Page 4 of 5

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 13 Dec 2017, 6:39pm
by mjr
Paulatic wrote:
Debs wrote:Are these reports, details, allegations, a bit premature for the public domain?

Maybe it would of been appropriate to keep this investigation confidential until such time as confirmed proof of guilt.


Sample A and B have tested positive, the rider is responsible, can’t be blamed elsewhere. Noticeably the SKY statement very quickly distance themselves from Froome. He might well come out with some plausible reason or excuse but I don’t see how you can doubt the proof of guilt.

It's not guilt if he can use the permitted defence. We'll have to wait and see. I don't think he'll be able to. I suspect he's been badly-advised by SKY that he could keep on puffing a bit more.

Paulatic wrote:It’ll be interesting to know if we are ever told if it was intravenous or inhaled. ( remember the long sleeved rest days? )

Wow, that's quite some conspiracy theory - I wear long sleeves on sunny days but I'm not injecting myself with anything. Can they tell whether it was intravenous or inhaled?

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 13 Dec 2017, 6:51pm
by Paulatic
It's not guilt if he can use the permitted defence.

I didn’t know there was a permitted defence. I’d of thought two samples saying you are over the permitted level is fact. If he didn’t take the stuff then who put it in there?

I’ve no idea if scientists can tell which way it got into the system but I’ve read it has a greater benefit to performance if injected.

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 13 Dec 2017, 7:22pm
by mjr
Paulatic wrote:
It's not guilt if he can use the permitted defence.

I didn’t know there was a permitted defence. I’d of thought two samples saying you are over the permitted level is fact. If he didn’t take the stuff then who put it in there?

The samples being over the threshold is fact but that doesn't necessarily mean he exceeded the permitted dose. Salbutamol is a specified substance rather than a prohibited one, so it's not as simple as sometimes. This may help explain it http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 2:32pm
by djnotts
With (possible) exception of Lemond no one seriously believes that any leading Grand Tour winners did it clean. TdF and Vuelta in one season? Says it all really. (Not that it detracts from the achievements IMO).

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 2:37pm
by mjr
djnotts wrote:With (possible) exception of Lemond no one seriously believes that any leading Grand Tour winners did it clean. TdF and Vuelta in one season? Says it all really. (Not that it detracts from the achievements IMO).

Are you saying that every who said that they thought Froome was clean wasn't being serious, or what? Including David Walsh https://www.rte.ie/sport/cycling/2017/0 ... -is-clean/ and David Millar http://road.cc/content/news/87482-garmi ... -questions among many more with less well-known experiences with the dark side.

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 3:59pm
by djnotts
"They" all WANT to believe. As do lots of fans. Doesn't bother me.

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 4:08pm
by brynpoeth
djnotts wrote:With (possible) exception of Lemond no one seriously believes that any leading Grand Tour winners did it clean. TdF and Vuelta in one season? Says it all really. (Not that it detracts from the achievements IMO).


Believes? No-one knows, I surely do not and can not know

Wearing long sleeves is very advisable in sunny weather :wink:

Remember those tiny electric motors that fit in the BB or seat tube, are the bikes always checked for them?

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 14 Dec 2017, 8:02pm
by djnotts
And in the neatest bit of wording I've seen for some time (re next year's Giro) -

"Giro organisers RCS Sport said it was not warned about Froome's adverse test and learned of it through the UCI press release on Wednesday.
A statement read: "Chris Froome's decision to participate in the 2018 Giro d'Italia was his own, taken along with his team's management, and is a choice that RCS Sport, as organiser of the Giro d'Italia appreciated; no money has been paid to the rider by RCS Sport."

The final "no money......by RCS Sport" is masterly. Not MONEY and/or not to FROOME and/or not by RCS. Wonderful!

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 17 Dec 2017, 8:03pm
by djnotts
So who's voting Froome in SPOTY then....

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 17 Dec 2017, 8:15pm
by Spinners
I just came in towards the end of his SPOTY interview. He came over really well but I might vote for Mo.

Edit: Went for Anthony Joshua instead.

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 17 Dec 2017, 8:38pm
by djnotts
The Biker (powered) for me!

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 23 Dec 2017, 1:12am
by Brucey
there is a pretty good summary of things salbutamol and Froome here

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/13/chris-froome-cycling-how-long-could-he-be-banned-what-happens-next

Other riders have received bans and penalties after similar results, but it may be that the exact circumstances were different and they didn't have the Sky team's incentive and/or budget to help explain the anomalous results. We shall see what happens.

It may be that team Sky's future isn't very rosy with or without Froome receiving a ban; Sky itself is being sold and the new owners probably won't want to carry on with the cycling team sponsorship anyway.

cheers

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 3 Jan 2018, 1:26am
by The utility cyclist
tested every single day throughout the entire season and no adverse reading, extremely dehydrated and one adverse reading on one day.
So many here are so very quick to judge and liken it to full on doping despite the fact Salbutamol does not increase performance.
Given the likes of Simpson, Merckx, Moser and ALL other top/well known riders from BITD doped themselves to the gills (Moser only admitting it after he was exposed) I think the whole system and history is shambolic and full of hypocrites with regards to drugs.
I still don't understand how a serial doper like Merckx is allowed to keep even half his titles, the guy was the worst dope cheat in history and as big a bully as Armstrong.

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 3 Jan 2018, 9:01am
by Paulatic
The utility cyclist wrote:tested every single day throughout the entire season and no adverse reading, extremely dehydrated and one adverse reading on one day.
So many here are so very quick to judge and liken it to full on doping despite the fact Salbutamol does not increase performance.
Given the likes of Simpson, Merckx, Moser and ALL other top/well known riders from BITD doped themselves to the gills (Moser only admitting it after he was exposed) I think the whole system and history is shambolic and full of hypocrites with regards to drugs.
I still don't understand how a serial doper like Merckx is allowed to keep even half his titles, the guy was the worst dope cheat in history and as big a bully as Armstrong.


Surely tested every year of his racing life not just that season. Do you think this is the first time he’s been dehydrated in all those years? Have all those years of results been well below the limit or has he had a few sailing close to the limit and been notified about it?
I agree entirely with you about the other hypocrites you mention and whilst I agree it’s not full on doping I think the question, "is it giving a marginal advantage over others?" And is this commonly part SKYs whole 'marginal gains' ethos.

Re: 2017 Vuelta (spoilers post-highlights please)

Posted: 3 Jan 2018, 7:04pm
by The utility cyclist
So you don't think that that particular day was/could have being nore extreme than all the others, have you actually read the circumstances for that day acknowledged by the rider and others that he was extremely dehydrated more than he'd been before on an extreme days riding were he was taking more of his inhaler but sticking to the max doses allowed?
Basically you're saying Chris Froome is a liar and a cheat, isn't that right? 'Doping' (except it's not) knowing full well he is the most tested and scrutinised athlete in the world.
We already know that high readings (above the limit) can be produced in extremis, but I would like to know how salbutamol is an enhancement over and above a non asthmatic because there's only one debunked reference to it doing so.