Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

1bryan

Lumen wrote: »

I think that factor is overrated.

What I see most often is a squad of very well prepared, very expensive riders under strict instructions to ride conservatively.

In the last couple of years Froome has ridden with something like panache, albeit an extremely ugly variant, but he can't help looking like some sort of insect on a bike.

would tend to agree. They harp on about attention to detail, marginal gains, etc, then *cough*, that stuff in the jiffy bag saga.

they're a bunch of chancers if you ask me. Albeit successful chancers.

pelevin

Weepsie wrote: »

Not to mention, that this only became news because of (a) it far exceeded the limit and (b) it's Froome.

In terms of the world beyond cycling that may be so but in cycling terms it's definitely not true. I remember Diego Ulissi's case about the exact same issue being a pretty big deal at the time.

check_six

terrydel wrote: »

Aside from the drugs, Sky have turned GC's into exercises in analytics, mapped out in excel before the race even starts.
That for me is another factor in why I've no interest in watching them anymore.

Lumen wrote: »

I think that factor is overrated.

What I see most often is a squad of very well prepared, very expensive riders under strict instructions to ride conservatively.

In the last couple of years Froome has ridden with something like panache, albeit an extremely ugly variant, but he can't help looking like some sort of insect on a bike.

I suppose if you have a big gang of super strong riders your strategy does not have to be sophisticated. You can just ride away from everyone else.

One horrible theory has just crossed my mind. Maybe the obsession with power meters was to keep everything looking 'plausible' and not to keep the riders on the edge of their scientifically measured limits?

walshb

el tel wrote: »

I must be tired today but I find that rather confusing. To classify someone as "not caught" needs knowledge of them having done something that was not allowed.  So are you talking about people who have admitted cheating, but weren't caught per se?

Yours,
Perplexed

Not caught in inverted commas....

I wanted to try prevent the rubbish response, juts because you didn't fail a test does't mean you are clean.....

py

Have any of the other riders from sky disclosed an opinion on the matter? They were all fairly vocal about Brailsford a few months back.

CantGetNoSleep

Lumen wrote: »

I think that factor is overrated.

What I see most often is a squad of very well prepared, very expensive riders under strict instructions to ride conservatively.

In the last couple of years Froome has ridden with something like panache, albeit an extremely ugly variant, but he can't help looking like some sort of insect on a bike.

For me the budget, boring style and marginal gains part was boring but still impressive. Things like pillow cases, chefs, power meters or having six guys hold a speed up a mountain to stop attacks. A combination of a more detailed approach with park the bus in football. Not great to watch but you can respect it.

Will never watch a race they approach in that manner again though - knowing they combine this approach with 30-40 puffs of an inhaler, injected drugs for a GT winner that you'd usually need to be in hospital to take or whatever

CrowdedHouse

https://twitter.com/sportpsychkate/status/941248020657647616

I've no issue with the power meter really let him sit and look at his stem all day if thats how he rides. At that level you should know your legs anyway.

The radio is the real killer in modern cycling. It really needs to be looked at and limited. Like only one way rider to car for mechanical after a certain point or blocked at the start so they can't report X has gone should I chase the break.

EDIT: Now I think of it they probably actually need the power meters to keep the bikes over the weight of 6.8kg.

1bryan

py wrote: »

Have any of the other riders from sky disclosed an opinion on the matter? They were all fairly vocal about Brailsford a few months back.

Good point. Haven't heard anything from anyone. Thomas has been making noises about wanting out but he could end up becoming de facto team leader if Froome gets a ban. Kennaugh left, as did Landa and Nieve. Of the rest still there, you couldn't imagine anyone speaking out. Whatever about their thoughts on sir brailsford, who I'd say contributes almost nothing to the cycling side of things, I doubt they'd dare speaking out against Froome, who they may have to cycle with/for again in the future.

You'd have to think that, after weathering all the Wiggins stuff, this must be the final nail in the coffin of that godawful team.

funnights74

I'm wondering what David Walsh will have to say about this, if anything. They both have the same paymaster.:rolleyes:

1bryan

pelevin wrote: »

In terms of the world beyond cycling that may be so but in cycling terms it's definitely not true. I remember Diego Ulissi's case about the exact same issue being a pretty big deal at the time.

you'd have to expect that both Ulissi and Di Luca are watching this case with great interest. Particularly Di Luca who was stripped of several wins for being caught with a lower level of the same substance in his system.

irishrover99

I wonder how Disney will look at the sponsorship of team Sky now that they are owners of 21% of Sky and trying to buy the rest of the company.

They might have a different outlook on what is ethical from what the Murdochs and the rest of the shareholders have.

Chips Lovell

A Disney sponsorship would be fab. They could have the characters from Frozen on their jerseys.

Weepsie

irishrover99 wrote: »

I wonder how Disney will look at the sponsorship of team Sky now that they are owners of 21% of Sky and trying to buy the rest of the company.

They might have a different outlook on what is ethical from what the Murdochs and the rest of the shareholders have.

Disney had for a long, long time a close association with Harvey Weinstein.

Also if you're buying up the Murdoch empire, this should be the very least of your ethical worries.

irishrover99

Weepsie wrote: »

Disney had for a long, long time a close association with Harvey Weinstein.

Also if you're buying up the Murdoch empire, this should be the very least of your ethical worries.

I agree that their would be more pressing matters but bad press is bad press.
Watching Sky Sports the other day when the story broke, the reporter Brian Sanson was clearly reading from a hymn sheet and i could see he didn't believe the excuse he was given.
Everything from eating too much food to being dehydrated was given as a reason for Froomes levels being too high.

terrydel

Deleted User wrote: »

I've no issue with the power meter really let him sit and look at his stem all day if thats how he rides. At that level you should know your legs anyway.

The radio is the real killer in modern cycling. It really needs to be looked at and limited. Like only one way rider to car for mechanical after a certain point or blocked at the start so they can't report X has gone should I chase the break.

EDIT: Now I think of it they probably actually need the power meters to keep the bikes over the weight of 6.8kg.

Ditch the power meters and make up the weight elsewhere, frame or components or whatever, its not hard. Or just ditch them and bring that limit down, isnt it a stupid limit anyway, based on the idea that a bike below a certain weight cant be safe, which is kinda nonsense now anyway?
Once disk brakes become prevalent that'll help get them back up over the limit anyway

terrydel

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

A Disney sponsorship would be fab. They could have the characters from Frozen on their jerseys.

Frozen blood bag.

pelevin

1bryan wrote: »

you'd have to expect that both Ulissi and Di Luca are watching this case with great interest. Particularly Di Luca who was stripped of several wins for being caught with a lower level of the same substance in his system.

It was definitely the same stuff with Ulissi & I remember very little benefit of the doubt extended his way being the general vibe. I thought Di Luca was caught for something much more clearly a ped though.

Chips Lovell

Ulissi's offence was near identical. Same substance, same concentration.

Di Luca's case was completely different. He tested positive for EPO and, previously, CERA.

Macy0161

pelevin wrote: »

It was definitely the same stuff with Ulissi & I remember very little benefit of the doubt extended his way being the general vibe. I thought Di Luca was caught for something much more clearly a ped though.

It was Petacchi and Ulissi that were caught for similar. That's why Ale Jet has been looked for to comment on Froome.

Was listening to the Cycling Podcast this morning, and Friebe was suggesting that the Ulissi case is very similar on the face of it.

They also highlighted the risk Froome/ Sky are taking with no provisional suspension. Ulissi, Di Luca and more recently Yates (for the TUE feck up that Orica made) took the provisional suspension, then by the time the formal sanction was announced they'd nearly completed it. Without a provisional suspension, any ban will start from the time of sanction, plus loss of results between A result and time of sanction.

terrydel

Macy0161 wrote: »

It was Petacchi and Ulissi that were caught for similar. That's why Ale Jet has been looked for to comment on Froome.

Was listening to the Cycling Podcast this morning, and Friebe was suggesting that the Ulissi case is very similar on the face of it.

They also highlighted the risk Froome/ Sky are taking with no provisional suspension. Ulissi, Di Luca and more recently Yates (for the TUE feck up that Orica made) took the provisional suspension, then by the time the formal sanction was announced they'd nearly completed it. Without a provisional suspension, any ban will start from the time of sanction, plus loss of results between A result and time of sanction.

Would you have a link to that podcast by any chance?
Found it!

Macy0161

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

For me the budget, boring style and marginal gains part was boring but still impressive. Things like pillow cases, chefs, power meters or having six guys hold a speed up a mountain to stop attacks. A combination of a more detailed approach with park the bus in football. Not great to watch but you can respect it.

A lot of that was bull/ spin too low. I think it's even commented in "The Ascent" (if not by Barry Ryan in promotional interviews) how de Gribaldy was doing much of what Sky claimed as marginal gains back in the 70's and 80's.

mamax

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

A Disney sponsorship would be fab. They could have the characters from Frozen on their jerseys.

Sounds about right but given the circumstances maybe goofy will replace froome in team sky next year :P

Macy0161

terrydel wrote: »

Would you have a link to that podcast by any chance?

It's blocked in work, but this is the link... https://thecyclingpodcast.com/latest-episode

I find them pretty balanced in general - way more balanced than the Bespoke podcast the BBC do (although haven't listened to their one on this issue to be fair to them).

Chips Lovell

This is worth a read in its entirety, in terms of what happens next. Basically, if he's any hope of getting out of it, he needs to replicate the results, something which Ulissi didn't manage to do.

Froome’s route out of this is going to be based on submitting himself to PK tests proving, through a controlled PK study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose by inhalation. This requires:

1. documentary proof it was inhaled and that the quantity was within the permitted therapeutic limit
2. a lab test to analyse urine samples that demonstrates inhaling a permitted amount generates concentrations in the urine samples above the permitted limits

Amalgamating the precedent cases it does look like athletes have been exonerated of deliberate doping but exceeding the threshold still results in a ban. If this applies to Froome then he’d be stripped of the Vuelta win (Nibali would “win” and joined by Ilnur Zakarin and Wilco Kelderman on the ex post podium) and Quick Step and Nelson Oliveira would get bumped up to bronze medals for the TTT and ITT at Bergen. But if Team Sky can come up with convincing notes from the Vuelta detailing his treatment and if a PK test can prove Froome has an unusual metabolism then he could be cleared in full.

Macy0161

Just wanted to also say, it'll be interesting if dehydration is offered as an excuse/ reason. Hasn't it been suggested sky "manage" dehydration to increase power to weight for climbing?

ThisRegard

irishrover99 wrote: »

I wonder how Disney will look at the sponsorship of team Sky now that they are owners of 21% of Sky and trying to buy the rest of the company.

They might have a different outlook on what is ethical from what the Murdochs and the rest of the shareholders have.

Disney are quite family values when it comes to things like this. If they were to get involved at this level I wouldn't be surprised if they chose to disassociate themselves from the team altogether. However they may not go down the route of being that micro managed.

A good example of the pressure they can put on a company is the recent debacle around the game Battle Front II which Electronic Arts made the disastrous decision of either forcing a player to trudge for countless hours to unlock characters, or else just pay for them. Disney got involved (either direct contact with the company, or their public statements) as they didn't want the franchise damaged and EA rolled back a little.

check_six

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

This is worth a read in its entirety, in terms of what happens next. Basically, if he's any hope of getting out of it, he needs to replicate the results, something which Ulissi didn't manage to do.

There would be some hope of doing a "replication" of the result, if Froome hadn't taken it before. The fact he has been using this stuff all the time means there is a record in all his previous tests of how it is processed 'normally' in his body. There is no way of introducing dehydration or whatever as a reason as Froome would have suffered these conditions many times before and would have provided tests which don't match this super-mutant outlier one.

He's holed below the waterline and there's no bucket to start bailing.

Macy0161

check_six wrote: »

There is no way of introducing dehydration or whatever as a reason as Froome would have suffered these conditions many times before and would have provided tests which don't match this super-mutant outlier one.

The hard bit about replication, I'd imagine, is that it was 18 stages into the second grand tour of the season, straight after a stage, with something apparently triggering the asthma at the time. There's an awful lot of variables to be factored in to get a replication if you believe he didn't breach the inputs. It's a different ball game trying to prove innocence rather than guilt!

Chips Lovell

Macy0161 wrote: »

Just wanted to also say, it'll be interesting if dehydration is offered as an excuse/ reason. Hasn't it been suggested sky "manage" dehydration to increase power to weight for climbing?

It definitely will be since it's already been proven that therapeutic dosage + exercise + hydration will put some people over the limit WRT urinary output.

As the INRG piece above said.

The takeaway here is that Salbutamol is not a binary matter like, say, a speed limit for motorists where you are either travelling above the limit for the road or below it. Interestingly studies warn using salbutamol is playing with fire because even permitted doses can fall foul and therefore given this is known the use needs to be minimised.

However, the challenge for Froome will be, if he's telling the truth, replicating it exactly. He knows how much Ventolin he took, he may remember approximately when he took it, but he doesn't know how dehydrated he was, he can't quantify fatigue.