Author Topic: Giro 2018  (Read 17094 times)

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #200 on: May 30, 2018, 03:18:24 pm »
I hope TdF get sued plenty by banning Froome on hearsay.

What? Where? Linky?

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #201 on: May 30, 2018, 03:18:46 pm »
So an AAF is now "hearsay"  :facepalm:

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #202 on: May 30, 2018, 03:20:49 pm »
I hope TdF get sued plenty by banning Froome on hearsay.

What? Where? Linky?

Twitter talks. It’s being said Froome is going to banned from entering by any means necessary. I can’t put a link to it yet as it’s all unverified. But legally I can’t see how they can justify it. I do know/think that the rule for adverse analytical results should mean an immediate suspension of said athlete from now on.

Giro 2018
« Reply #203 on: May 30, 2018, 03:24:01 pm »
So an AAF is now "hearsay"  :facepalm:

Yes hearsay. It’s been leaked, it involves a drug that’s on the legal lists of drugs approved by UCI. Also it is currently being fought by a bunch of lawyers. I’d be taken to the cleaners if I said Froome is doping in an official legal way no?

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #204 on: May 30, 2018, 03:26:52 pm »
I hope TdF get sued plenty by banning Froome on hearsay.

What? Where? Linky?

Twitter talks. It’s being said Froome is going to banned from entering by any means necessary. I can’t put a link to it yet as it’s all unverified. But legally I can’t see how they can justify it. I do know/think that the rule for adverse analytical results should mean an immediate suspension of said athlete from now on.

Some of this is covered in the Lance Armstrong podcast on this case from December incl. an interview with a Doctor who talks about Salbutamol. there is ASO and the UCI and WADA etc

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #205 on: May 30, 2018, 03:27:30 pm »
I hope TdF get sued plenty by banning Froome on hearsay.

What? Where? Linky?

Twitter talks. It’s being said Froome is going to banned from entering by any means necessary. I can’t put a link to it yet as it’s all unverified. But legally I can’t see how they can justify it. I do know/think that the rule for adverse analytical results should mean an immediate suspension of said athlete from now on.

Well they couldn't when they tried using 'the detriment of the image of the race' clause with Boonen. Froome's gonna keep CAS busy.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #206 on: May 30, 2018, 03:33:54 pm »
So an AAF is now "hearsay"  :facepalm:

Yes hearsay. It’s been leaked, it involves a drug that’s on the legal lists of drugs approved by UCI. Also it is currently being fought by a bunch of lawyers. I’d be taken to the cleaners if I said Froome is doping in an official legal way no?
It's obviously a grey area - to say the least - but I'd say it's loosely comparable to a school sacking their French teacher following an allegation of <random dodgy behaviour> that is still under investigation.  Such allegations CAN be hopelessly without grounds - but they still create bad PR. If no one knew about the allegation, there would be no scandal, no harm to anyone. .

At least until the relevant court's decision ...
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #207 on: May 30, 2018, 03:52:23 pm »
So an AAF is now "hearsay"  :facepalm:

Yes hearsay. It’s been leaked, it involves a drug that’s on the legal lists of drugs approved by UCI. Also it is currently being fought by a bunch of lawyers. I’d be taken to the cleaners if I said Froome is doping in an official legal way no?

No. Hearsay would mean the AAF is a rumour.

It isn't.

Here's hoping Froome gets fully busted really soon.

Samuel D

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #208 on: May 30, 2018, 03:54:44 pm »
It may be that by making these rumoured moves ASO hopes to speed along the case. Since they’re only rumours – it’s always rumours these days – they’re not committed to this course and can easily permit Froome to race if needed.

ASO has far too much power nowadays and it would be good for the sport to have that cut back. Nothing good can come out of ASO and the UCI’s cosiness under Lappartient’s leadership. But this doesn’t have much to do with Froome.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #209 on: May 30, 2018, 04:03:59 pm »
ASO would be "not inviting" him, right? I don't understand how it can be restraint of trade if you are simply not inviting someone to a particular (invitation only) event.

The AAF is not a rumour - Sky confirmed the AAF and condemned the leak ages ago. They are simply saying that despite the test, Froome broke no rules.

Also, I don't understand why whether or not Froome is invited to the Tour is under the Giro 2018 topic.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #210 on: May 30, 2018, 04:16:35 pm »
ASO would be "not inviting" him, right? I don't understand how it can be restraint of trade if you are simply not inviting someone to a particular (invitation only) event.

It's not an invitation event, it's a WT race, so ASO have an obligation to allow all the WT teams to race, just as the WT teams have an obligation to be there (ignoring the sub-category of New WT races), AIUI there's no provision in the WT rules for an organiser to exclude a specific rider from a WT team BUT there is the detriment of the race clause in the Tour rules, although it's never been successfully enforced when challenged. If ASO had registered the race as 2.HC they could have just not invited Sky, but that boat has sailed.

Samuel D

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #211 on: May 30, 2018, 04:39:57 pm »
ASO would be "not inviting" him, right? I don't understand how it can be restraint of trade if you are simply not inviting someone to a particular (invitation only) event.

No. First, ASO has to invite all UCI World Tour teams. Second, if they invite other teams, it’s teams rather than riders. The teams choose who to send. Third, they can ban any individual they like as they did with Boonen in 2009 over his cocaine habit until he or Quick-Step started legal proceedings for discrimination as Froome would do too.

A private hotel can also ban anyone they like but if their reason is that they don’t like the look of someone’s face, they’ll rightly expose themselves to expensive legal trouble.

Also, I don't understand why whether or not Froome is invited to the Tour is under the Giro 2018 topic.

It shouldn’t be, but Flatus turns every thread on racing (and many besides) into tireless invective against Sky and all who disagree with his crude tropes. Letting that slide every time proves that bullying works and lowers the tone of the whole forum. In the absence of effective forum moderation, someone has to stand up to his hectoring, regardless of whether Froome found a one-time permanent doping method seven years ago or not. I am all for robust debate as my post history shows, but we shouldn’t tolerate a playground slanging match every time we disagree … or indeed any time we disagree.

That’s all I have to say on the matter until new facts emerge. Going back to the Giro, here are three interesting titbits on the race:

INRNG’s commentary, insightful as always and with intelligent reader comments.

Lance Armstrong’s analysis of Froome’s big attack on Stage 19.

Something about power but more interestingly a video of Sky’s Portal talking Froome through the curves on the descent. Did Dumoulin benefit from a similar team effort? Probably not. This may have had something to do with Froome’s success.

Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan? The other teams thought Google Maps would do. This may have had something to do with his success.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #212 on: May 30, 2018, 04:40:56 pm »

Unfortunately nothing would convince me, and that is because I'm not looking at a single event such as Stage 19 of the Giro but the whole context of Froome's place in cycling, and the conduct of his team, Sky.

If you look at the most vociferous pro-Froome posters on this thread, whether it be Samuel or Veloman and his sockpuppet 'A Cyclist',  their entire argument rests on whether he has failed a drugs test (ditto Wiggins). Of course we know from prior experience that passing dope tests tells us little about the cleanliness of the rider in question. The biggest busts have come about from price actions and whistle-blowers, and careful athletes can beat the anti-doping system.

Riders cannot prove they are clean. and therefore benefit of the doubt can be accorded, or in other words a little suspension of disbelief.

However, what do you do when certain events are have no credible explanation? For me Froome stands out head and shoulders above everybody because prior to Vuelta 2011 he had no pedigree. No wins of note. Nothing. A few weeks before the Vuelta he was climbing with the gruppetto. He was a mediocre mountain domestique who's team were looking to pass him off to a pro-continental team when his contract was up at the end of the season.

And then he nearly won the Vuelta (2nd). The following year he was clearly the strongest rider in the TdF and would have likely won had he not been working for Wiggins. The rest is history. Of course, when questions started to be asked about this miracle transformation from low-grade nobody to the greatest tour rider of his generation we were fed the Bilharzia story, which poses more questions than it answers, for example why did he not show any signs of brilliance before he contracted bilharzia, and why didn't Team Sky, self-professed masters of detail, not pick it up until the final weeks of his contract?

In recent years we have been made aware that Team Sky used TUEs to win races. One of their key players, Shane Sutton, admitted that this self-proclaimed "whiter than white" team are unethical.

So here we have an unethical team, caught out lying on numerous occasions, caught abusing the TUE system for competitive advantage, freely using Tramadol, ordering Testosterone patches et etc etc employing a rider with the most astonishing of transformations.

Hmmm...Nothing to see here  :facepalm:

So is he doping now? Who knows. It may well be that he did something 7 years ago that changed him forever. Something within him changed profoundly and for the life of me I can't find a precedent. Even transformations due to EPO (such as Ricco) were not as stark.  He is on his way to becoming the greatest Grand Tour rider ever....from nothing.
FWIW, this is a fantastically put together post. It sums up my, and most people I know, feelings towards the subject perfectly.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #213 on: May 30, 2018, 04:55:26 pm »
That’s all I have to say on the matter until new facts emerge. Going back to the Giro, here are three interesting titbits on the race:

INRNG’s commentary, insightful as always and with intelligent reader comments.

Something about power but more interestingly a video of Sky’s Portal talking Froome through the curves on the descent. Did Dumoulin benefit from a similar team effort? Probably not. This may have had something to do with Froome’s success.

Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan? The other teams thought Google Maps would do. This may have had something to do with his success.
That's not strictly true.  At least one of them tried to in the spring, but was stopped by snow (can't remember who - might have been Yates). Same for the Finestre.

There was an interview with the guy behind Veloviewer on one of the podcasts talking about how the GC teams that use his stuff (and that includes Sky and Sunweb) do this sort of thing regularly - you can essentially insert into the app pace notes like a rally driver and read them out to your guys as you drive along. So it's entirely possible Dumoulin could have benefitted the same way on the descent if he wasn't waiting for Reichenback.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #214 on: May 30, 2018, 05:00:05 pm »
That’s all I have to say on the matter until new facts emerge. Going back to the Giro, here are three interesting titbits on the race:

INRNG’s commentary, insightful as always and with intelligent reader comments.

Something about power but more interestingly a video of Sky’s Portal talking Froome through the curves on the descent. Did Dumoulin benefit from a similar team effort? Probably not. This may have had something to do with Froome’s success.

Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan? The other teams thought Google Maps would do. This may have had something to do with his success.
That's not strictly true.  At least one of them tried to in the spring, but was stopped by snow (can't remember who - might have been Yates). Same for the Finestre.

There was an interview with the guy behind Veloviewer on one of the podcasts talking about how the GC teams that use his stuff (and that includes Sky and Sunweb) do this sort of thing regularly - you can essentially insert into the app pace notes like a rally driver and read them out to your guys as you drive along. So it's entirely possible Dumoulin could have benefitted the same way on the descent if he wasn't waiting for Reichenback.
Alex Dowsett was on Instagram talking about how he uses his GPS map screen to descend mountains (with the caveat that he was 100% plugging his teams GPS sponsor), obvious I know, but there's that option too.

Samuel D

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #215 on: May 30, 2018, 05:21:22 pm »
Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan?
That's not strictly true.  At least one of them tried to in the spring, but was stopped by snow (can't remember who - might have been Yates).

Then it is strictly true. Trying doesn’t count here!

By the way, I’d like to know who this other person was who tried. The thread has enough rumour. Let’s pin down the facts where we can.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #216 on: May 30, 2018, 05:25:56 pm »
Yes, like stating that Dumoulin "probably" didn't have anybody talking him through the descent  ::-)

We need more of Samuel D's facts.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #217 on: May 30, 2018, 05:27:55 pm »
Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan?
That's not strictly true.  At least one of them tried to in the spring, but was stopped by snow (can't remember who - might have been Yates).

Then it is strictly true. Trying doesn’t count here!

By the way, I’d like to know who this other person was who tried. The thread has enough rumour. Let’s pin down the facts where we can.
Talk about selective quoting. You actually said (my bold):
Quote
Did you know that Froome was the only Giro contender to recon the Zoncolan? The other teams thought Google Maps would do.
That isn't strictly true.  ;) Pinning down facts goes both ways.  :P 

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #218 on: May 30, 2018, 06:11:21 pm »

It shouldn’t be, but Flatus turns every thread on racing (and many besides) into tireless invective against Sky and all who disagree with his crude tropes. Letting that slide every time proves that bullying works and lowers the tone of the whole forum. In the absence of effective forum moderation, someone has to stand up to his hectoring, regardless of whether Froome found a one-time permanent doping method seven years ago or not. I am all for robust debate as my post history shows, but we shouldn’t tolerate a playground slanging match every time we disagree … or indeed any time we disagree.

More whiney  ad hominem attack from Samuel D, who has a history of personal attack.

I prefer to play the ball rather than the man.

Also, I don't understand why whether or not Froome is invited to the Tour is under the Giro 2018 topic.

To answer your question, DuncanM, it is inevitable that the conversation would head this way in this thread. Froome is an extremely divisive rider for reasons set out by me upthread.

That is why every major bike racing website has carried a headline article either straight up denouncing Froome, or at least doubting his legitimacy. Similar articles are also to be found in newspapers, such as the Guardian.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #219 on: May 30, 2018, 08:32:37 pm »
I think you'll always get cheating in power sports like athletics and cycling.  Even some of the guys at your local club "10" are probably taking something, whether it's to win or just to try and hang on to a PB as they age.  It's been going on since the early days (although the Pelissier brothers were yanking the journo's chain in "Les Forçats De La Route") but the pharmacology evolves.

Ever read the list of what's banned? sudofed is banned at concentrations over 150µg/litre in urine. How many standard cough pills do you need to take to be over the limit there?

The question comes into if people are doing it intentionally...

J

Yes when I was a debutant tt (and anything else but not successfully so) rider I did read the list that was in the Welsh CU handbook of the time (at least I think that that was where it was). It was very long even then. More important I have taken medicines that contained banned substances since my racing days and they frequently had a mention in the paper notice to say that various ingredients were on the banned list. Ignorance was not a valid reason for innocence! (I haven't seen much of this in the last few years; does that say something about my drugtaking habits?)

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #220 on: May 30, 2018, 08:51:53 pm »

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.
His description of what he took, when  and the timings work together to provide the 'perfect storm' that give a high reading whilst being within the legal amount of consumption. Bear in mind that the AAF is not in itself sufficient, the offence is to take more than a certain amount in a stated time. It is known (see reference to the medical literature above) that it is possible to exceed the AAF limit whilst being within the legal limit.

Quote

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.
Strangely enough, I follow the evidence and the mechanisms. Balance does not mean two opposing views but weighing each approach with the credibility it requires. Suggesting that Froome used oral salbutamol is crazy - why would he do that when he knows he will be tested and it will take some time to clear. Oral doses are orders of magnitude higher than inhaler doses. Likewise for nebulisers, again a massive dose compared to that used from an inhaler.  Read the product sheets, routes of administration, half lives through the different metabolic pathways, do some basic maths (mass in divided by volume multiplied by a reasonable constant for metabolic processing, through an exponential decay with a delay, integrate and you get your possible ranges of compound in the test. Numbers which are very close to those seen empirically when testing elite athletes.

Or presume that because you don't like Sky and Froome is winning that he must be cheating and construct evidence to fit your conclusion.
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #221 on: May 30, 2018, 09:07:41 pm »

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.
His description of what he took, when  and the timings work together to provide the 'perfect storm' that give a high reading whilst being within the legal amount of consumption. Bear in mind that the AAF is not in itself sufficient, the offence is to take more than a certain amount in a stated time. It is known (see reference to the medical literature above) that it is possible to exceed the AAF limit whilst being within the legal limit.

Quote

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.
Strangely enough, I follow the evidence and the mechanisms. Balance does not mean two opposing views but weighing each approach with the credibility it requires. Suggesting that Froome used oral salbutamol is crazy - why would he do that when he knows he will be tested and it will take some time to clear. Oral doses are orders of magnitude higher than inhaler doses. Likewise for nebulisers, again a massive dose compared to that used from an inhaler.  Read the product sheets, routes of administration, half lives through the different metabolic pathways, do some basic maths (mass in divided by volume multiplied by a reasonable constant for metabolic processing, through an exponential decay with a delay, integrate and you get your possible ranges of compound in the test. Numbers which are very close to those seen empirically when testing elite athletes.

Or presume that because you don't like Sky and Froome is winning that he must be cheating and construct evidence to fit your conclusion.

I have read the exact opposite. That the AAF limit allows significant leeway such to ensure that the legal dosage is exceeded by a wide margin.

With regards to the Le Monde report, it is you who poo-pooed it out of hand. No rationale behind it other than attributing it to a desire to promote their newspaper. You are nowhere near as objective as you claim. Out of hand rejection of anything that doesn't support your preconceived position.

When all is said and done, I'm not particularly interested in the AAF. I've seen little to suggest a major performance-enhancing benefit. I'm mildly interested to see how Sky handle the case, and I'm interested in the machinations of the UCI, RCS and ASO. But I don't think in the bigger picture it is hugely significant. It may tell us something about Team Sky's much vaunted attention to detail. This is why little of my posting on Froome has to do with the AAF.

Yes, I dislike Team Sky and Froome and I firmly believe that the are cheats and liars.

Felt the same way about Armstrong too, despite the lack of positive tests and apparent adherence to the rules.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #222 on: May 30, 2018, 09:59:57 pm »
Froome Finistere power details have been released on the internet. I’ll get a link soon.

Only a small amount of power data has been released (3km of the climb)

Froome - 397W
Dumoulin - 395W


A lot less data publishing for froome than dumolin. And were subject to the cherry picking of velon.  If they (sky) wanted to cloud the issue whilest still publishing they couldn't have done a better job

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #223 on: May 30, 2018, 10:09:40 pm »
So is he doping now? Who knows. It may well be that he did something 7 years ago that changed him forever. Something within him changed profoundly and for the life of me I can't find a precedent. Even transformations due to EPO (such as Ricco) were not as stark.  He is on his way to becoming the greatest Grand Tour rider ever....from nothing.

So if you have no idea if he is ‘doping’ in Giro 2018 then why not just say well done for being so tenacious and never giving up and well done for a scintillating ride on stage 19.  Dumoulin just messed it up by thinking Froome would crack, which he didn’t, and waiting for another rider who he said descended “like an old lady” which allowed more time to be gained by Froome on descents, and then Dumoulin finds the other riders are not interested in riding with him.  Seems to me that Froome knew he would be put under a microscope in the race regards testing and just threw caution to the wind with a scintillating attack that worked.  Probably surprised himself by the outcome.  Seems that not acknowledging a good ride based on prejudice is your forte.

As you probably refuse to even consider the diagnosis and treatment of bilharzia just over 7 years ago might have something to do with an improvement, will you consider other reasons?  Maybe he was deliberately exposed to radiation as part of the Sky secret programme that resulted in his super powers on a bike.  Fits with the nothing to greatest Grand Tour rider ever theory you have.  Or perhaps they exposed the parasites, that are known to effect health and therefore performance, to radiation and that resulted in improved performance.  Or maybe the people at British Cycling/Sky spotted something other than a low-grade nobody and saw potential and future brilliance so they signed him, only to discover, after much head scratching as to why there was inconsistencies in performance, he had a parasite that was responsible for the inconsistency.  They treated the parasite and potential was realised.  No. Far too sensible.  Let’s stick with the radiation to explain what happened all those years ago to transform Froome for ever.  British Cycling useless at spotting talent anyway, I mean, look at Simon Yates who went through the British Cycling programme.  So radiation must be the answer, either deliberate or accidental.  Plenty of precedent for this to happen.

I suppose this hatred of Team Sky and Froome is a bit like some folk who are racist, homophobic or whatever.  Once they have made their mind up about it, nothing will ever change that mind-set, no matter whether or not they have proof.  Pity.  The performance of Froome in Giro 2018 was quite something and appears all down to tenacity, doggedness, bravery, skill in descending and a cock-up or errors of judgement made by the bloke who eventually came second.  Pity some folk can’t see that and acknowledge that.  They are blinded by their own bigotry.

Yes, I dislike Team Sky and Froome and I firmly believe that the are cheats and liars.

And I assume nothing is going to change your mind.  And I assume you believe they cheated in Giro 2018.  A clearly well balanced argument there.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #224 on: May 30, 2018, 10:11:22 pm »
Should I register a sockpuppet of my own to talk to you, Veloman?

Then I could address your ridiculous attempt at a straw man and your fatuous ellision of homophobic and racist bigotry with a mistrust of Team Sky and their ethics.