Author Topic: Giro 2018  (Read 17098 times)

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #100 on: May 27, 2018, 08:28:31 pm »

https://youtu.be/lEGpv0xn0E8

Zigzagging ha ha ha ha  ;D

In a previous life: Froome the Audaxer!

Don't understand a word of Italian, but I like they way they manged to weave Rupert Murdoch into the commentary early on.
Garry Broad

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #101 on: May 27, 2018, 09:00:40 pm »
The delay in resolving this Froome doping case is solely because of Froome/ Sky.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #102 on: May 27, 2018, 10:14:04 pm »
Froome should never have been able to start the Giro. It'll be interesting to see if results get deleted.

I agree that his case should have been resolved before this but it's not his fault, especially if he didn't break any rules*

It just adds pressure upon pressure.    It's the TdF soon and he stands a great chance of winning it.  If they ARE going to ban him then every month they delay means another result being voided.

*Shit rules, open to legal abuse.

Just out of interest which Grand Tour Winners are there who haven't been officially investigated now?  It must be a handful in 20 years.

Given how thin they’ve got, I don’t think there are enough to make up a handful;)

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #103 on: May 27, 2018, 10:28:06 pm »
Okay – on the condition that Reichenbach promises to do a crash course on descending!..........

A crash course is the last thing he needs.


Samuel D

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #104 on: May 27, 2018, 10:33:31 pm »
Very good, Andrew.

It seems highly likely that he'll lose the Vuelta but beyond that, who knows?

Given that Froome is apparently arguing his innocence rather than admitting to an accidental overdose of salbutamol, he may have reasonable confidence that he can win his case outright. Otherwise why not say sorry and take a short, backdated ban? He’s risking a greater punishment, so “highly likely” is strong language here.

And that uncertainty is a real problem. Without making any comment on his guilt or innocence, I agree with you that he really shouldn't have been taking part in the Giro while the case was unresolved.

There is some tension in this statement, because banning someone from racing in effect does comment on guilt. It harms the athlete, arguably without the possibility of adequate restitution should they prove innocent. And to the extent that restitution is possible, who is volunteering to pay the damages? In Froome’s case, those would be huge.

For these reasons and our cultural expectation of the rule of law, the regs say the salbutamol test result should not have been made public. The newspapers only got a hold of it because the UCI is corrupt and leaky as many such organisations are. Julie Harrington (the new British Cycling boss) made some good comments about this at the time, warning especially against the risk of trial in the court of public opinion. We’ve seen that that court is unconcerned with your rights and dishes out differential justice depending on whether you’re popular, British, arrogant, too successful, etc. Froome got slammed.

All of that notwithstanding, an athlete’s career burns briefly and all parties have a wish to avoid the uncertainty you mention. Those are two good reasons to force the gears of justice to grind more quickly in these cases. If you can’t get a plausible defence together in a few months, maybe there’s a good reason. I’m super-curious to hear why this case has taken so long.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #105 on: May 27, 2018, 10:41:30 pm »

Might be the Giro too if he suffers from the same kidney malfunction (which he'd never had before,) that afflicted him for one day only in the Vuelta.  ;D ;D

Seriously, you need to inform yourself before commenting. For those of us who look into the details it's a total farce.


OK, thanks for the advice...  ;)  The curious incident of salbutamol overdose in the Vuelta is unresolved, but that does not by necessity mean that what he's acheived in this Giro, his 80km break to win the stage etc, is suspect. 
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #106 on: May 27, 2018, 10:50:23 pm »
In so far as he was prepared to use banned methods to win one GT?

No, you are quite right, I can't possibly see how that has any bearing on his willingness to use banned methods for a subsequent GT. Not at all. No.

Samuel D

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #107 on: May 27, 2018, 11:04:08 pm »
Flatus, you’re leaping to wild conclusions again. How about waiting for the outcome of Froome’s case before telling us what you imagine he’s prepared to do to win a race? What we each imagine without evidence to be his intentions does not constitute an argument, even if we repeat it stridently ad infinitum.

Dumoulin has some comments on his race here.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #108 on: May 27, 2018, 11:10:00 pm »
Why did Froome not miss this Giro until his name is clear? Let's go through the steps

1) Had news of his AAF not been leaked, we wouldn't know about it, and he would have competed without anyone knowing about the suspect result. As it is, with the case unresolved, he's innocent until proven guilty.

1a) For many people, once news of the AAF occured, to miss out on the Giro would be seen as an admission of Guilt. If he is of the view that he hasn't done anything wrong, and given noone should have found out about the AAF yet, why would you risk people interpretting what you did as wrong?

2) Organisers of the Giro paid Froome a substantial appearance fee, probably a 7 digit number. Chances are, there is a clause in the contract that says if he doesn't appear, he will have to pay a substantial amount, and not receive his payment. Not riding the Giro when he's not been banned from riding probably means he would have been hit hard in the wallet.

3) Everyone gets older. As we age, our abilities reduce, this gives any athlete a very finite window of peak physical fitness. So if he puts off having a go at the Giro now, especially predicated upon 1, & 1a, he's throwing away a potential once in a life time chance to win the Giro, which comes with the additional chance to be the 1st Brit to win the Giro, as well as a once in a life time chance to hold the title of all 3 at once. When your life's sole purpose has been to achieve these goals, and you have a single window of opportunity, why would you throw away that chance? Especially given 1, & 1a?

I know that there is a substantial proportion of those who follow pro cycling that hate Team Sky, all Team Sky's riders, and Chris Froome especially, but for now, he's achieved an amazing feat, he's not been found guilty of any wrong doing. Well done Chris, well ridden.

Of course if it turns out he has been cheating, as with any riders in the pro peloton, have the tar and feathers on standby.

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #109 on: May 27, 2018, 11:18:58 pm »
Without evidence? What do you think the AAF is?
It isn't a wild conclusion, it's a fact.

Le Monde reported that his defence was going to centre around a malfunctioning kidney, that stored up all the Salbutamol but then shat it all out on one day. Curiously, it only ever happened once.

It takes a particular type of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, to not understand what has gone on here. Froome found himself in a pickle. Chest infection and asthma. 3 options. Withdraw from the race, continue and risk health, or take a risk and use oral or nebulised Salbutamol, both banned.

Informed opinion (ie.medics) is that the only way the huge quantity or the drug could have got in his system was through one of these banned methods.

Malfunctioning kidney or the action of self-confessed unethical team with a history of subterfuge, evasion and outright lying?

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Giro 2018
« Reply #110 on: May 27, 2018, 11:18:58 pm »
Given that Froome is apparently arguing his innocence rather than admitting to an accidental overdose of salbutamol, he may have reasonable confidence that he can win his case outright.

That’s one way of spinning it. The team are not disputing the fact that double the permitted level of salbutamol was found in his urine sample. What they are arguing about is why his urine contained that much salbutamol.

They need to convince WADA that the arbitrary limit set for permissible salbutamol level in the urine is based on flawed reasoning. Good luck with that.

Quote
There is some tension in this statement, because banning someone from racing in effect does comment on guilt. It harms the athlete, arguably without the possibility of adequate restitution should they prove innocent.

Yes, of course, but that’s why I was careful in my choice of words and emphatically did not say he should have been banned from racing, only that it would have been preferable if he weren’t at the Giro.

If Sky were members of the MPCC, he would have been withdrawn from all racing pending the outcome of the investigation even if the AAF had not been made public.

Quote
All of that notwithstanding, an athlete’s career burns briefly and all parties have a wish to avoid the uncertainty you mention. Those are two good reasons to force the gears of justice to grind more quickly in these cases. If you can’t get a plausible defence together in a few months, maybe there’s a good reason. I’m super-curious to hear why this case has taken so long.

I share your curiosity. I have no idea why they are so confident they can provide a plausible explanation. It seems unlikely based on what I’ve read but I’m not going to speculate any further than that.

fd3

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #111 on: May 27, 2018, 11:22:00 pm »
First Brit ever to win the Giro...
1. Nicole Cooke
2. He's Kenyan
[/I could be wrong]

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #112 on: May 27, 2018, 11:33:48 pm »
First Brit ever to win the Giro...
1. Nicole Cooke
2. He's Kenyan

1. Giro d'Italia Femminile / Rosa?
2.  Born in Kenya, but yet he's British... 

 :)
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #113 on: May 27, 2018, 11:35:22 pm »
First Brit ever to win the Giro...
1. Nicole Cooke
2. He's Kenyan

1. Giro d'Italia Femminile / Rosa?
2.  Born in Kenya, but yet he's British... 

 :)

Have any kenyen's won the Giro?

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #114 on: May 27, 2018, 11:41:53 pm »
Without evidence? What do you think the AAF is?
It isn't a wild conclusion, it's a fact.
It is an AAF. It is not a proof of doping. Salbutamol is a particularly interesting case.

Quote
Le Monde reported that his defence was going to centre around a malfunctioning kidney, that stored up all the Salbutamol but then shat it all out on one day. Curiously, it only ever happened once.
They do have to sell column inches.

Quote
It takes a particular type of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, to not understand what has gone on here. Froome found himself in a pickle. Chest infection and asthma. 3 options. Withdraw from the race, continue and risk health, or take a risk and use oral or nebulised Salbutamol, both banned.
There is no evidence that he used oral salbutamol. Nebulised is a different issue. It is to do with routes of administration and the pharmacokinetics.
Quote
Informed opinion (ie.medics) is that the only way the huge quantity or the drug could have got in his system was through one of these banned methods.
Your medics are not well informed. There are published studies showing that these levels are credible from legitimate uses of Salbutamol. They also appear to make a common error of mistaking quantity with concentration. A little bit of pharmacokinetic modelling shows that these levels are possible, given the right conditions, and that the test can distinguish between oral and inhaled doses. There are different metabolic products  from the lungs and the gut, but inhaled Salbutamol is ingested both through the lungs and the gut.
Quote
Malfunctioning kidney or the action of self-confessed unethical team with a history of subterfuge, evasion and outright lying?
Nonsense from Le Monde or a credible case actually built on facts rather than the populist myth gained from 'the clinic'?
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #115 on: May 27, 2018, 11:58:53 pm »
Without evidence? What do you think the AAF is?
It isn't a wild conclusion, it's a fact.
It is an AAF. It is not a proof of doping. Salbutamol is a particularly interesting case.

Quote
Le Monde reported that his defence was going to centre around a malfunctioning kidney, that stored up all the Salbutamol but then shat it all out on one day. Curiously, it only ever happened once.
They do have to sell column inches.

Quote
It takes a particular type of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, to not understand what has gone on here. Froome found himself in a pickle. Chest infection and asthma. 3 options. Withdraw from the race, continue and risk health, or take a risk and use oral or nebulised Salbutamol, both banned.
There is no evidence that he used oral salbutamol. Nebulised is a different issue. It is to do with routes of administration and the pharmacokinetics.
Quote
Informed opinion (ie.medics) is that the only way the huge quantity or the drug could have got in his system was through one of these banned methods.
Your medics are not well informed. There are published studies showing that these levels are credible from legitimate uses of Salbutamol. They also appear to make a common error of mistaking quantity with concentration. A little bit of pharmacokinetic modelling shows that these levels are possible, given the right conditions, and that the test can distinguish between oral and inhaled doses. There are different metabolic products  from the lungs and the gut, but inhaled Salbutamol is ingested both through the lungs and the gut.
Quote
Malfunctioning kidney or the action of self-confessed unethical team with a history of subterfuge, evasion and outright lying?
Nonsense from Le Monde or a credible case actually built on facts rather than the populist myth gained from 'the clinic'?

Using scientific methodology and evidence?  How very 2016*

*Now can we all just get back to gut feelings and pub gossip?
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Samuel D

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #116 on: May 28, 2018, 12:36:11 am »
Without evidence? What do you think the AAF is?

It’s not even evidence of an overdose of salbutamol, much less evidence of Froome’s “willingness to use banned methods”. That’s leaping to conclusions twice in a single bound.

Froome found himself in a pickle. Chest infection and asthma. 3 options. Withdraw from the race, continue and risk health, or take a risk and use oral or nebulised Salbutamol, both banned.

You’ve created this out of whole cloth. Stating it emphatically doesn’t prove anything. Besides, what about the TUE option for something stronger?

The team are not disputing the fact that double the permitted level of salbutamol was found in his urine sample. What they are arguing about is why his urine contained that much salbutamol.

They need to convince WADA that the arbitrary limit set for permissible salbutamol level in the urine is based on flawed reasoning. Good luck with that.

It doesn’t seem so unlikely to this layman, given some of the lab tests and other salbutamol cases I’ve skim-read. There is room for doubt when experts disagree, and that’s all Froome needs. Also, I understand Froome’s urinary concentration of salbutamol has been recalibrated down to 1429 ng/ml. That may explain his cockiness about proving his innocence … or the cockiness could be a bluff.

If Sky were members of the MPCC, he would have been withdrawn from all racing pending the outcome of the investigation even if the AAF had not been made public.

I know. Given how that breaks the presumption of innocence, it seems like a good reason not to join the MPCC (itself increasingly lacking credibility for other reasons).

I think there was someone in this Giro with a swollen face from an insect bite he couldn’t treat for some MPCC reason. Not cool.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #117 on: May 28, 2018, 01:37:40 am »
Congratulations to Chris Froome and Team Sky. Let's hope they can keep up their winning ways at the Tour de France.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #118 on: May 28, 2018, 07:18:10 am »
Without evidence? What do you think the AAF is?
It isn't a wild conclusion, it's a fact.
It is an AAF. It is not a proof of doping. Salbutamol is a particularly interesting case.

It is still evidence. It still needs an explanation.

Quote
Quote
Le Monde reported that his defence was going to centre around a malfunctioning kidney, that stored up all the Salbutamol but then shat it all out on one day. Curiously, it only ever happened once.
They do have to sell column inches.


Bit like the German TV report that exposed the attempt to bury Contador's clen positive. Damn the free press.

Quote
Quote
It takes a particular type of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, to not understand what has gone on here. Froome found himself in a pickle. Chest infection and asthma. 3 options. Withdraw from the race, continue and risk health, or take a risk and use oral or nebulised Salbutamol, both banned.
There is no evidence that he used oral salbutamol. Nebulised is a different issue. It is to do with routes of administration and the pharmacokinetics.

Is it banned?

Quote
Quote
Informed opinion (ie.medics) is that the only way the huge quantity or the drug could have got in his system was through one of these banned methods.
Your medics are not well informed. There are published studies showing that these levels are credible from legitimate uses of Salbutamol. They also appear to make a common error of mistaking quantity with concentration. A little bit of pharmacokinetic modelling shows that these levels are possible, given the right conditions, and that the test can distinguish between oral and inhaled doses. There are different metabolic products  from the lungs and the gut, but inhaled Salbutamol is ingested both through the lungs and the gut.

We will have to wait and see as to what explanations are accepted for twice the permitted level being present, on top of probable route of administration.

Quote
Quote
u
Malfunctioning kidney or the action of self-confessed unethical team with a history of subterfuge, evasion and outright lying?
Nonsense from Le Monde or a credible case actually built on facts rather than the populist myth gained from 'the clinic'?

Balanced and impartial view, or one who's nationalist sporting fervour blinds him.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #119 on: May 28, 2018, 07:24:56 am »
Quote from: Samuel D
You’ve created this out of whole cloth. Stating it emphatically doesn’t prove anything. Besides, what about the TUE option for something stronger?

Why not a TUE?  Hmmm...Let me ponder that one for a while  ::-)

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #120 on: May 28, 2018, 08:41:28 am »
It doesn’t seem so unlikely to this layman, given some of the lab tests and other salbutamol cases I’ve skim-read. There is room for doubt when experts disagree, and that’s all Froome needs. Also, I understand Froome’s urinary concentration of salbutamol has been recalibrated down to 1429 ng/ml. That may explain his cockiness about proving his innocence … or the cockiness could be a bluff.

I suspect it's simply a case that they've got a lot to lose if the case against Froome is upheld so they need to fight it using whatever legal means are available (much like their approach to winning races).

Even at the adjusted level, Froome's salbutamol reading is still well in excess of the limit. But that's one for Team Sky and WADA's lawyers to fight over, I won't pretend to claim any kind of special understanding of the science so let's wait and see what comes out of the case. Although it's unlikely that any of us will ever get to see the evidence so the speculation is unlikely to end even then.

As for the time it is taking, that's not so unusual - the very similar Ulissi case took a long time to resolve. The difference was that it was kept out of the public eye until the verdict was delivered.

Quote
I know. Given how that breaks the presumption of innocence, it seems like a good reason not to join the MPCC (itself increasingly lacking credibility for other reasons).

I think there was someone in this Giro with a swollen face from an insect bite he couldn’t treat for some MPCC reason. Not cool.

I've said before that I think Sky's non-membership of the MPCC is a red herring if looking for evidence of bending the rules. However, since membership is voluntary and teams who sign up do so out of a desire to be seen to be clean, they shouldn't have a problem with voluntarily suspending their own riders even if it isn't required by the UCI. And a lot of the younger riders are totally on board with that - Tim Wellens voluntarily withdrew from last year's Tour after suffering an allergic reaction to an insect bite rather than have the treatment that would have allowed him to continue racing because it would have required a TUE.

On the other hand, Lotto-Jumbo quit the MPCC because George Bennett (another rider who did very well at this year's Giro) registered a low cortisol level, requiring them to withdraw him from the 2015 Giro. And that's one of the problems with credibility the MPCC has - teams will quit the organisation rather than follow its rules. Or they can just ignore the rules, like Astana, who let Lars Boom race in the 2015 Tour even though he had also registered a low cortisol level.

Mitchelton-Scott quit the MPCC because they felt its aims had already been achieved when some of its recommendations were incorporated into UCI regulations.  :facepalm:

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #121 on: May 28, 2018, 09:01:51 am »
If Team Sky had been in the MPCC they wouldn't have been able to abuse the TUE system to dope riders with cortisone for a performance advantage. They wouldn't have needed to order in so much Kenacort. There would most likely never have been a "jiffybag" because it is highly likely it contained Kenacort.

Yes, David, will be along to tell me this is myth.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #122 on: May 28, 2018, 09:04:21 am »
It doesn’t seem so unlikely to this layman, given some of the lab tests and other salbutamol cases I’ve skim-read. There is room for doubt when experts disagree, and that’s all Froome needs. Also, I understand Froome’s urinary concentration of salbutamol has been recalibrated down to 1429 ng/ml. That may explain his cockiness about proving his innocence … or the cockiness could be a bluff.

I suspect it's simply a case that they've got a lot to lose if the case against Froome is upheld so they need to fight it using whatever legal means are available (much like their approach to winning races).

Even at the adjusted level, Froome's salbutamol reading is still well in excess of the limit. But that's one for Team Sky and WADA's lawyers to fight over, I won't pretend to claim any kind of special understanding of the science so let's wait and see what comes out of the case. Although it's unlikely that any of us will ever get to see the evidence so the speculation is unlikely to end even then.

As for the time it is taking, that's not so unusual - the very similar Ulissi case took a long time to resolve. The difference was that it was kept out of the public eye until the verdict was delivered.

Quote
I know. Given how that breaks the presumption of innocence, it seems like a good reason not to join the MPCC (itself increasingly lacking credibility for other reasons).

I think there was someone in this Giro with a swollen face from an insect bite he couldn’t treat for some MPCC reason. Not cool.

I've said before that I think Sky's non-membership of the MPCC is a red herring if looking for evidence of bending the rules. However, since membership is voluntary and teams who sign up do so out of a desire to be seen to be clean, they shouldn't have a problem with voluntarily suspending their own riders even if it isn't required by the UCI. And a lot of the younger riders are totally on board with that - Tim Wellens voluntarily withdrew from last year's Tour after suffering an allergic reaction to an insect bite rather than have the treatment that would have allowed him to continue racing because it would have required a TUE.

On the other hand, Lotto-Jumbo quit the MPCC because George Bennett (another rider who did very well at this year's Giro) registered a low cortisol level, requiring them to withdraw him from the 2015 Giro. And that's one of the problems with credibility the MPCC has - teams will quit the organisation rather than follow its rules. Or they can just ignore the rules, like Astana, who let Lars Boom race in the 2015 Tour even though he had also registered a low cortisol level.

Mitchelton-Scott quit the MPCC because they felt its aims had already been achieved when some of its recommendations were incorporated into UCI regulations.  :facepalm:


My bold

Ullissi 's AAF was announced by his team in June after the Giro, in September with the case ongoing the UCI stopped him racing.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #123 on: May 28, 2018, 09:16:26 am »
Ullissi 's AAF was announced by his team in June after the Giro, in September with the case ongoing the UCI stopped him racing.

Thanks. I was going from memory rather than checking facts...

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #124 on: May 28, 2018, 09:24:08 am »
It is not surprising that a few major teams have pulled out of the MPCC. They see Team Sky shitting all over the race scene with Cortisone abuse and they realise that with that Team Sky have shot the MPCC down in flames.