliant of using subutamol to relieve the symptoms.

Froome has been busted as he's been using Salbutamol (taken orally) during the off season to control his weight. He has also extracted a blood bag. When he's microdosed the blood after his bad stage 17 performance, the amount of Sal was enough that, when combined with his normal usage of Sal the next day, it tripped the test for excessive Sal.

It's not impossible. Except he was tested pretty much every day, so I'd want to see the inter-occasional variability in his urine tests during the race, along with his previous Tour tests. As I said, it is possible to fail a test by taking the legal dose.

I am just dipping into this thread having read as much of the coverage as I could, and I agree with you TiRed. I am no chemist, but it does seem entirely possible that Froome's results are a result of taking the legal dose.

I am inclined to accept his own suggestion that, as someone under scrutiny and subject to testing every day he was in the red jersey, there is no way he would be so stupid as to deliberately exceed what was permitted.

In any case, I am afraid that, after Lance Armstrong's industrial-strength doping - it is hard to convince me that something like salbutamol is all that scandalous.

From that +4.1% [u]maximal[/u] power link - sounds more like a sprinter's drug, doesn't it

Interestingly, the provision of salbutamol did not have an effect on maximal voluntary contractile force (MVC), exercise performance at 110% of VO2max or isometric endurance (all could have been accomplished by adding caffeine, though

They'd better have some good science 😕

They'd better have some good science

Well if it's possible to fail a test by taking the legal dose then surely the only conclusion you can draw from that is that the test is not fit for purpose. It looks like maybe the testing authorities are the ones needing some better science.

It may be possible, but it isn't probable, however the rider/team are given a chance to argue their case before the authorities decide.

atlaz - Member

There's a scientific paper to read but I can't be arsed paying for it. The conclusion though:

here you go

http://docdro.id/tDg9zwe

it is hard to convince me that something like salbutamol is all that scandalous.

If it helps in any way at all and gives advantage over those not using it then it needs an element of control - How many riders suffer from asthma, is it more than the general population and is that suspect ?

Well if it's possible to fail a test by taking the legal dose then surely the only conclusion you can draw from that is that the test is not fit for purpose. It looks like maybe the testing authorities are the ones needing some better science

How many riders suffer from asthma, is it more than the general population and is that suspect ?

There is a higher incidence among riders, I think. You could argue that pro-riders with medical support are more likely to be diagnosed because their lung capacity and performance are under far more scrutiny day-to-day.

Also I believe that there was some suggestion that the kind of efforts that pro-riders make may increase the likelihood of asthmatic symptoms - perhaps they cause a tiny bit of damage or scarring over time.

Having said that, if there was a genuine advantage to a non-asthmatic rider (dubious) then I'm sure a lot more would receive the diagnosis.

Prevalence of training at altitude, cold weather and long aerobic efforts make eia more likely according to the BBC coverage

someone needs to check what the hell was going on with the 35 year old Contador in the Vuelta.

He's got an uphill battle to get into the Giro/TdF next year, I'd say, looking at these previous cases which were pursued very heavily by WADA. Nine months seems to be the standard tariff.

Alessandro Petacchi scored 1352ng/mL and was initially cleared by the Italian federation following a test from the 2007 Giro d’Italia. WADA appealed and he was banned for a year because if was over the permitted limit he could not prove how much he had inhaled
Diego Ulissi scored 1900ng/mL during the 2014 Giro d’Italia and underwent PK tests but these did not replicate the results. His lawyer argued a crash on Stage 11 had caused his levels to jump up and he got a nine month ban, down from the two year tariff
Alexandr Pliuschin got a nine month ban in 2015
Norwegian cross country skier Martin Johnsrud Sundby was cleared by skiing governing body but WADA appealed and he got a two month ban. He was taking this for therapeutic reasons but the excess dose still meant a ban and he was stripped of his 2015 World Cup title

[url= http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/ ]Source[/url]

If he fares much better than this (not sure how any athlete can prove how many puffs he's taken) then the screaming about favouritism for Sky will be deafening.

if there was a genuine advantage to a non-asthmatic rider (dubious) then I'm sure a lot more would receive the diagnosis.

Well as athletes across all sports have a much higher rate of asthma than the general population, then it's possible that plenty are 'helpfully' diagnosed.

Well as athletes across all sports have a much higher rate of asthma than the general population, then it's possible that plenty are 'helpfully' diagnosed.

It's possible, but as above, there are also genuine reasons why endurance athletes in pro-teams would be more likely to have mild asthmatic symptoms, and to have these picked up by the medics. So it's not all people gaming the system, by any means, particularly as the benefits of the drugs are debateable to say the least in non-asthmatic riders.

Regardless of whether Froome gets off, it high time that this asthma and general TUE bollocks got some scrutiny.

It's been abused for years and there seems to be no real will to stop it.

someone needs to check what the hell was going on with the 35 year Contador in the Vuelta this year

It occurred to me that the Vuelta this year was Bertie's equivalent of a footballer's benefit match from a dope testing point of view. He stayed just off the daily podium apart from the last competitive day on the Angrilu, thus avoiding having to take a test immediately after the stage. His overall result was also under the radar although he did make it onto the podium in Madrid due to a team combativity award or some such nonsense. The air time and adoration he received for his performance totally eclipsed Froomes win, his interview on Spanish tv actually blocked out the winners podium presentations and speeches. I commented at the time that I was sure that the Angrilu sample that he gave will never see the light of day, provided he retires and stays that way.

genuine reasons why endurance athletes in pro-teams would be more likely to have mild asthmatic symptoms, and to have these picked up by the medics

It's not impossible. Except he was tested pretty much every day.

Forgot to mention that tests for plasticisers, not to mention age distribution of Red Blood Cells, is effective in looking for blood doping now. One assumes he was tested for both of these too.

The Secret Pro is worth a read on this. The more a read, the stranger it seems, very odd indeed.
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/secret-pro-thoughts-froomes-positive-bikes-ride/

Agreed, it doesn't make any sense - but the rules have to be the same for everyone.

Also liked this from TSP...

Did you know Powerbars turn to rocks when it gets a bit cold?

Yes because I live in England and take them up mountains with me. The berry ones are delish, but strictly for summer use only.

I think a good result would be a 12 month ban and the Vuelta title going to a proper racer we can trust, Vincenzo Nibali.

Did you know Powerbars turn to rocks when it gets a bit cold?

It was partly that fact that won Pantani the Tour in 1998. Ulrich and his Telekom team was sponsored by PowerBar. Ulrich suffered in the cold and bonked badly losing almost 9 minutes and the Tour on a cold wet stage 15, partly because he couldn't chew down the cold PowerBars. Pantani had more traditional Italian Piadinas which were easy to much on in the cold.

I find it a little bit sad that doping scandals have been reduced to whether someone had 5 puffs on an inhaler or 6....

Two Sky riders, two TdF winners, Two Asthma sufferers, Two drug controversies

All seems a bit too much of a coincidence to me

Two Asthma sufferers

Wiggins? That was allergies 🙂

I wonder if Landa will now be ruing his decision to go ride for Quintana at next years Tour 😉

[img] [/img]

I find it a little bit sad that doping scandals have been reduced to whether someone had 5 puffs on an inhaler or 6....

You do know it's twice the legal maximum limit and that he's now guilty until proven innocent?

Popped the day after a bad day.... hmm, col de jeux plane and Landis springs to mind.

My guess is he probably had a nebuliser, that would be about 10-20 times the usual amount of salbutamol you would take via a puffer. Not very convenient to take during a race, so I would imagine the test picked up the remnance of this. If this is the case they would have records to cover it.

I can confirm that taking loads of salbutamol does not increase performance, just heart rest and hyperactivity!

Is there still a limit for cafeine?

Surely caffeine self-limits? Just two espressos and I'm rapidly approaching Dresden. Can't see that helping with cycling performance.

If this is the case they would have records to cover it.

Assuming the laptop hasn't been nicked again... 8)

Have they checked to see what Emma Pulley was doing that day yet?

Caffeine has a limit - about nine espressos. has a heart-rate increasing effect on me that is measurable, but little other effects.

WADA are monitoring it and do test for abuse.

And metalheart, to abuse salbutamol, you'd just take it orally. It's available in tablet and suspension forms, a nebuliser is overkill.

TiRed - Member
Caffeine has a limit - about nine espressos. has a heart-rate increasing effect on me that is measurable, but little other effects.

Nine espressos would enable me to achieve significant short term weight losses!

Mrblobby you stand corrected

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-37465803/wiggins-drugs-were-to-cure-medical-condition

Not looking good for Froome.
He doesn't carry much public empathy going into this to begin with.

I asure I have read of other trials that show it to be performance enhancing - even for non asthma people.

to get those levels he has been seriously hitting it. Not just a few puff on a puffer. You can also take it as tablets.

I am afraid this shows sky again in a very bad light. Basically they are all at it. I have always thought Froome to be a drugs cheat that had not been caught. Now he has.

Mrblobby you stand corrected

Ok, a[url= https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-full-story-asthma-allergies-tues ]sthma triggered by pollen allergies[/url], or something like that. Story changed quite a few times 🙂

If he doesn’t get banned, stripped of the Vuelta because he manages to weasel his way out s it will make a mockery of the whole uci/pro cycling drugs stance!

There is currently no limit for caffeine. It is part of the WADA monitoring program, so athletes could be tested for it, but not banned.

If he doesn’t get banned, stripped of the Vuelta because he manages to weasel his way out s it will make a mockery of the whole uci/pro cycling drugs stance!

Disagree. In fact I think the opposite is true. Far too many grey areas here, as highlighted in this thread. This is a problem with the system, and it needs a good shakeup. I don't think there is any one person to point a finger at here. And I hope if anything, this at least triggers a proper discussion about it.

I love cycling. I love bikes. On or off road. Rain or shine. Have done for years. I used to love the professional sport but there have just been too many incredible scandals. This is the last straw for me.

Fortunately there are so many more positive aspects to the sport that I love that I can happily ignore the pro peloton. A succession of own goals, biting the hand that feeds will at some point poison the well from which all of these people with questionable morals drink. And unfortunately they deserve it.

I find it hard to express my disappointment but I am turning my back on this particular aspect of the sport as of this shambolic episode.

Regardless of what the UCI do, the euro fans hate froome and sky have no friends in the peleton. We will see booing or worse and the sport really looks a complete shambles again.

The problem I have is that I distrust the press as much, perhaps even more, than I distrust any particular cyclist.

THat and the one above
IT smells like Team US Postal all over again with wiggo and then this

TheDoctor - Member

If he doesn’t get banned, stripped of the Vuelta because he manages to weasel his way out s it will make a mockery of the whole uci/pro cycling drugs stance!

completely agree

solarider, completely agree though I fell out of love with the pro peleton when Armstrong came out of retirement, had believed Kimmage and Walsh for a number of years by this point and hoped his retirement would draw a line underneath it.

Watched Wiggins win and was happy for a bit, but the sky team left me cold, probably because the last team that dominated the tour had a Mr Armstrong as the team leader.

Sick of hearing Dave Brailsford trot out the same old bollocks, marginal gains was a crock of shite when the don't keep doctors records. The most important component is the rider, not the length of a stem on a bike, don't buy it at all.

I'll stick to watching DH and BMX and enjoy riding my own bikes.

Yes mine was a previous limit. Nicotine has been on the watch list too. 30g is definitely not performance enhancing though.

As for beta agonists, some studies show ergogenic effects. They do raise heart rate a little. But they do not improve VO2 or power in highly trained athletes.

Personally, I think he's innocent of an offence but guilty of failing a test. There are good reasons why that is possible. I also think he will receive a ban. Unless Sky start to collecting some quality data on Froome's salbutamol pharmacokinetics.

Solarider + twistedpencil yep agree totally, I may watch some spring cobbled races, but thats it!

For some brief thoughts it's pretty bleeding lengthy but:

Chris Froome and disease sure are good for one another. The story is that his asthma flared up at the Vuelta, hence the change in dosage. There was also the chest infection for which he took prednisone a few years back – most people don’t dominate the most challenging endurance events in the world when they are in optimal health, but Froome does it when at his worst. Wiggins, recall, was so stricken that he needed emergency meds flown in via Jiffy Bag, and he went on to win the Tour de France?

Being ill is a tremendous benefit for an elite Grand Tour cyclist. Quintana and Nibali should try it. Either that, or pharmaceutical companies are getting great testimonials for how well they work.

From this:

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/

As for beta agonists, some studies show ergogenic effects. They do raise heart rate a little.

Surely this is performance degrading not enhancing? The fact your heart rate is elevated slightly is often given as a reason for poor performance when tired or ill.

Surely this is performance degrading not enhancing? The fact your heart rate is elevated slightly is often given as a reason for poor performance when tired or ill.

It can be the opposite, sometimes when you exercise your heart rate stays low due to illness or fatigue

I’m really past caring now 🙄

Amazing how the guy in second place has asthma as well.

I think a good result would be a 12 month ban and the Vuelta title going to a proper racer we can trust, Vincenzo Nibali.

I allowed myself a little s**** at that one. It's pretty good when Nibali, he formerly of Astana and currently of Bahrain-Merida, can allow himself a bit of moral superiority.

[url= http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/46/9/1365 ]here's some interesting stuff[/url] - paper looking at ratios of unchanged drug to conjugate metabolites as a means of distinguishing oral from inhaled dosing. Also states what they think the thresholds for further investigation might be (and state two; one for unchanged drug and one for "all" drug).

I wonder which one the UCI/WADA use (if they don't use both); betting on unchanged drug and that they've doubled the authors' suggestion to avoid doubt. I suppose it's beyond question that they've simply reported the "wrong" one as sky would've shot that down immediately

Caffeine has a limit - about nine espressos. has a heart-rate increasing effect on me that is measurable, but little other effects.

Perhaps this thread is not the place for advice on how to use drugs to help cycling performance, but here goes 🙂 Caffeine doesn't do much until you are really tired, four or five hours into a long ride. Then it really helps. So keep a few caffeinated gels for the end of a long hard effort. If it's a big event you can cut it out for a week or two before the event so you lose some of your tolerance, works even better then!

Do pros take caffeinated gels etc?

I'm finding this quite interesting from a drug performance perspective.

Clenbuterol is definitely a banned drug and has proven performance benefits. Despitee its main function of opening up ypur lungs it has aide effects.. One of which is an anti catabolic effect, it stops muscle wastage when in a calorific defecit (stops your body eating muscle tissue when you don't eat for a prolonged period). That's used by bodybuilders and is widely documented.

Amabuterol is also a bronchial dilater of a similar nature isn't it? That's a genuine question I don't know? If so could this be useful to maintain muscle mass and power through a tour when you've been burning 10,000s of calories for weeks on end... most people would perhaps end up less powerful as a result?

All speculation on my part...

Without detailed pharmacological/physiological understanding, it is impossible to come to a view on the question of naughtiness. There may or may not be evidence linking blood levels with amount taken over time in different environments (pharmacological tests would probably not be on athletes who are actually competing at the time etc. etc.) And of course, those arguments would be deployed by a naughty person as well as an innocent one.

Well this topic has gotten a lot of press and gossip mongers stirred up, has it not.

I enjoyed reading that link to the CyclingTIps/SecretPro insight he did, kinda already knew what he was about to say in it, but still.. from a Pro's point of view it was worth reading.
I do believe that if this particular situation was laid upon a neo-pro or a 2nd/3rd division team rider there would be no question as to the UCI/WADA output and that would be a very lengthy Ban and massive publicity to support both decision and deterrent and bolster the WADA control framework currently in place.
As is it's a Guy that leads a GTour team with Massive Sponsorship and media output distribution networks that could easily pull apart and media destroy WADA and the UCI for that matter.

So, personally, I think this will go the way of the fairies. It'll be gossip until the TDU starts then a charm offensive by the UCI and WADA proclaiming "within tolerances, we have robust control mechanisms in place to test and prosecute anyone who falls foul of the Law"

And Froomy will get Booooo'd to death as he rides up Italy. Morally, thats got to mentally crushing. This could lead to Froomy only targeting One GT a year until retirement and that'll be the TdF, which is fine by me because the TdF IMO is a circus.

What good can come out of this? Landas left, excellent he's far better off at Mov, Thomas needs to be developed into a Tour Leader and this is his opportunity, Kyri will retire at the end of the season and like Wow what a rider he is... yet... as we all know his background was always suspect, not that I'm pointing fingers because I'm a huge fan of his however he is a product of a bygone era is he not.. I do fear for the Spanish Climbers in Sky now.. and Poels because if... and this is a big if...
IF Sky pull funding in any way it's these guys that'll suffer most.. Sky's funding has been in place for sometime now, controversy has always been lain at their feet and to some extent the Brand Sky is suffering because of it. Bad News Stories last longer than yesterdays rolled up newspaper chip wrappers in our era of the Digital New World.. and it's easy to bring old stories back to the fore when Bad News is released against a Brand. And Sky is a Brand, and they're just using the Cycling Team for Advertising streaming...

However cycling has always courted controversy, it's made up of heres and villains.. this is just another chapter in a very long book.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/former-pro-alessandro-petacchi-disbelief-chris-froome-salbutamol-levels-363098

Interesting firsthand stuff from Petacchi.

Interesting that you raise the business side of it Bikebuoy, with Murdoch selling his stake in Sky to Disney there's definitely potential for change in marketing strategy.

The problem is that pro-cycling is in such a mess after ignoring drug misuse for so many years that any **** sticks.

I've no view on Froome but as its a strike liability offence he should be banned.

Having said that asthmatics are caught between a rock & a hard place. I used to travel a lot with work and found it impossible to control my symptoms with an preventative treatment unless I was constantly on the maximum dose because the environmental triggers were constantly changing (That was traveling in England & Wales probably limited to a 150mile radius). If I stay in one place my sensitivity to these triggers damps down and I can lower the dosage significantly. So controlling asthma on a Grand Tour without risky dosages must be hard.

For me Salbutamol is a performance enhancing drug. At a rough measurement during an attack I can gain up to 75Watts per dose but that is only because I'm starting from a point where pushing a shopping trolley is a challenge. Unfortunately my threshold power still levels off at abysmal regardless of the dose.

I'm not going back on what I said about banning failed tests but I'm pretty sick of seeing comments form 'Ubermensch' who have never experienced problems like asthma (and claim to be able to spot asthmatics because weren't they the weedy kids at school) and think that competing on a level playing field should include not treating conditions.

Read this thread and the Secret Pro stuff and thought about it a few times over the past few days. In all honesty I am shocked by it - I'm not Froome's biggest fan but I honestly did believe he was clean despite the allegations against Wiggins and team Sky in general. To me he just struck me as a bit of a freak of nature and naturally gifted on a bike but not the sort to involve himself in the shadier side. Sadly whether the UCI/WADA press for a ban or not, his reputation is tarnished and I'll struggle to hold him in the same regard as I did before.

The UCI are about as bent as they come. Less a governing body and more a business, they seem to have little interest in improving the image of professional cycling and every interest in lining their own pockets. Allowing the likes of Astana, Katushka and Bahrain to continue to race despite all the allegations against them just makes a mockery of the sport. If Froome isn't banned then it just confirms what others have said already on this thread.

Regarding Sky, again they're a complete joke. I struggle to support a team who are happy to play as close to the line as possible in an effort to win races. The utter BS spouted by Brailsford has just made the situation far worse - stolen laptop? Seriously? It's a business and to make money in pro cycling you need to be winning the big tours. The easiest way (apparently) to do that is to dope.

Pro Cycling (and certainly GT's) are theatre - they need the heroes and villains to entertain the viewers, otherwise you may as well go watch a Sunday club ride. The issue comes when you can't work out who the villains are, as it's currently looking like everyone is. Nibbles/Aru/Astana/Bahrain were the baddies, Sky/Cannondale/AG2R were the goodies. I've stil got a bit of faith in Bardet but the rest of them including Vaughters and Brailsford's teams can do one.

I'll probably still watch the Classics next year as regardless of the doping it's still an awesome spectacle to watch. But I'll not bother with the GT's as frankly with the Sky domination and the lack of someone to root for, there's little interest in it for me.

If he manages to continue racing after this the abuse out on the stsges is going to get even worse.

Devil's advocate maybe but...
Froome is not an idiot. He knows he is under scrutiny, he knows he will be tested, he knows that salbutamol is detectable. It isn't like he has some sort of secret strategy of doping which will evade the testing regime. Salbutamol seems to have negligible performance enhancing effects, certainly not enough to explain his dominance of the GTs over the past few years.
So why would he cheat in this manner?
Can't help feeling that certain people were desperate for him to be shown to be a doper & at this is a golden opportunity to reinforce their perception. (Maybe he is but not with this particular drug)

The utter BS spouted by Brailsford has just made the situation far worse - stolen laptop? Seriously?

The stolen laptop was the doctor, probably to cover up that he DID have records for whatever he'd treated Wiggo with and didn't want to drop Wiggo (with UKAD) and therefore himself (with the GMC) in it. Brailsford is a master of the mealy-mouthed nothing statement like Vaughters is. Interesting that both are at the top of self-proclaimed clean teams that somewhat lack clarity.

I read the interview with the Mail Journo that broke the Wiggins story. Hearing the number of times they changed their story was laughable. OK, its the Mail and yes, possibly the journalist has an ulterior motive but seriously, why lie multiple times when its quite apparent you've been rumbled.

I struggle to support a team who are happy to play as close to the line as possible in an effort to win

Can be said about any top level sporting team, individual. Everyone plays the rules close to the line as possible to gain maximum advantage - Rugby, F1, athletics, Football, NFL... why would you think a Pro cycling team any different?

Froome is not an idiot. He knows he is under scrutiny, he knows he will be tested, he knows that salbutamol is detectable. It isn't like he has some sort of secret strategy of doping which will evade the testing regime. Salbutamol seems to have negligible performance enhancing effects, certainly not enough to explain his dominance of the GTs over the past few years.
So why would he cheat in this manner?
Can't help feeling that certain people were desperate for him to be shown to be a doper & at this is a golden opportunity to reinforce their perception

This is my opinion also. Froome's been using Salbutomol for 10 years, he's well aware of the limits and usage, he knows - because he is - he'll be tested every day.

The easiest way (apparently) to do that is to dope.

Hang on - you think he's doping with Salbutamol?

Taking an easily detectable drug which people see him take and has (if we believe he only used a puffer) no effect whatsoever. Worst. Doper. Ever.

Froome is not an idiot. He knows he is under scrutiny, he knows he will be tested, he knows that salbutamol is detectable. It isn't like he has some sort of secret strategy of doping which will evade the testing regime. Salbutamol seems to have negligible performance enhancing effects, certainly not enough to explain his dominance of the GTs over the past few years.
So why would he cheat in this manner?

If they are going to cheat in the modern era, it's not just about the PED's it is also about the masking agents. It becomes a complex game of pushing the levels and hiding what they are doing. It is quite easy to see how a simple mistake can be made, even by an intelligent man and team.

no effect whatsoever.

It does have an affect, it is just his fanbois who wish to ignore it.

[url= http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=salbutamol+weight+loss ]lmgtfy[/url]

it is also about the masking agents

No I am saying that in order to be not caught, cheaters use masking agents as well as PEDs, it could be a complex course of injections, pills and liquids on variable timings that can easily be mixed up, thus why even well resourced and intelligent people make mistakes and get caught.

Dons tin foil hat...yawn

it could be a complex course of injections, pills and liquids on variable timings that can easily be mixed up, thus why even well resourced and intelligent people make mistakes and get caught.

It is a drug, banned beyond a limit which would normally be used to treat asthma, because it is used to control weight. If you want to argue with the WADA classification, make your arguments to them.

Do you think Froome would be trying to control his weight in the middle of a grand tour MSP?

To me he just struck me as a bit of a freak of nature and naturally gifted on a bike but not the sort to involve himself in the shadier side.

I wouldn't buy into the freak of nature, naturally gifted line.. yes he's better than the average rider on here by a distance, but he was a very average professional cyclist til his mid twenties where he suddenly transformed himself into the best climber and time trialist on the planet. He'd previously been kicked out of the Giro for hanging on to a motorbike to make the time limit.

His sudden transformation at the Vuelta was a shock to his own team, as otherwise they'd have transferred leadership to Froome sooner and he'd have easily beaten Cobo, rather than be made to work for a clearly struggling Wiggins.

His excuse for this transformation was that he was suffering from Bilharzia since 2009 (which doesn't explain why he didn't achieve much before this date, certainly nothing to show he would dominate Grand Tours) but has contradicted himself in interviews about the gender of the doctor who diagnosed him, the year he was diagnosed and the location.

To me it's all a bit donkeys into racehorses.. transformations like this don't happen in cycling..