You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It won’t make any difference to the reception he gets from the French fans however, the abuse he will get will be horrific. They really are a shameful bunch.
Most French people have no particularly negative opinion about Froome beyond perhaps a bit of a finger wag. A lot of their own star riders were popped in the past and for the most part, French fans are pretty well informed and behaved. 99.99% of the people at the roadside are fine, but that still leaves 1400 ****s of a lot of different nationalities.
When you see the vitriol directed at Froome on this forum, I'd imagine it wouldn't take too many 1664s on the Alpe d'Huez before some of our forum regulars would look to lob piss over Froome. Nationality doesn't make people arseholes...
I apologise Mr lebowski, mistaken identity
This just goes to further my belief that there is no such thing as clean in sport.
Course not. I've had two coffees this morning, for example.
Really pleased for him. It's always been obvious (to me) that he's never failed any test, just had an unexpected result which has now been satisfactorily explained. Just hope the fans behave themselves!
Cheers, Sir Flashy of Flashington.
WADA statement here:
Summary of their decision:
-
the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
-
an adequate CPKS (controlled pharmacokinetic study) is not practicable; and
-
the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.
So they conceded that it was not practicable for Froome to replicate the AAF in the lab (option 1 for a defence) and accepted Sky's explanations for the AAF (defence option 2), which included "a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol".
To put this decision in some sort of context, it would be interesting to know how many people return AAFs and are cleared in a similar fashion. The only information I could find was in this story:
According to PA’s FOI request, UKAD dealt with 109 adverse analytical findings (AAFs) between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017, of which 77 – a little more than 70 per cent – resulted in an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). More pertinently, the FOI request revealed that although only three of these AAFs were for salbutamol, all three of these cases resulted in an ADRV (Anti-Doping Rule Violation).
UKAD’s stats for the number of AAFs that result in an ADRV are very much in line with those for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
Its last report for 2015, which was published in April 2017 and is the latest available, reveals that during that year there were 244 AAFs in cycling, of which 144 ultimately resulted in an ADRV.
(N.B this is all WADA cycling AAFs, not just Salbutamol)
The WADA testing figures here:
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016_anti-doping_testing_figures.pdf
show 6 Salbutamol AAFs in total for 2016. I can't find information about what the outcome was for these cases, and how many resulted in ADRVs.
So the figures suggests that Salbutamol AAFs are relatively rare. If the second hand information reported by Michael Hutchinson from the WADA source (no one has successfully overturned a Salbutamol AAF) is true, then Froome appears to be unusual to have both received a Salbutamol AAF and successfully defended it. The numbers are so small it's difficult to draw much of a conclusion from that, however.
I can't think of any reason why five time TdF winner Hinault would be calling for four time TdF winner Froome to miss the race.
Which is the best website for getting all the tour news?
cyclingnews.com if you ignore the gutter journalism of their innuendo riddled anti-Sky, anti-Brailsford, anti-Froome anti-Wiggins articles
Otherwise velonews.com, inrng.com or dailypeloton.com
+1 Saxonrider too. Really happy Froome can have a crack at making it five (and all the GT titles in a year). He's an inspiring competitor for many reasons. My theory (unsubstantiated) was that the French could see that with some great young talent (Bernal etc) coming up it was now or never for a French winner. Malchance, mes amis!
The UCI should publish anonymised AAF stats annually. The vacuum of information from their side is one of the causes of the hysteria around this.
My theory (unsubstantiated) was that the French could see that with some great young talent (Bernal etc) coming up it was now or never for a French winner. Malchance, mes amis!
I don't think that's the case at all. I don't see how the "French" are involved other than Prudhomme using the rules to stop a rider competing in his race. Other rules allowed Froome to keep racing.
Bardet has more competition than just Froome; it's a pretty deep field this year. Landa as superdomestique last year managed to come second so with "co-leadership" should do well again (although lets be honest, it's going to be a nightmare). Quintana on form is always a threat and is a similar rider to Bardet in that he limits the TT losses as much as possible rather than winning them. Roglic, Porte, Gesink, Mollema, Uran, Nibali, Dumoulin, Zakarin, Fuglsang, Yates and Martin are all genuine top 10 contenders and podium possibilities.
I don't recall a field as packed with talent for some time. There is only Aru missing from the top tier of riders and Sky even has Thomas (if he can stay on) and Bernal (interesting to see how he handles 3 weeks) if Froome breaks himself.
Agree with atlaz, some great riders who seem to be inform for this years race. With or without Froome it'll be a good year, I hope Froome rides though because if he loses it gives more credibility to whoever wins. Its possible that the reduction of team members will have some bearing on how the race goes. Can't wait for it to start.
Which is the best website for getting all the tour news?
Inrng.com or Cyclingtips are the best 2 IMO, and The Tour's official website for more general info. Or here, where I shall be doing the annual daily tour posts, perhaps with (almost) daily Sagan!
In answer to the thread title:
Oh no he's not!
Landa as superdomestique last year managed to come second so with “co-leadership” should do well again (although lets be honest, it’s going to be a nightmare).
He came fourth. Missed the podium by a second. The Movistar thing is interesting, I think you can discount Valverde as an overall contender, but the Quintana / Landa situation has the potential to work really well or get messy if one of them has to ride for the other. under duress and to the detriment of their own chances.
Bernal will be interesting, he looked like a weapon at the Tour of California, proper talented climber.
have sky confirmed Bernal is riding yet? I know it was leaked but yet to hear formal confirmation.
"But they’ll have bribed the experts, have secret film of illicit liaisons with Giro podium girls"
Genuine LOL there. I wish!
I don't think they've named the team, but Bernal's agent has said he's riding and a number of cycling sites have also run with the story including Gazzetta dello Sport I think. So yeah, might be jumping the gun on that one. He's very young, but it'd be fascinating to see how he stacks up against the likes of Quintana, Landa and Porte. And Froome of course. Hope it's not just wishful thinking. He does look like the future for Sky's GC leadership a couple of years down the line. Maybe alongside Tao who's been riding his socks off so far this season and should be in the Vuelta I think.
“I apologise Mr lebowski, mistaken identity”
No drama 👍
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.
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.