Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

Lumen

Aside from all the noisy shouting, we're really no further forward understanding how Froome performs as well as he does.

Salbutamol is not that performance enhancing.

As for "he appeared in the sport from nowhere at 27 with no pedigree", well that just makes it even more mysterious, because you're arguing that he was always a donkey, and the only thing we know that turns donkeys into racehorses is massive amount of EPO and it would be quite surprising if a rider could take massive amounts of EPO in 2018 and get away with it.

matban

Lumen wrote: »

Aside from all the noisy shouting, we're really no further forward understanding how Froome performs as well as he does.

Salbutamol is not that performance enhancing.

As for "he appeared in the sport from nowhere at 27 with no pedigree", well that just makes it even more mysterious, because you're arguing that he was always a donkey, and the only thing we know that turns donkeys into racehorses is massive amount of EPO and it would be quite surprising if a rider could take massive amounts of EPO in 2018 and get away with it.

Why was Phil Taylor so successful at darts?
Didnt start that early relative to other pros

Someone has to be the best, sometimes in a dominant fashion.
In cycling it seems that guy has to be a big cheat.
Post-Armstrong-Landis world I suppose

MPFGLB

Lumen wrote: »

Aside from all the noisy shouting, we're really no further forward understanding how Froome performs as well as he does.

Salbutamol is not that performance enhancing.

As for "he appeared in the sport from nowhere at 27 with no pedigree", well that just makes it even more mysterious, because you're arguing that he was always a donkey, and the only thing we know that turns donkeys into racehorses is massive amount of EPO and it would be quite surprising if a rider could take massive amounts of EPO in 2018 and get away with it.

There is no evidence of what anyone is on but EPO came on the scence 30 years ago ...I am sure there are other more effective undetectable products by now across all sports

CramCycle

There are other possibilities, but even with those, you'd still need to be in pretty good shape to keep turning the pedals fast enough.

Motor doping for example, with something to give the legs to spin away, would turn a world class donkey into a decent racehorse.

Brian?

matban wrote: »

In your opinion rules have not been applied in an even handed manner, that may be true.

For me it does not take away from the fact that he's won the last three Grand Tours, true greatness in my opinion. The guy has asthma took some puffs.

I respect the zero tolerance side of the argument, just dont agree that in this case it diminishes Froome's greatness.

You don’t see how being let away with breaking the rules diminishes his greatness?

He should have been stripped of the Vuelta. That’s the minimum punishment he should have received. The bare minimum.

He didn’t “have some puffs”. He “has some puffs” in every race. He was over the limit. Rules are rules, except for Froome. It’s

mamax

Lumen wrote: »

Aside from all the noisy shouting, we're really no further forward understanding how Froome performs as well as he does.

Salbutamol is not that performance enhancing.

As for "he appeared in the sport from nowhere at 27 with no pedigree", well that just makes it even more mysterious, because you're arguing that he was always a donkey, and the only thing we know that turns donkeys into racehorses is massive amount of EPO and it would be quite surprising if a rider could take massive amounts of EPO in 2018 and get away with it.

I agree 100% and I believe the tdf will be a better race with him in it, in fact cycling is better with him in it

And I will cheer him on and hopes he wins it while being tested every day of the race as we know he will be.

matban

Brian? wrote: »

You don’t see how being let away with breaking the rules diminishes his greatness?

He should have been stripped of the Vuelta. That’s the minimum punishment he should have received. The bare minimum.

He didn’t “have some puffs”. He “has some puffs” in every race. He was over the limit. Rules are rules, except for Froome. It’s

If you have evidence he broke the rules you should get in touch with WADA, they don’t seem to agree with you.

Lumen

mamax wrote: »

I agree 100% and I believe the tdf will be a better race with him in it, in fact cycling is better with him in it

And I will cheer him on and hopes he wins it while being tested every day of the race as we know he will be.

I think you might be confusing me for a Froome fan. I just want to know what he's on

Kermit.de.frog

How anyone follows cycling anymore is beyond me. The sport is a drugs riddled cheaters paradise at the "top".

It's reputation is so bad that no matter what is done by whoever will never ever be enough to convince anyone it is a respectable sport.

I know it's a bit broad but it saddens and angers me to see any sport brought in to total disrepute and cycling is without doubt the worst in the world in that regard.

MediaMan

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

...and cycling is without doubt the worst in the world in that regard.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Cycling certainly gets the worst rap, but I would bet that plenty other professional sports are rife with drug use. But it suits the vested interests not to dig into it. I guess in cycling the results became so distorted that it became indefensible, whereas in many other sports the results are not so obvious.

Mark Horgan

Most of them are on the juice.

eagle eye

Oh is he your friend? How often do you meet up?
Are you part of the Sky team by any chance?

Hurrache

mamax wrote: »

And I will cheer him on and hopes he wins it while being tested every day of the race as we know he will be.

Tests mean nothing if you can afford to indefinitely hire fancy lawyers.

coco0981

mamax wrote: »

And I will cheer him on and hopes he wins it while being tested every day of the race as we know he will be.

And we all know the testing is 100% reliable.....

C3PO

Brian? wrote: »

By no objective measure is Froome one of the greatest cyclists ever.

“Objectively” ... he currently holds all 3 Grand Tours ... that would be considered “greatness” in the usual measure of cycling ability!

MPFGLB

C3PO wrote: »

“Objectively” ... he currently holds all 3 Grand Tours ... that would be considered “greatness” in the usual measure of cycling ability!

I agree ....Froome would go down as one ofthe greatest cyclist of all time esp if he wins this Tour

Second only to Mercx... who cycled in a time of fewer and lesser competitors

So that is why the Froome brilliance is so hard to swallow.If we accept him as legit then we have to accept he is one of the greatest cyclists if not the greatest GT rider ever

Macy0161

I call bollox on one of the greatest. One of the greatest grand tour riders maybe. Never done anything in any single day race that wasn't a TT. I wouldn't be his biggest fan, but Nibali has 4 GT's, 3 monuments (and another couple of podiums), a couple of national champs from current riders.

Zoncolon

C3PO wrote: »

I can understand that the UCI might have a vested interest in Froome being cleared but I don't see that WADA would have? I would be very interested in the reasoning behind their decision.

Behind every dodgy decision im sure some money would be found

Brian?

C3PO wrote: »

“Objectively” ... he currently holds all 3 Grand Tours ... that would be considered “greatness” in the usual measure of cycling ability!

I’ve explained my position multiple times:

Great Grand Tour rider
Good in some other stage races.
Zero one day race wins.

1bryan

matban wrote: »

If you have evidence he broke the rules you should get in touch with WADA, they don’t seem to agree with you.

sadly, even if you had evidence, nothing could be done. According to Ross Tucker, Sky got their legal team to nonsense the salbutamol test. That is backed up by the story Shane Stokes broke on cyclingtips yesterday that said Froome didn't even need to carry out his test to prove he could reproduce the conditions that would cause him to have a naturally occurring high salbutamol level.

Just think of the implications of that if it's true. Where does it leave the anti-doping fight? If they have attacked the salbutamol test, someone could easily fight the EPO test, and probably any other test.

The damage this does to anti-doping efforts is massive. It really is.

Zoncolon

retalivity wrote: »

I would really not be surprised if ssomeone rugby tackles him of the bike in france, the response outside the uk has been very negative.

And i would laugh if it happened

Honestly I would find it so powerful if people just turned their backs on him as he cycled by. Throwing Urine at him or spitting at him which has happened in the recent past and also in the Giro this year just devalues the protest and gives Sky ammo to throw back.  Go all Gandhi on Sky/UCI I say
For me really my annoyance is with the double standards and the lack of consistency and the "cute hoorism" of the governing body and the manipulation of the rules.  That's whats so frustrating for me, its not really an anti-Froome sentiment (personally I kinda like him), its the lack of consistency of the laws.
How the foook can cycling every begin to clean up its imagine with crap like that happening, its just sends out a message of crooks overseeing cheats.

Leroy42

Well now, lets see what the peloton think about all this. Some of the tweets, especially about the uneven treatment of other riders, would make you hope that the clean guys would actually take a stand on this.

There is much speculation about Sky, surely the other teams have even more insight given they are actually there. So if there are suspicions then wouldn't they want them resolved?

To simply carry on as if everything is fine. The only conclusion is that the others teams/riders are happy enough with the way things are being done and handled and happy to have Froome as part of the race.

They have had protests before, sit downs before a start or go slow, when it suits them.

But we all know that nothing is going to happen.

Zoncolon

Macy0161 wrote: »

I call bollox on one of the greatest. One of the greatest grand tour riders maybe. Never done anything in any single day race that wasn't a TT. I wouldn't be his biggest fan, but Nibali has 4 GT's, 3 monuments (and another couple of podiums), a couple of national champs from current riders.

100% agree, he maybe and I say maybe because I don't trust him, but he maybe one of the greatest tour riders of all time but why are there many different jerseys to be won on a grand tour? Because there are many different aspects to cycling.  As a true all round great cyclist, he needs to turn his attention to 1 day races and TT also.  Its just my opinion but that for me are the characteristics of an all time great. Throwing your hat in on multiple disciplines.

magicbastarder

i'd love to know on what grounds sky argued that the salbutamol test was inaccurate - i would guess though that they're arguing it's not an accurate way of determining how much was taken, rather than whether it does actuall confer an advantage?

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd love to know on what grounds sky argued that the salbutamol test was inaccurate - i would guess though that they're arguing it's not an accurate way of determining how much was taken, rather than whether it does actuall confer an advantage?

I'm sure they'll release all their evidence, them being the kings of transparency and all....

1bryan

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd love to know on what grounds sky argued that the salbutamol test was inaccurate - i would guess though that they're arguing it's not an accurate way of determining how much was taken, rather than whether it does actuall confer an advantage?

according to Tucker some college students carried out a study on dogs (yes, dogs) whereby they could prove 15% of 'participants' returned values above the threshold. Yes, dogs.

It probably comes down to the scientific basis behind why they picked the threshold they did. It'll probably make them push the threshold out by, oh I dunno, maybe double?

ford2600

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd love to know on what grounds sky argued that the salbutamol test was inaccurate - i would guess though that they're arguing it's not an accurate way of determining how much was taken, rather than whether it does actuall confer an advantage?

Any case in law or this case involving Froome, is about winning an argument. If you throw enough money at something, muddy the waters as much as possible, extrapolate from dog study etc etc punching holes in a prosecuting isn't difficult. Add in that in professional sport, ideas of fairness/justice are a matter of pr and spin rather than ideals and you have the right environment for winning that argument.


As an analogy, if I was to get caught speeding and was 17% (or whatever the figure was wrt dehydration correction) I'd make a good go at getting off that if I was motivated to do it. It would require an disproportionate amount of time/ money and would require a lot of minute detail on calibration, certification, operator training, records etc etc.


When by using money/power to drive a truck and trailer through punishment for offences you undermine the whole system eg, Lowry's €15k fine for the level of deception is in same ball park of a plumber getting caught doing two cash jobs.


People who are upset by this, after being aware of history of cycling, would really want a reality calibration. The best thing to do is switch of completely from whatever your chosen professional sport is; no Eurosport, no new toys, new twitter feeds, no GCN previews etc.


The only rational alternative is to treat it like entertainment

Burkie1203

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm sure they'll release all their evidence, them being the kings of transparency and all....

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1014065901874962432?s=19

Leroy42

Ir Dr Rabin is to be believed then it certainly does call the whole thing into question.

It would appear that the level is simply made up, can be achieved by many natural means, and as such does nothing to indicate cheating.

If true, then it is deeply unfair to the athletes. Froome has had a cloud over him (remember there were calls for him to be excluding from the Giro) from what essentially is an unfair testing limit.

That is even before Slater went and actually checked out the claim.

fishfoodie

1bryan wrote: »

according to Tucker some college students carried out a study on dogs (yes, dogs) whereby they could prove 15% of 'participants' returned values above the threshold. Yes, dogs.

It probably comes down to the scientific basis behind why they picked the threshold they did. It'll probably make them push the threshold out by, oh I dunno, maybe double?

Are you sure it wasn't Dawgs ?