Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

fishfoodie

So the UCI will have all the results of all his tests, before, on the day & afterward; & I assume that before the lab tests for banned substances, they check the general 'Intergrity' of the Pee, so they can decide if its been interfered with, & that the person whose sample it is, wasn't severely dehydrated etc.

So how exactly is Froome going to claim a major Kidney malfunction, if all the data shows his pee was otherwise, exactly the same as the day before, & the day after, never mind a 24hr virus, it must have been a 24 minute one ??? :rolleyes:

If the UCI has any saved samples, they can run the whole range of tests.

Lusk_Doyle

harringtonp wrote: »

On this thread alone you can see any sympathy he would have had in previous pages fast disappearing.

He would have been far better off to put his hand up straight away, take the ban and say as little as possible. I presume this is what Contador did.

Contador did no such thing. He fought it all the way and maintained that his food was contaminated.

AstraMonti

fishfoodie wrote: »

So the UCI will have all the results of all his tests, before, on the day & afterward; & I assume that before the lab tests for banned substances, they check the general 'Intergrity' of the Pee, so they can decide if its been interfered with, & that the person whose sample it is, wasn't severely dehydrated etc.

So how exactly is Froome going to claim a major Kidney malfunction, if all the data shows his pee was otherwise, exactly the same as the day before, & the day after, never mind a 24hr virus, it must have been a 24 minute one ??? :rolleyes:

If the UCI has any saved samples, they can run the whole range of tests.

When did logic and facts played any role in professional cycling?

fishfoodie

AstraMonti wrote: »

When did logic and facts played any role in professional cycling?

Only on those rare occasions when the facts were of the, cold, hard commercial , variety !

That's Froome's hope; he delays, & the fuss dies down, & the UCI can brush things under the rug. He knows if things get untenable, Sky will drop him in the merde rather than risk his positive turning into more investigation into Skys internal affairs. The leak of UKADA's letter to British Cycling & Sky was very unhelpful to Froome. One could almost suspect Sky of leaking it

MPFGLB

I dont think Sky have set Froome up or any delay in this case can be brushed under the carpet by anyone

But The UCI must put a time limit on Froomes/SKY response/defense

No one wants to see Froome ride the Giro while still under this cloud and win and then for the results to be over turned later ... the farce of the Contador case surely should tell anyone that this is terrible for cycling

I think the UCI needs to not let Froome ride a GC until this is sorted and I can see that happening with a new French man at the helm

The foolish thing about this is there is no real credible defense ...and everyone knows it...not for that level of substance
SKY & Froome should hold their hands up , suspend the rider till there is a verdict and take the punsihment

Ridicuous defenses make me believe more in dodgy doings

Kaisr Sose

Cue the defence for giving a positive breath test for an intoxicant

My lungs store alcoholic vapors and when I blow hard, the rapid decompression of my lungs propels the alcohol out, giving a spurious / high reading...

Kaisr Sose

Cue the defence for giving a positive breath test for an intoxicant

My lungs store alcoholic vapors and when I blow hard, the rapid decompression of my lungs propels the alcohol out, giving a spurious / high reading...

fishfoodie

MPFGLB wrote: »

I dont think Sky have set Froome up or any delay in this case can be brushed under the carpet by anyone

But The UCI must put a time limit of Froomes/SKY response/defense

No one wants to see Froome ride the Giro while still under this cloud and win and then for the results to be over turned later ... the farce of the Contador case surely should tell anyone that this is terrible for cycling

I think the UCI need to not let Froome ride a GC until thsi is sorted and I can see that happening with a new French man at the helm

The foolish thing about this is there is no real credible defense ...and everyone knows it...not for that level of substance
SKY & Froome should hold their hands up , suspend the rider till there is a verdict and take the punsihment

Ridicuous defenses make me believe more in dodgey doings

I totally agree; but the fact that we're having to have this thread just shows how useless & gutless the process is, & how craven the UCI is in the face of the big teams.

How is that Astana Team ban coming along ???

Forgive me if I'm cynical; but until I see a press release with the words, Froome, Commencing & Ban in the headline, I won't believe it'll happen.

That's Chinatown Jake !

pelevin

I hear Sky are going to argue that it was an allergic reaction to some locally bought Fluimicil that was administered to Froome. If only someone could have been flown out from Manchester with the UK version of it, things would have been fine.

retalivity

Cant wait to see him get pelted with inhalers from the roadside in italy.

Sadly, i think the fact he's had no ban or fine yet means the uci are in bed with sky to get him out of this with the least damage possible, includung allowing him to ride the giro

1bryan

retalivity wrote: »

Cant wait to see him get pelted with inhalers from the roadside in italy.

Sadly, i think the fact he's had no ban or fine yet means the uci are in bed with sky to get him out of this with the least damage possible, includung allowing him to ride the giro

I don't think that's the case. There's 'due process' involved. As per how the rules are set out, he get's a shot at explaining himself. Hence all the fuss in the news now. Any ban at this point would be team-imposed, or voluntary.

The really frustrating thing is that there doesn't seem to be any hard deadline as to when this all has to be completed.

I doubt Lappartient is going to roll over on this.

Macy0161

fishfoodie wrote: »

I totally agree; but the fact that we're having to have this thread just shows how useless & gutless the process is, & how craven the UCI is in the face of the big teams.

In fairness to the UCI, it's to do with the WADA code and the treatment of this substance. It's not an automatic ban, it's try and explain it and if you can't it's a ban. UCI no longer set those rules, although maybe this needs a second threshold that triggers a provisional suspension. Everyone/ every other team, that we're aware of, has taken a provisional suspension.

Surely the kidney's storing it up would only stand at all with a very low level in the tests leading up to the adverse findings. If I was assessing validity, that's the first thing I'd be looking at anyway.

hesker

Macy0161 wrote: »

Surely the kidney's storing it up would only stand at all with a very low level in the tests leading up to the adverse findings. If I was assessing validity, that's the first thing I'd be looking at anyway.

Good point. And maybe someone should ask the manufacturer if this is even possible. I’d say they have a wealth of data concerning the metabolism of this drug.

Weepsie

pelevin wrote: »

I hear Sky are going to argue that it was an allergic reaction to some locally bought Fluimicil that was administered to Froome. If only someone could have been flown out from Manchester with the UK version of it, things would have been fine.

Flumicil warns to not use, or use with a lot of caution if Asthmatic. Why would he or (Wiggins) before use it in the first place.

Sky must have some bad doctors

pelevin

Weepsie wrote: »

Flumicil warns to not use, or use with a lot of caution if Asthmatic. Why would he or (Wiggins) before use it in the first place.

They were probably just trying to find the gains. They're good like that.

C3PO

Don't know if this has been posted before:

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/commentary/commentary-the-simplest-explanation-for-froomes-salbutamol-test_454985

Prompts me to ask the question that has been bugging me since the start of this saga! Why would an incredibly professional set-up like Team Sky let Froome take a large dosage of salbutamol knowing full well that he would be tested after the stage which I understand he was at the end of each day? It just doesn't make sense to me!!

harringtonp

C3PO wrote: »

Don't know if this has been posted before:

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/commentary/commentary-the-simplest-explanation-for-froomes-salbutamol-test_454985

Prompts me to ask the question that has been bugging me since the start of this saga! Why would an incredibly professional set-up like Team Sky let Froome take a large dosage of salbutamol knowing full well that he would be tested after the stage which I understand he was at the end of each day? It just doesn't make sense to me!!

And it is exactly this which has me holding back before damming him.

Those working any system don't compromise it by doing downright stupid things.

Macy0161

Wrong dose in an illegal method?

harringtonp

Macy0161 wrote: »

Wrong dose in an illegal method?

If the method (lets say injection) was illegal they still have to stay within limits. Is 1000mg via injection any different to 1000mg orally ? In other words why inject illegally if a few puffs gives the same benefit

Macy0161

harringtonp wrote: »

If the method (lets say injection) was illegal they still have to stay within limits. Is 1000mg via injection any different to 1000mg orally ? In other words why inject illegally if a few puffs gives the same benefit

No idea whether it does give a better or worse benefit. Nebulizer probably gives a better uptake I'd imagine. It's pure speculation - but a mistake in dose is the only thing that makes sense to me, regardless of delivery method.

lissard

The why in this case is in my view totally irrelevant, he's above the limit and therefore should get a ban. The analogy of drink driving is very apposite, you don't go arguing there why you exceeded a limit.

Leroy42

C3PO wrote: »

Don't know if this has been posted before:

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/commentary/commentary-the-simplest-explanation-for-froomes-salbutamol-test_454985

Prompts me to ask the question that has been bugging me since the start of this saga! Why would an incredibly professional set-up like Team Sky let Froome take a large dosage of salbutamol knowing full well that he would be tested after the stage which I understand he was at the end of each day? It just doesn't make sense to me!!

More than likely because it had worked before and something changed. Something as simple as excessive dehydration, not enough food, not enough time after the stage before a test.

Based on what we know from LA, Hamilton, Landis etc, they push things to the limit on the basis of knowing what they can get away with.

Hamilton told the story of the wrong labelled blood bag for example, nearly killed him. Even the most planned system can have a mistake happen. This is from a team that does not keep medical records remember!

nilhg

harringtonp wrote: »

And it is exactly this which has me holding back before damming him.

Those working any system don't compromise it by doing downright stupid things.

And the possible/probable answer is in the article

The Occam’s Razor explanation is that Froome and Sky chose to gamble. Perhaps their calculus was that he could over-hydrate the next day and dilute his urine enough to avoid a positive test. Or that Sky’s political relationships within the sport would override what would surely be a minor infraction.

MPFGLB

I dont understand why people are saying that Froome & SKY made a mistake with the dose as they are too smart and seasoned not to know they would get caught if taken illegally and for nefarious purposes

I dont get this

It is just as likely that SKY judged the situation and decided to risk an injection or nebulizer because Froome was on the verge of a historic double and thought it worth the risk .as otherwise he would be out of the race ..esp if they did it before and got away with it

And what was it Armstrong said about passing tests

C3PO

MPFGLB wrote: »

I dont understand why people are saying that Froome & SKY made a mistake with the dose as they are too smart and seasoned not to know they would get caught if taken illegally and for nefarious purposes

I dont get this

It is just as likely that SKY judged the situation and decided to risk an injection or nebulizer because Froome was on the verge of a historic double and thought it worth the risk .as otherwise he would be out of the race ..esp if they did it before and got away with it

And what was it Armstrong said about passing tests

Sorry but I just don't buy it - they knew he would definitely be tested! And I can't see how a dose of salbutamol could be the difference between being in and out of the race as you suggest!

MPFGLB

C3PO wrote: »

Sorry but I just don't buy it - they knew he would definitely be tested! And I can't see how a dose of salbutamol could be the difference between being in and out of the race as you suggest!

He would be out of the race as in not win as he was flagging the day before

Being tested as I said does not always work !!!

MPFGLB

Of course there is another side that I have not taken into account

THis is not Froomes first adverse finding and he and SKY have managed to expalin the last one ....we would never know ....no onus on UCI to broadcast

As on this occasion only know as leaked by press

Froome seems so cool and is training hard...maybe he has passed this hurdle before with a British UCI president...would explain his and SKY appeared lack of anxiety

Of course if they explained it before then they could have pushed those gains abit further this time

pelevin

For me I have to say after all this Froome has gone way up in my estimation. He managed to win the Vuelta whilst suffering severely from asthma and kidney failure. The man's an alien.

recedite

Not as amazing as Lance winning the TDF while suffering from bollox cancer though.

Keeks

pelevin wrote: »

For me I have to say after all this Froome has gone way up in my estimation. He managed to win the Vuelta whilst suffering severely from asthma and kidney failure. The man's an alien.

By Alien do you mean actaully mean doper?
I think you missed the smiley face there