Discussion in 'Pro Cycling (Road and Track Racing)' started by Joffey, 15 Sep 2016.
His biggest crime is presenting this stuff as a series of tweets rather than in more digestible blog format. Very irritating.
That aside, he does make some good points - "First, if 15.4% of people can fail a test, then where are all history's failures? Second, Froome didn’t just fail it - he blew the ceiling off WADA’s upper limit" (TMN to me) and on top of that, the simulation is based on someone taking the maximum 800mcg dose all in one go, which is not at all the same as having a few puffs over the course of a few hours of riding.
AIUI the rules are about to change take into account the specific gravity of the urine in the sample, in order to allow for dehydration effects on the concentration of the salbutamol in the sample. If you correct Froome's 2000 odd number to allow for the SG of his urine it comes out at 1429, still over 40% over the limit but a damn sight closer to the UCI decision threshold of 1200 (I think, although it might be 1250)
I hope it's sorted before,but as far as I can see is there any time limit ? What's to stop this dragging on past the Tour.
Don't tell him - bike!
My news feed says Froome has submitted 1500 pages of evidence for consideration. No link for some reason, not yet anyway.
Was just about to post the same link. I hadn't previously heard of '1500 pages', but there doesn't seem to be anything new otherwise. The comments are predictable.
Elsewhere, the provisional team & rider listings for the Tour de France have been announced, including Froome of course. I wonder what discussions are going on behind closed doors at the ASO.
On a more practical note and guilty or not, how are they going to ensure Froome's safety? Even with the more 'pragmatic' Giro crowds, there was the giant inhaler and the spitting incident. I'd put the chances of there being a proper nutter at the tour who fancies making the news as quite high. I wonder if the CRS have watched the videos of last year's Vuelta and contacting their cousins in the Guardia Civil for tips?
Last I heard, the route they were going to take was to challenge the credibility of the limit by showing that it was possible to exceed it by taking a legal dose.
I think they quickly realised that the pharmokinetic study route wasn't going to get them anywhere.
Burying the case in paperwork seems like a good wheeze. I suspect Dave Brailsford has been reading Bleak House. Eventually, 50 years from now, Froome's grandchildren will find themselves getting a ban on his behalf when the case is finally resolved.
Eh, how do you challenge the credibility without doing a pharmocokinetic study? Rely on previous studies I suppose? I've just found one that studied horses!
Am very keen to see if Sky/Froome have an ace up their sleeve, rather than trying to relying on something akin to 'reasonable doubt'.
Meanwhile, are Froome's team still being denied access to his other samples? Surely that's denying Froome access to evidence?
Sorry, not being clear...
Originally, the talk was of doing the study on Froome himself, showing that his abnormal physiology and/or dodgy liver, combined with extreme dehydration, was the cause of the excess salbutamol reading.
Now I think they've changed their approach to using existing studies, which use modelling to show that it is possible in hypothetical circumstances to exceed the limit, thereby showing the limit is scientifically unsound.
The difference is that they're using legal chicanery to undermine the testing procedure, rather than using science to prove that Froome is a freak.
Or: "It's impossible to trust the referee's decision on whether or not it was offside, therefore the offside rule should be scrapped."
Dr Freedman speaks, well writes, thankfully no one stole the laptop he wrote it on
Former Team Sky and British Cycling doctor Richard Freeman is to break his silence in what its publishers call “an extraordinary new book” on the ‘Jiffy Bag’ affair that led to both being investigated by UK Anti-doping over allegations of wrongdoing.
A week before the Tour starts it comes out. Ethically cynical timing.
Up there with Wiggins "having his say" as something to look forward to.
As you say, just before the Tour. Seeking more of those marginal gains.
Nice that he is healthy now - as I recall he was to Ill to testify
Separate names with a comma.