Author Topic: Giro 2018  (Read 17136 times)

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #325 on: June 04, 2018, 01:24:25 pm »
An AAF (also called a positive test) is the lab result, irrespective of the type of substance involved. It could be the presence of a prohibited substance or a specified substance above it's permitted level.

An AAF becomes an ADRV (Anti Doping Rule Violation) once the process is complete at CADF. Not all AAF's lead to ADRV's, for instance you could have an AAF for triamcinolone acetonide but not get an ADRV because you've got a TUE.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #326 on: June 04, 2018, 01:41:12 pm »
How tall is Pozzovivo?

164cm tall and weighs 57kg

teambahrainmerida.com/domenico-pozzovivo/
About 5' 4". That really is small (for a man). Mr fimm is 5' 5" and had enough problems getting a decent TT sent up (meaning, he didn't...)  I wonder if Pozzovivo falls foul of UCI reglations about bike set up? I remember reading Emma Pooley saying that she had to have a special dispensation from the regs in order to get a decent TT set up (obviously she's a small woman, so even shorter than Pozzovivo, I assume).

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #327 on: June 04, 2018, 01:51:06 pm »
An AAF (also sometimes incorrectly called a positive test) is the lab result of a permitted substance, irrespective of the type of substance involved. It could be the presence of a prohibited substance or a specified substance above it's permitted level.

Some correction to the statement and couldn't be bothered to correct the rest.  We can only assume that terminology in the Sky rebuttal was incorrect based on what you have posted.  Sneaky feeling that Sky would have passed rebuttal to lawyers first to check they were correct in stating the AAF was not a positive test.

Might be worth considering the original statement from UCI on this matter:

www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-statement-christopher-froome

Clearly no mention of positive test.

Useful information here for general information;

http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #328 on: June 04, 2018, 02:01:30 pm »
Quote
An AAF (also sometimes incorrectly called a positive test) is the lab result of a permitted substance,


So all the substances in this link that reference an AAF are permitted?  http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/17/32/52/20170823SanctionADRVENG2.0_English.pdf

You can see AAF's listed for EPO, anabolics etc

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #329 on: June 04, 2018, 02:14:28 pm »
That is correct and they are all for banned substances that result in a ban as the test was positive regarding the substance.  In other words, there is no acceptable limit as highlighted in the Contador case.  This is unlike salbutamol where the substance is accepted and the only debate is whether the level exceeds what is permitted.  Every test that identifies salbutamol could be considered as positive as it has identified the substance, but within limits it results in no further action.  If outside the limit than action is generated in accordance with protocol for an AAF.  Statement from UCI also includes comment:

"...... the presence of a Specified Substance such as Salbutamol in a sample does not result in the imposition of such mandatory provisional suspension against the rider"

Unlike the smallest of traces of a banned substance.

Hence why Sky rebutted the reference to a "positive test".  Subtle difference, but one that becomes important in a legal sense.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #330 on: June 04, 2018, 03:07:26 pm »
That is correct and they are all for banned substances that result in a ban as the test was positive regarding the substance.  In other words, there is no acceptable limit as highlighted in the Contador case.  This is unlike salbutamol where the substance is accepted and the only debate is whether the level exceeds what is permitted.  Every test that identifies salbutamol could be considered as positive as it has identified the substance, but within limits it results in no further action.  If outside the limit than action is generated in accordance with protocol for an AAF. 

According to WADA themselves: 'An Adverse Analytical Finding indicates the presence of prohibited substances or methods in a particular sample.'
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/ado-testing-statistics#item-431

In the case of salbutamol, it is only permitted if taken via an inhaler. As has already been stated upthread, the limit on salbutamol is set such that an AAF indicates that it has been administered by a prohibited method (oral or injection). Froome's case seems to hang on whether or not that limit is based on sound reasoning.

Quote
Hence why Sky rebutted the reference to a "positive test".  Subtle difference, but one that becomes important in a legal sense.

Quote
We can only assume that terminology in the Sky rebuttal was incorrect based on what you have posted.  Sneaky feeling that Sky would have passed rebuttal to lawyers first to check they were correct in stating the AAF was not a positive test.

It's pure spin. 'Failed drugs test' is a layman's term and has no 'legal sense'. It has been widely reported as a failed drugs test and that is exactly what it is, according to common understanding. Sky can claim it means something else if they like. It's up to the listener to decide if they are being reasonable or deliberately obfuscating.

Ask yourself why Sky are putting out a press release rather than going after Hinault for slander.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #331 on: June 04, 2018, 03:19:28 pm »
The AAF is the lab report. It's the result, the finding, yes for prohibited substances the level that triggers an AAF is any value greater than the Limit of Detection, for a specified substance there's a set threshold, but both result in an AAF. I really aren't sure why this is difficult to comprehend.

Sky can rebut the 'positive test' simply because there is no definition. There is only AAF and ADRV.

x-post with citoyen

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #332 on: June 04, 2018, 03:37:22 pm »
Not wanting to encourage Veloman's sockpuppet but I agree with part of his criticism of Hinault. It is a failed test (a passed test would have been under the limit) but it isn't the same as say an EPO positive. It isnt finalised which is why Froome has the opportunity to explain how he came to have over the limit in his urine. Hinault was treating the case as if it was done and dusted.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #333 on: June 04, 2018, 04:01:02 pm »
Ask yourself why Sky are putting out a press release rather than going after Hinault for slander.

Probably for the same reason as Sky can't be bothered to take action against all those making false statements, just isn't worth the paperwork.  Much easier to issue a rebuttal that does nothing to enhance the reputation of Hinault.  Pity, as Hinault was a great rider.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #334 on: June 04, 2018, 04:16:46 pm »
All Hinault said was that Froome shouldn't have been at the Giro, and that's a view shared by many of us. He is entitled to express his disappointment over the fact that Froome's continued participation in major races pending the outcome of the case is damaging the image of the sport.

Otoh, yes, Froome has the right to defend himself and suspending him pending the outcome of the case would be problematic for all the reasons that have previously been discussed.

I love the idea that Sky issuing a press release could damage his reputation. He must be quaking with fear.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #335 on: June 04, 2018, 04:30:40 pm »
From the original article following the interview with Hinault:

Chris Froome komt nu in hun buurt, maar daarmee is ‘de Das’, nog altijd even grimmig als in zijn topdagen, het niet eens. “Froome hoort niet in die lijst”, zegt Hinault. “Hij heeft een positieve test afgelegd in de Vuelta en nadien bleek ook zijn B-staal positief, dus heeft hij doping gebruikt en moet hij geschorst worden.”

https://www.hln.be/sport/wielrennen/giro/gepikeerde-hinault-froome-maakt-geen-deel-uit-van-de-legende-van-deze-sport-het-is-een-schandaal~a3674700/

Notice the reference to 'positive test'?

Guardian and others summarised the original interview/article.  Rebuttal from Sky was referring to original interview.  Sky must do their homework rather than rely on summaries from other sources.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #336 on: June 04, 2018, 04:39:56 pm »
From the original article following the interview with Hinault:

Chris Froome komt nu in hun buurt, maar daarmee is ‘de Das’, nog altijd even grimmig als in zijn topdagen, het niet eens. “Froome hoort niet in die lijst”, zegt Hinault. “Hij heeft een positieve test afgelegd in de Vuelta en nadien bleek ook zijn B-staal positief, dus heeft hij doping gebruikt en moet hij geschorst worden.”

https://www.hln.be/sport/wielrennen/giro/gepikeerde-hinault-froome-maakt-geen-deel-uit-van-de-legende-van-deze-sport-het-is-een-schandaal~a3674700/

Notice the reference to 'positive test'?

Guardian and others summarised the original interview/article.  Rebuttal from Sky was referring to original interview.  Sky must do their homework rather than rely on summaries from other sources.


Seems an unusually thorough approach for Sky to take. They’ll be keeping records next.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #337 on: June 04, 2018, 04:40:50 pm »
I love the idea that Sky issuing a press release could damage his reputation. He must be quaking with fear.

Posting did not state the press release could damage his reputation.  Posting stated comments would not enhance Hinault's reputation.  1+1=3 perhaps?  Hinualt has a great reputation and was a real rouleur of the peloton.  It does look like sour grapes on his behalf.  Merckx did not react in that way and quite happy. 

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #338 on: June 04, 2018, 04:46:57 pm »
A Cyclist, in my earlier post where I talked about layman's terms, was there something in that you need me to clarify?

There might be a good reason why Merckx is a bit more circumspect than Hinault when it comes to commenting on other cyclists doping.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #339 on: June 04, 2018, 04:47:39 pm »
Seems an unusually thorough approach for Sky to take. They’ll be keeping records next.

Excellent comment!

No doubt Simon Yates will also ensure the paperwork has been all OK after his TUE moment.  Dragging-up old stuff serves no real purpose as we should be judging on contemporary matters rather than historical detail.  Yes it was a PR disaster, but as WADA noted, and DCMS, no rules were broken and Sky gave a response.

https://www.teamsky.com/article/team-sky-response-to-dcms-committee-combatting-doping-in-sport-report

Meanwhile, racing is happening in the Dauphine.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #340 on: June 04, 2018, 04:54:41 pm »
A Cyclist, in my earlier post where I talked about layman's terms, was there something in that you need me to clarify?

There might be a good reason why Merckx is a bit more circumspect than Hinault when it comes to commenting on other cyclists doping.

Merckx took what can be called PEDs.  No argument there.  Nothing concrete with Hinault but quite a lot of suspicion.  Fignon had a good tale to tell about fixing of races in his wonderful book 'We were young and carefree' but not at GTs.

Layman's terms are great until they need to be legally tested and some layman's terms are not acceptable in a court of law.  Layman's terms and slang are an interesting area in terms of legal debate.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #341 on: June 04, 2018, 05:00:56 pm »
But he's only a pursuiter, not a madison acrobat like Cav (and, errr Brad) so we really can't expect the same bike handling skills, even when he isn't being barged out of the descents by Warren B. (Come to think of it Cav is a bit accident prone as well, as was a certain Mr Froome when he came out of Africa, if the stories of his early days by teammates are to be believed - wait, wasn't the descending speed in the Giro credited to bike-handling skills learnt on Kenyan dirt roads? Something not quite right there!)
He's won junior Roubaix, as well as E3.
However, the people in the peleton regarded as the best bike handlers tend to have been top level off-road cyclists (cross or MTB) - I'm not sure madison is the gold standard...

Completely off topic of course

Yes like Cadel Evans, Peter Sagan and any number more that I am not educated enough to remember. Perhaps there is an arguement for pro riders (and  amateurs also, of course), to ride cross in the winter as was once the custom, rather than doing training camps in warm climates like Majorca.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #342 on: June 04, 2018, 05:09:20 pm »
Seems an unusually thorough approach for Sky to take. They’ll be keeping records next.

Excellent comment!

No doubt Simon Yates will also ensure the paperwork has been all OK after his TUE moment.  Dragging-up old stuff serves no real purpose as we should be judging on contemporary matters rather than historical detail.  Yes it was a PR disaster, but as WADA noted, and DCMS, no rules were broken and Sky gave a response.

https://www.teamsky.com/article/team-sky-response-to-dcms-committee-combatting-doping-in-sport-report

Meanwhile, racing is happening in the Dauphine.

Why does Froome get looked after by the whole team set-up while Simon Yates is entirely responsable for all his paperwork in your eyes. Try to be consistent at least please.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #343 on: June 04, 2018, 05:27:33 pm »
Why has Veloman created a sockpuppet?

The only plausible reason is that he has little faith in what he is posting and actually believes he will be proven wrong in the future about Froome and Sky. Therefore he has created a sockpuppet that he thought would not ruin the credibility (such as it is) of his Veloman identity. He just forgot to alter his trademarktediousposting style.

It would be far better if he was just honest and upfront.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #344 on: June 04, 2018, 07:03:31 pm »
I'm reminded of a quote from a play we did for 'O' Level English

(click to show/hide)
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #345 on: June 04, 2018, 07:17:10 pm »
<snorts and inhales  tea up nose>

αdαmsκι

  • Twitter @Dr_AAY Instagram @ucfaaay Strava @ucfaaay
  • Look haggard. It sells.
Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #346 on: June 06, 2018, 06:45:09 am »
I'll find out once I've listened to this BBC podcast if it says anything I don't already know about that stage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0697rbs

Oh, there's also a written version here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44372328
What on earth am I doing here on this beautiful day?! This is the only life I've got!!

https://tyredandhungry.wordpress.com/

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #347 on: June 06, 2018, 06:56:43 am »
I doubt they'll be admitting to the doping  ;)

EDIT:Just read the transcript. They wouldn't dope because it wouldn't make winning fun.

No SDB, maybe not, but it has made you a millionaire  ;)

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #348 on: June 06, 2018, 11:31:23 am »
I doubt they'll be admitting to the doping  ;)

EDIT:Just read the transcript. They wouldn't dope because it wouldn't make winning fun.

No SDB, maybe not, but it has made you a millionaire  ;)

I too read the transcript and was impressed/disappointed with the absence of any real refutal (is that the word I want; still thinking in french!) of doping, just saying that they had people passing up continuous small doses of energy carbs and bottles all the way up the climbs (which made me wonder if that was legal outside designated feeding zones but I suppose it must be otherwise they wouldn't be so ready to brag about their planning - and indeed what's the difference between being handed a bottle by a bloke running or by a bloke driving a car, other than that it is slightly more sporting).
On the whole I don't think that this takes the arguement forward. Froome's mental attitude  still makes me think of Armstrong and Sir DB seems to be accepting that that is the case, no matter what he says. All this piece made me think was "micro-dosing". Sad really.

Re: Giro 2018
« Reply #349 on: June 06, 2018, 11:37:01 am »
'Doing a Landis', is exactly what is described. Dropping the other contenders and thereby giving your team a clear space for close, and meticulously planned' support. The chaos in the chasing group means they can't be as well supported.

I've recently formed an opinion on one contributor to this thread, based on their opinion of PBP terrain, derived from riding the first 300km. I'm now questioning the ratio of evidence to prejudice in their posts.