bikecrate

Now this too... Froome Security Concerns . Even though I'm not a Froome fan, I would be appalled if fans interfered with the race or Froome out of anger. I can understand Froome wanting to race, but maybe this would be another good reason to voluntarily bow out this year and let things cool off a bit.

Caretaker

I think the security concerns are overplayed but there could be a small number of people who feel entitled to be nasty. This is one more good reason why Bernard Hinault should withdraw his 'cheat' accusation and apologise.

bogydave

atbman

AS a Brit, I acknowledge a certain bias, but I find the LA comparisons somewhat facile. IIRC, during his Oprah appearance, LA said that (and I'm probably paraphrasing) in his day, out of competition testing was virtually unknown. Froome, OTOH, before his first win, was, according to a British Cycling spokesman, tested a total of 70 times before he began the Tour that year. Again, I'm going on memory, but it seems to me that top riders would find it very difficult to cheat under such circumstances.

There's also the fact that, throughout most of LA's career there was no test for EPO and the 50% haemocrit level was apparently avoided by the use of overnight saline drips in some cases or by taking a micro dose which would clear the system in 8 hours. Drug testers do their best to catch that by having the right to test up to 10.30pm and after 6.00 am.

AS for Oooga Booga's reference to Froome's "miraculous" transformation, he was already racing at a high level while suffering from the Africa caught liver fluke disease, bilharzia. This causes a fall in the red blood cell count. Once this had been picked up and cleared from his system, he began to ride at the level his obvious talent allowed.

Caretaker

This post is a good example of what I've been on about. Can't even spell the team's name, broad sweeping statement with no attempt to back it up with facts and of course the down grade of the hero and his team's cheating.

HardyWeinberg

I found out watching the broadcast today that Sky bought Froome's legitimacy. The human interest stories intending to relegitimize him are even more annoying to me than last year's showcasing the wackiness of Taylor Phinney.

Caretaker

I know, it's annoying when you have your misconceptions challenged.

CliffordK

So... they dug up the data that was used to develop the WADA/UCI standard, and discovered that it was based on a poorly designed study of swimmers, and didn't even collect extremely important data such as urine specific gravity and creatinine. I.E. used a gross concentration of the drug in the urine without accounting for urine concentration.

While it is good to have standards that apply to all athletes across disciplines, it is quite likely the demands on long distance cyclists were different enough from swimmers in much shorter events that the cyclists should have been tested independently, especially when using urine as a proxy for blood concentration.

This standard was so poorly designed that it is impossible to know whether or not Froome was in compliance.

The big long report that Froome submitted to the UCI... I hope somebody reads it, and uses it as a basis to either eliminate the salbutamol test, or improve it.

Steve C

We need to know how many eggs chickens can lay in a day without using hormones.

So we go to a battery hen farm, and find the maximum, (after caretaker's input), a hen can lay is 5 eggs a day.

So then someone asks us what about free range hens?

Oh, er lets add 20% so that'll be 6 eggs then.

Then we get a hen that lays 7 eggs.

Oh, that hens been given hormones then.

Caretaker

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'average'?

Steve C

Sorry, should have been maximum., thank you.

If the original observations are not correct for the results you are trying to extrapolate, the results might not be correct.

HardyWeinberg

I guess I should spare most of my anger for UCI in allowing a maximum level beyond any reasonable standard of care from a reputable doctor (which I guess is to say any non-cycling doctor) but Froome is pushing his story of having a bad asthma day and taking the legal limit which is just not feasible (never mind that he tested at double the legal limit) so he is moving as far as I can tell from just working with the system to actively supporting it I guess because both he and Sky are too big to fail. I find it extra disappointing from him because he has been smart and articulate for a while and now he is using those tools to support a corrupt system. Not as felonious as Lance's racketeering and blackmail/revenge but have standards fallen that far? Blech on the whole thing.

HardyWeinberg

I still like the helicopter footage of the countryside though.

Trakhak

Which part of ClffordK's very clear explanation did you not understand?

HardyWeinberg

There's no need to be a jerk here.

CliffordK

The point here is that the urine test is a very bad test as a quantitative analysis of actual doses.

It is fine for a qualitative analysis. Did you take amphetamines, yes or no? But, not good for determining exactly how much.

Wake up in the morning, and you likely will have nice yellow urine. Drink 10 cups of coffee, and your urine may look like water.

The original researchers apparently didn't even analyse the data to differentiate between the two situations.

No doubt pro cyclists have multiple reasons to regulate their water intake. If they have to race for 5 hours, they'd rather not pull off the side of the road for restroom breaks. They don't like to lug that extra couple of pounds of weight in their water bottles up hills, and perhaps even prefer to not carry the weight in their body (so mild dehydration for weight loss).

So, for many reasons the cyclists may intentionally try to dehydrate themselves.

And, cyclists, apparently can legally bring their inhalers with them, and use them during the race.

On the other hand, for swimmers... Were these pool swimmers, or open water swimmers? One hour in the water is far different from 5 hours on a mountain in the direct sunlight. Do the swimmers bring an inhaler? My guess is they dose before the swim, not during the swim. They likely sweat less. There is no need to worry about water weight.

And, endurance swimmers just need to carry 1 hour worth of urine before heading to the restroom, unlike the cyclists who are carrying 5 hours worth of urine.

So many differences between the two groups that they just need to test athletes differently, and capture both creatinine and urine specific gravity as part of the tests. Still, the urine tests would be a poor estimate for actual blood concentration and doses taken/absorbed. Keep in mind, drugs are only effective if actually absorbed by the body, so puffing without absorbing does nothing.

It may be, however, that blood concentrations are also poor for analyzing actual dosage of low absorption chemicals. Urine has the advantage of being concentrated (which also becomes the disadvantage in this case).

My guess is that in the next year or so we'll see some major changes with WADA/UCI with respect to salbutamol, or any other drug that is allowed in limited doses. It may even be removed from WADA/UCI in part to inherent standardization issues.

ProCycleGear

I actually think Froome being 20% over the asthma drug level is not that big a deal. My issue is why would UCI and ASO drag their feet until the day before the Tour to hash it out. Makes them look like clowns. They could have settled this in January, dole out fine and suspension then and it this cloud would have been lifted. Such a shame to distract from the race.

LF
_________________________________________________
Age and treachery will overcome youth and skill - Fausto Coppi
www.procyclegear.com

CliffordK

They should have hashed it out before suspending two other cyclists, and leaking Froome's partial data to the press.

Caretaker

If you believe that you're living in cloud cuckoo land. If the UCI ignored science and imposed a sanction it would have gone to the court of arbitration where Froome would have won even without an expensive lawyer. If it subsequently came out that they knew the test results were unreliable and still sanctioned him for the sake of a quick resolution then the expensive lawyers would happily sue the UCI for a cut of the inevitably substantial award.

Caretaker

The DG of WADA Olivier Niggli has been talking about regulations regarding Salbutamol and the Froome case.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...salbutamol-cut

Maelochs

But ... were they doping Again when he beat them? or is it just that they did in the pas?

I used to smoke dope. Should I get arrested today, after not having smoked in about two decades?

Look ... a lot of people who don't know much have very Strong opinions ... and confuse strong opinion for fact.

The Facts I see here---the test was known to be unreliable. In fact (did you watch the video? interesting stuff) quite a lot of the tests used are not reliable. So Chris Froome might have been 20 percent above the max ... or not.

Also, Salbutamol has two therapeutic uses. One is to restore breathing---not to increase capacity, but to restore diminished capacity. As a person who was diagnosed with asthma more than five decades ago, I know this well. The other is that, taken orally or intravenously in large enough doses, Salbutamol, like clenbuterol, increases the development of lean muscle mass. But that won't cause an increase in performance the next day ... it will help over a span of weeks for a rider to lose fat and add muscle. So there would be Zero benefit to eating a salbutamol pill before a stage .... and less in the 18th of 20 racing stages.

Like many others, i was burned by Lance and cannot trust any cyclist completely. What really hurt though, was Alejandro Valverde and Alberto Contador. Plus, I know every athlete is likely to use every edge .... Like Mark McGwire using that testosterone-building supplement which hadn't been banned yet.

On the other hand .... Froome and team Sky Could have been just within the rules. I have no way of knowing, and the people here claiming to know, don't know either.

What this really shows is that the management of cycling and the management of drug testing is a roaring joke. ASO made a pure publicity move for no other reason. Just wanted some headlines. Total Richard move.

UCI screwed this case from almost Day One. Not sure, if, now that it is a French organization again, they decided to "leak" the news to try to let a french rider have a better shot (Bardet, maybe?) Or maybe it was just an overzealous lackey .... but as soon as Misinformation came out, UCI should have at least released the real information (there is some small difference between 200 percent and 20 percent.) The last-minute gamesmanship made UCI look complicit in crime .... or merely stupid and indecisive.

As for WADA ... if they cannot Reliably test for drugs, they need to admit it and go home. Thing is ... there is plenty of evidence that WADA and UCI work together to maintain the status quo and to keep things quiet. Tests long known to be wrong or inconclusive, riders admittedly doping who past tests ... UCI is All about politics and jobs, and not at all about cycling, and WADA it seems, is all about jobs and funding and not about stopping drug use.

Chris Froome might well have been caught cheating ... but given all the Factual information, it seems to me mor elikely that he was caught by faulty testing and nationalistic politics.

Worst part is ... he might well be cheating in other ways, and we will never know. Half the peloton might be doping daily micro-injections of EPO ... How would we know? WADA and UCI couldn't find out through their testing ... and likely wouldn't want to.

This whole affair has just made cycling look more like a drug-fueled clown show, even if the guy never used drugs.

But .... a lot of people posting here seem to be venting their frustrations and airing their prejudices, not actually trying to have rational discussions based on fact. And those folks are as much the problem as anything else.

When someone who really knows something presents a valid case as to why and how and what Chris Froome would gain by taking a mega-dose of salbutamol in the 18th stage of a race, I will listen. I am not ready to reject the possibility that Froome doped. nor will I reject the possibility that he doped in different ways and took a fall on salbutamol to mask whatever else. but without Proof, and some much more serious explanation than vitriol and disappointment/disillusionment based on past experience .... A lot of people here made up their minds when the first finding was leaked, it seems, and did no research into the drug, nor absorbed any information which came to light later, and are defending, rather than supporting their initial views.

None of us know that Froome doped, or if he did, how ... and so far no one here has made a good case demonstrating that he did and how and why.

Maelochs

As far back as records go ... people used PEDs and then they were banned, and new ones were developed.

You "believe" doping was going on before Lance Armstrong? The many riders who got caught before Armstrong do too. (This goes back to the 1880s!!??!!---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling)

Maelochs

You, sir, are a poet.

Clean--within applicable standards. Very accurate.

As you noted WADA's tests suck ... and many tests simply don't measure Anything reliably. I can imagine how your career would have tanked had word of your positive tests been leaked.

If Froome took salbutamol to develop the lean muscle mass ... why would it show up at the end of a stage race? That is the one point where i am unclear. it's not like he took a pill after dinner and his legs grew overnight. After 17 stages, eating 2x the protein would make more sense ... it's not like he was going to get really fat overnight.

Still ... a poet, a swimmer, a slightly crippled rider ... you are almost a Steve Miller song.

Maelochs

Apparently you posted before you found out that the leaked figure of 200 percent was in fact 20 percent, and that the test has a much greater than 20 percent margin for error.

HardyWeinberg

Sky claims it was 120% not 200% (also not 20%). There is no pretense of a legitimate therapeutic amount. Froome is continuing to claim he took the max legal amount on the advice of his doctor. No reputable doctor would let someone take the maximum (or even much more than the minimum) of a rescue inhaler without taking other severe measures (like not bike-racing) as well. For an actual asthmatic that is.

Getting bogged down in minutiae of test precision is accepting Froome and Sky's contention that he had a legitimate reason to take the legal max, and he didn't (nobody does, and UCI shouldn't cater to it, even if swimming does). It's a classic negotiating/bs-ing technique to focus on trivia behind the glaring red flag to get one to swallow the red flag whole.

Can we trust the Tour, Sky and Chris Froome: Le Monde Op-Ed | The Science of Sport