# Froome in trouble



## coldash

Full story on Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol | Cyclingnews.com here

I’ll wait until the facts are established but it raises the whole TUE issue (for everyone) again


----------



## DaveG

coldash said:


> Full story on Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol | Cyclingnews.com here
> 
> I’ll wait until the facts are established but it raises the whole TUE issue (for everyone) again


I think its inspiring that athletes with debilitating asthma and COPD can somehow rise to the highest level of professional sport


----------



## love4himies

Just read that. Somehow it doesn't surprise me at all. I just don't believe somebody who is clean can race at that level for years and win multiple grand tours. It's Armstrong all over again.


----------



## coldash

I’ve just read some more of the details and it is very strange. He appears to be well over the limit (x2) yet knows he was being tested every day and bound to be caught if he exceeded the limit. 

In any event I hope that the UCI investigation is fair and if he is found in contravention (and right now I can’t see how he wasn’t) then the sanctions applied are consistent with previous cases. 

PS. I wonder if Landa will be regretting leaning Sky now. He could have been in with a chance of TdF leadership


----------



## 9W9W

*ding!*

Oh maaaaaan! Oh maaaaan! *rubs hands together*

I'm gonna go get the popcorn. brb


----------



## Alaska Mike

Darn Spanish beef...


----------



## aclinjury

just how common is asthma among Sky riders? Maybe cycling should ban all asthma victims at the pro level, you know, to protect their own health. Joke. Stripe him of the title and ban him a couple years. That should be a fair punishment.


----------



## DaveG

aclinjury said:


> just how common is asthma among Sky riders? Maybe cycling should ban all asthma victims at the pro level, you know, to protect their own health. Joke. Stripe him of the title and ban him a couple years. That should be a fair punishment.


As a group pro cyclists are very sick people. I personally think pro cycling should do away with TUEs. Its clearly a joke


----------



## LostViking

Jury still out on this one but it's not looking good - a little over the limit and I'd be inclined to give Froomie the benefit of the doubt (an exceptionally hard day with his asthma - took one pull too many from his inhaler, I'd let that go) - but 2x the limit goes too far!

I think we can all agree that the TUE policy needs to be revised. 

Sky is quickly becoming the new U.S. Postal.


----------



## aclinjury

coldash said:


> I’ve just read some more of the details and it is very strange. He appears to be well over the limit (x2) yet knows he was being tested every day and bound to be caught if he exceeded the limit.
> 
> In any event I hope that the UCI investigation is fair and if he is found in contravention (and right now I can’t see how he wasn’t) then the sanctions applied are consistent with previous cases.
> 
> PS. I wonder if Landa will be regretting leaning Sky now. He could have been in with a chance of TdF leadership


Landa is or should be glad to have moved.


----------



## Rashadabd

DaveG said:


> As a group pro cyclists are very sick people. I personally think pro cycling should do away with TUEs. Its clearly a joke


'

This is the real issue and a really fair question. Has Sky basically been using TUEs to dope their way to grand tour victories? When you line the Wiggins and Froome issues up side by side, it certainly doesn't look good. FWIW, I think people like Dan Martin have legitimate issues that they use medication to control so that they can compete on a level playing field (his allergies are so severe he basically can't even ride if he doesn't take them), but I am very suspicious of what is going on at Sky. 

Nibali on Froome: ‘It’s a big blow to cycling’ | VeloNews.com


----------



## aclinjury

DaveG said:


> As a group pro cyclists are very sick people. I personally think pro cycling should do away with TUEs. Its clearly a joke


Sky has learned to milk TUEs to its max. Wiggin, Froome. One has to wonder what else they are doing besides TUEs. It'd be a little naive to think that TUEs are it for them.


----------



## coldash

DaveG said:


> As a group pro cyclists are very sick people. I personally think pro cycling should do away with TUEs. Its clearly a joke


In that case, the future for Team Novo Nordisk doesn’t look promising

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-therapeutic-use-exemptions-team-novo-nordisk


----------



## MMsRepBike

I've pondered this a bit.

My decision is that he's a guilty doper.

Others have been busted for this in the past, at less concentrations, and been given bans for it.

His concentration and timing of this drug tell me he deserves a full ban of at least 12 months.

If he doesn't get banned and races grand tours, I will not be watching them or paying attention to them.

For me, this is it for him.


----------



## coldash

aclinjury said:


> Sky has learned to milk TUEs to its max. Wiggin, Froome. One has to wonder what else they are doing besides TUEs. It'd be a little naive to think that TUEs are it for them.


AIUI, in the Froome case, there wasn’t a TUE required. The use of the substance is allowed but there are limits on how much is taken and also on what shows up in tests (2 separate points). In this case the tests indicate that he took too much. The next stage will be to establish how much he took (how?) and if this was within the limits to figure out why his test results were so high. I guess there is a long way to go on this

And if anyone thinks TUEs are only an issue for Sky, then they are being naive


----------



## velodog

No more Vuelta.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vue...treme-caution-after-froome-salbutamol-result/


----------



## Jwiffle

velodog said:


> No more Vuelta.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vue...treme-caution-after-froome-salbutamol-result/


That only says he's at risk of losing it, not that he has.


----------



## velodog

Jwiffle said:


> That only says he's at risk of losing it, not that he has.


Yeah, I guess that I'm just to eager to see the guy squashed.


----------



## spdntrxi

Is his wife twittering in his defense yet?


----------



## coldash

I guess this will have been reported 

'Chris Froome's drug reading makes his Vuelta a Espana win more remarkable'

elsewhere but it could lead to the position where if he was found in contravention of the WADA and UCI rules, he couls appeal and win at the CAS because the rule is unjustifiable because the use of the substance gives no competitive advantage other than to combat athsma


----------



## Fredrico

coldash said:


> I guess this will have been reported
> 
> 'Chris Froome's drug reading makes his Vuelta a Espana win more remarkable'
> 
> elsewhere but it could lead to the position where if he was found in contravention of the WADA and UCI rules, he couls appeal and win at the CAS because the rule is unjustifiable because the use of the substance gives no competitive advantage other than to combat athsma


Wanna bet riders can't work themselves into asthma symptoms by putting in too many miles at max. intensities, and don't fully recover? Exercise induces asthma symptoms in many otherwise healthy riders. I'd give Froome the benefit of the doubt if his excuse is accurate. 

He had to take this drug to breathe. Otherwise he's out of the race. Doesn't seem fair to brand him a criminal for this. Caffeine will do the same thing.


----------



## MMsRepBike

Fredrico said:


> He had to take this drug to breathe. Otherwise he's out of the race. Doesn't seem fair to brand him a criminal for this. Caffeine will do the same thing.


Does it take between 20 and 32 puffs from an inhaler in an afternoon to be able to breathe? 

He gets 10-16 with no questions asked. He took at least double that.

He didn't need it to breathe.

He needed it to win.


----------



## coldash

Nobody yet knows how many puffs he took. All that is known is the test results. If Froome’s “conversion ratio” is abnormal then the number of puffs may differ from the estimate. 

What seems odd is why would anyone “OD” on a substance that the consensus now suggests has no performance advantages


----------



## crit_boy

I admit to not having enough medical knowledge about this area. 

Here is my take - 

I cannot be a professional cyclist because my genetics do not allow me to process/convert enough oxygen per unit time. 

If someone got the crappy genetic dice roll of asthma, diabetes, etc. that they cannot be a professional cyclist without drugs, how is that genetic dice roll different from me?

In other words, if you can't compete without drugs then sorry you can't compete. Life is not fair. 

I can see TUEs for temporary conditions (saddle sore). But, no TUE for chronic conditions.


----------



## Rashadabd

FWIW, I am with Nibali and Tony Martin.

Tony Martin: Froome case a 'scandal' and 'double standard' | VeloNews.com

Nibali: Chris Froome salbutamol case is bad news for cycling | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## aclinjury

crit_boy said:


> I admit to not having enough medical knowledge about this area.
> 
> Here is my take -
> 
> I cannot be a professional cyclist because my genetics do not allow me to process/convert enough oxygen per unit time.
> 
> If someone got the crappy genetic dice roll of asthma, diabetes, etc. that they cannot be a professional cyclist without drugs, how is that genetic dice roll different from me?
> 
> In other words, if you can't compete without drugs then sorry you can't compete. Life is not fair.
> 
> I can see TUEs for temporary conditions (saddle sore). But, no TUE for chronic conditions.


bingo! You have a medical condition? Tough luck bud. Life is not fair. Exercise induced asthma is a part of endurance sport. Your body can't cope? Again, life is not fair.

But here's also the thing. Vuelta season doesn't have the high level of pollen like during Tour. So, one less reason for him to use that much of the stuff


----------



## Rashadabd

aclinjury said:


> bingo! You have a medical condition? Tough luck bud. Life is not fair. Exercise induced asthma is a part of endurance sport. Your body can't cope? Again, life is not fair.
> 
> But here's also the thing. Vuelta season doesn't have the high level of pollen like during Tour. So, one less reason for him to use that much of the stuff


Nibali also says it was raining that day and he has the same condition, but didn't feel the impact of any pollen during that stage. Something isn't right and I highly doubt the veracity of the assertion that this drug doesn't improve performance in any way. Why ban it if that's the case? There's a whole lot of smoke surrounding Sky and the administration of TUEs.....


----------



## aclinjury

coldash said:


> I guess this will have been reported
> 
> 'Chris Froome's drug reading makes his Vuelta a Espana win more remarkable'
> 
> elsewhere but it could lead to the position where if he was found in contravention of the WADA and UCI rules, he couls appeal and win at the CAS because the rule is unjustifiable because the use of the substance gives no competitive advantage other than to combat athsma


That the English/UK media outlet is defending him is not surprising.

However, fact remains that there was a rule in place, and he broke that rule. This is the same rule that has gotten past riders banned. As it is right now, what matters is not Froome saying "oh but that stuff doesn't give me an advantage" and be able to bypass the rule. If he wan't to argue from that angle, then fine, and if after WADA has review that there is overwhelming evidence supporting his position, then then WADA can change the rule... for the future. But for now, Froome shouldn't be able to get a pass. He knew the rule was in place, his team knew about it. It's clear cut.

The only position that Froome has now is if he can prove from a pharmacokinetics point of view how he got that much sulbutamol in his blood by taking the allowed dose. Seems like a pretty hard thing to prove, unless he has alien physiology in him.


----------



## OldChipper

coldash said:


> Nobody yet knows how many puffs he took. All that is known is the test results. If Froome’s “conversion ratio” is abnormal then the number of puffs may differ from the estimate.
> 
> What seems odd is why would anyone “OD” on a substance that the consensus now suggests has no performance advantages


Yeah, this is what bugs me too. Knew he was going to be tested, limits are clear and well known. Has anyone considered the Russian urine-switchers???  

At a higher level, I have to wonder if it's legal at all and given there's little to no benefit to non-asthmatics, I'm not sure why there's even a limit (other than for health reasons?). 

As stated, the key issue is how quickly his body metabolizes and excretes salbutamol. Speculation until this is established is meaningless and a waste of time.


----------



## aclinjury

Rashadabd said:


> Nibali also says it was raining that day and he has the same condition, but didn't feel the impact of any pollen during that stage. Something isn't right and I highly doubt the veracity of the assertion that this drug doesn't improve performance in any way. Why ban it if that's the case? There's a whole lot of smoke surrounding Sky and the administration of TUEs.....


Wiggins and the injection of asthma drug one week before the 2012 Tour and the whole jiffy bag stuff, now Froome. In this sport, that's plenty enough to implicate guilt for Sky. Sky, the team that invented the "zero tolerance" policy, should know. Apologists will defend Froome, just like Armstrong apologists.


----------



## DaveG

coldash said:


> In that case, the future for Team Novo Nordisk doesn’t look promising
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-therapeutic-use-exemptions-team-novo-nordisk


I kinda agree with Crit Boy below. This team seems more about public education and ambassadorship than actually winning a Tour. They have a medical condition that prevents that from competing without drugs; its sad but nature made that call. Can I claim that I have a genetic defect that gives me a low V02 Max so I should be allowed to take EPO?


----------



## coldash

aclinjury said:


> That the English/UK media outlet is defending him is not surprising.


 That expert works in a Scottish not English facility and the UK media as a whole has a fairly hostile attitude to Sky e.g. Daily Mail, Guardian, Telegraph and even the Murdoch owned papers e.g. the Sunday Times and its leading sports journalist - David Walsh. Some might recognise that name!


----------



## CoffeeBean2

Here is an interesting (but lengthy) article: 

https://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/

The author has an interesting point:

"So, all of that history brings us to Chris Froome, whose urine contains levels that exceed the threshold by 100%. 2000 ng/ml vs 1000 ng/ml. Twice as high. That’s a big miss. Like going out to buy a TV with a budget of $1000 and coming home with an 84 inch flat screen and surround sound speakers. It would take some pretty remarkable adjustments in dosage, or (possibly normal, mind) pharmacology, to clear the bar by that amount.

The first thing I read in response to this story was the following quote by Froome:

“My asthma got worse at the Vuelta so I followed the team doctor’s advice to increase my Salbutamol dosage. As always, I took the greatest care to ensure that I did not use more than the permissible dose”. (emphasis added)

So with “the greatest care”, Froome and a doctor, working together, with years of experience using this very same drug in stage races, managed to miss the mark by 100%? They missed the upper allowable limit by a factor of 2?

Now, at this point, one has to understand that this is not necessarily a simple concept. I tweeted earlier and included the clause “All things being equal”, because that’s very important.

Think of it this way – there’s an input, and an output. The input is the dosage of salbutamol that is inhaled. The output is what appears in the urine.

But that’s not a 1:1 relationship, for obvious reasons – we are not simply filters that produce urine that is identical to what we ingest (or consume). It’s not even a consistent relationship, of say 1:0.01, where we can predict, with certainty, that for every 1000 mcg that is ingested, 10 mcg will appear in the urine. That’s because the physiological processes that metabolize the drug and the timing affect the output for a given input, and vary even from day to day in the same individual.

In other words, not only do we not know the value of “X” in the ratio of Input:Output that says 1000:X, we also don’t know how much X changes from day to day, and why! A slippery issue."


----------



## rufus

I thought this stuff could be used as a masking agent?


----------



## Rashadabd

All I can say is let the games begin:

Commentary: No easy (or quick) solution in Froome case | VeloNews.com

Vegni: 'Giro d'Italia can't repeat Contador situation with Froome' - Cycling Weekly

There is a strong precedent of riders being suspended for failed tests involving this particular drug. If the UCI gives him a pass, everyone looks shady....

From the first article:

Even so, the precedents suggest that Froome’s hopes of avoiding a ban are slim. Italian star sprinter Alessandro Petacchi was given a 12-month ban and stripped of his five stage victories at the 2007 Giro for exceeding the Salbutamol limit.

More recently Diego Ulissi served a nine-month doping ban after the 2014 Giro, where he won two stages, showed 1900 nanograms per milliliter of Salbutamol.

Pat McQuaid, the former UCI president who oversaw the Petacchi affair believes “it will be difficult for Froome and Sky to disprove” culpability.

“We had the same with Petacchi,” he said, “and he served time for that, despite making many efforts to show it wasn’t deliberate.”

“I think the case will run for a while,” McQuaid said. “I heard Brailsford’s comments about lawyers and it may go to CAS [Council for Arbitration in Sport] eventually but despite how hard they will try to prove he took the normal doses, this will be difficult for them.”

McQuaid sees the case stretching on into the 2018 season. “It could be going on during the Giro d’Italia and even during the Tour. If he is sanctioned soon by the UCI, then it will go to appeal at CAS and then it will take more time.”


Read more at Commentary: No easy (or quick) solution in Froome case | VeloNews.com


----------



## Rashadabd

Also from the same article (which is what I suspected despite assertions to the contrary):

And there has also been some confusion over the potential for misuse of Salbutamol, described by various media outlets as having no performance-enhancing qualities. That’s not how Jonathan Vaughters, whose team Cannondale-Drapac placed Rigoberto Uràn second overall to Froome in July’s Tour de France, sees it.

“It’s not a surprise that he was taking it,” Vaughters said of Froome’s Salbutamol use. “It’s the amount that is surprising.”

Salbutamol is effective at opening up inflamed airways for those with exercise-induced asthma. It has been common knowledge that Froome has taken the product during his career.

“It’s a tricky substance,” Vaughters added. “I’m not against people taking it for asthma or for an inflammation. In higher doses, such as pills or injections, Salbutamol can have a muscle-building effect and a fat-burning effect, like clenbuterol. When you get into the higher doses it can be performance-enhancing, which is why the threshold is where it is.”


Read more at Commentary: No easy (or quick) solution in Froome case | VeloNews.com


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> Also from the same article (which is what I suspected despite assertions to the contrary):
> 
> 
> “It’s not a surprise that he was taking it,” Vaughters said of Froome’s Salbutamol use. “It’s the amount that is surprising.”
> 
> Salbutamol is effective at opening up inflamed airways for those with exercise-induced asthma. It has been common knowledge that Froome has taken the product during his career.
> 
> “It’s a tricky substance,” Vaughters added. “I’m not against people taking it for asthma or for an inflammation. In higher doses, such as pills or injections, Salbutamol can have a muscle-building effect and a fat-burning effect, like clenbuterol. When you get into the higher doses it can be performance-enhancing, which is why the threshold is where it is.”
> 
> 
> Read more at Commentary: No easy (or quick) solution in Froome case | VeloNews.com


Yes but..... AIUI, the urine test can differentiate between the inhaled and the ingested / injected forms so that should be easy to resolve. And nothing explains why he would take such an amount knowing that he would be tested, as the current leader, and “caught”

I cant rationalize any of it but my best guess would be that it was either a Sky administrative problem i.e. they gave him more than they thought or that he has got the physiology that explains the input / output mismatch. If I was going to bet on it, I would go for the admin error, in which case, IMHO, it should follow the Yates precedent. But who knows?


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Yes but..... AIUI, the urine test can differentiate between the inhaled and the ingested / injected forms so that should be easy to resolve. And nothing explains why he would take such an amount knowing that he would be tested, as the current leader, and “caught”
> 
> I cant rationalize any of it but my best guess would be that it was either a Sky administrative problem i.e. they gave him more than they thought or that he has got the physiology that explains the input / output mismatch. If I was going to bet on it, I would go for the admin error, in which case, IMHO, it should follow the Yates precedent. But who knows?


No buts, you get popped with levels like this and you get banned period. Like McQuaid said, it becomes his burden to then prove he took appropriate levels which is almost impossible. He shouldn't be treated any better than Pettachi and Ulissi were. It's the same drug and the same deal. We don't have to get in his head or creatively speculate or dance around the issue like you are trying to. He failed the test, he has a right to appeal, but if the powers that be are being fair, he gets suspended unless he proves he didn't take more than what is allowed. End of story.


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> No buts, you get popped with levels like this and you get banned period. Like McQuaid said, it becomes his burden to then prove he took appropriate levels which is almost impossible. He shouldn't be treated any better than Pettachi and Ulissi were. It's the same drug and the same deal. * We don't have to get in his head or creatively speculate or dance around the issue like you are trying to. *He failed the test, he has a right to appeal, but if the powers that be are being fair, he gets suspended unless he proves he didn't take more than what is allowed. End of story.


Sorry to be rational about this and take a dispassionate view. I see that has offended you

This is an excellent article
Chris Froome’s Salbutamol Case

... and in case you missed it, I will repeat that My best guess so far is that it will follow the Yates precedent


----------



## MMsRepBike

coldash said:


> Nobody yet knows how many puffs he took. All that is known is the test results. If Froome’s “*conversion ratio*” is abnormal then the number of puffs may differ from the estimate.





CoffeeBean2 said:


> In other words, not only *do we not know* the value of “X” in the *ratio of Input:Output* that says 1000:X, we also don’t know how much X changes from day to day, and why! A slippery issue."



This line of defense is pure bullshit. There's zero chance this is going to fly. 

In the medical field with drugs we use something called a half-life. One human is not vastly different than another in the length of a half-life of a drug, the standard deviation is very small.

Half-life can be used to measure the toxicity of almost anything to a very precise margin. It's used extensively in the medical world to diagnose and treat issues and to establish how and how much to use in that treatment.





Rashadabd said:


> In higher doses, such as pills or injections, Salbutamol can have a muscle-building effect and a fat-burning effect, like clenbuterol. When you get into the higher doses it can be performance-enhancing, which is why the threshold is where it is.”


This is true, it's a beta-2 agonist and is anabolic. I'm sure you've seen the word anabolic before. It means what he says, it's tissue building and muscle burning.



coldash said:


> And nothing explains why he would take such an amount knowing that he would be tested, as the current leader, and “caught”
> 
> I cant rationalize any of it but my best guess would be that it was either a Sky administrative problem i.e. they gave him more than they thought or that he has got the physiology that explains the input / output mismatch. If I was going to bet on it, I would go for the admin error, in which case, IMHO, it should follow the Yates precedent. But who knows?


He explained it himself.

He said he was sick and needed help. 

His results show very clearly that he got that help.

Was it from this or what this was masking? It doesn't matter. He's guilty.


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Sorry to be rational about this and take a dispassionate view. I see that has offended you
> 
> This is an excellent article
> Chris Froome’s Salbutamol Case
> 
> ... and in case you missed it, I will repeat that My best guess so far is that it will follow the Yates precedent


I think you got that backwards. I have no dog in this fight. I don't hate Froome and I don't love him. I don't try to justify cheating though by speculating about this and that when there is clear precedent on how WADA and the UCI treat these cases. I am also guessing McQuiad has a bit more insight than you do. However it turns out, pro cycling desperately needs the process to be extremely fair and for that to be clear. There's too much dust in the air with Sky's name attached to it. They need to do the right thing here and if that involves giving Sky and Froome a pass, it needs to painfully clear why they are doing so. The smart move is to treat him just like Pettachi and Ulissi. That's actually how you steer clear of your pro Sky emotions....


----------



## Neolithic

I've got exercise induced asthma. That's *why* I ride, so I can build lung capacity so more severe attacks become more moderate and more moderate attacks are more likely to not happen. I bring that up as a point of emphasizing that I'm more likely to be sympathetic with Froome. I'm just stating my bias up front...

My initial gut reaction to all of this:

I understand that these rescue inhalers don't do much for non-asthmatics. So I have a hard time understanding why it's banned. But I am not a pharmacologist so I'm more than willing to be educated on this front.

But I'm terribly concerned about the hints of dozens of doses in the course of a day. Growing up I was told to be concerned if I needed over 4 doses in a day. This indicates to me that something is seriously wrong, either with his asthma or it's used as a pseudo-legitimate cover for more nefarious means. A trophy isn't worth dying for, and it certainly isn't worth cheating for.

What I'd like to see is an open process to determine how much he took in relation to how much his body processes. If he's within ranges for normal people and normal dosages then I'd say have a focused and targeted punishment for breaking known rules and moving on, likely with the aim of readjusting the existing rules. But if he's way out of bounds then I wouldn't have a problem pursuing more serious, more general, and more lasting consequences for him and his team.


----------



## Rashadabd

Neolithic said:


> I've got exercise induced asthma. That's *why* I ride, so I can build lung capacity so more severe attacks become more moderate and more moderate attacks are more likely to not happen. I bring that up as a point of emphasizing that I'm more likely to be sympathetic with Froome. I'm just stating my bias up front...
> 
> My initial gut reaction to all of this:
> 
> I understand that these rescue inhalers don't do much for non-asthmatics. So I have a hard time understanding why it's banned. But I am not a pharmacologist so I'm more than willing to be educated on this front.
> 
> But I'm terribly concerned about the hints of dozens of doses in the course of a day. Growing up I was told to be concerned if I needed over 4 doses in a day. This indicates to me that something is seriously wrong, either with his asthma or it's used as a pseudo-legitimate cover for more nefarious means. A trophy isn't worth dying for, and it certainly isn't worth cheating for.
> 
> What I'd like to see is an open process to determine how much he took in relation to how much his body processes. If he's within ranges for normal people and normal dosages then I'd say have a focused and targeted punishment for breaking known rules and moving on, likely with the aim of readjusting the existing rules. But if he's way out of bounds then I wouldn't have a problem pursuing more serious, more general, and more lasting consequences for him and his team.


Again, we did not do that for Pettachi, we did not do that for Ulissi, so why are now jumping through all of these mental hurdles for Sky and Froome? Why does the benefit of the doubt suddenly surface when we are talking about Team Sky and the multi-time almost super human reigning TdF champ?


----------



## coldash

MMsRepBike said:


> This line of defense is pure bullshit. There's zero chance this is going to fly.
> 
> In the medical field with drugs we use something called a half-life. One human is not vastly different than another in the length of a half-life of a drug, the standard deviation is very small.
> 
> Half-life can be used to measure the toxicity of almost anything to a very precise margin. It's used extensively in the medical world to diagnose and treat issues and to establish how and how much to use in that treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, it's a beta-2 agonist and is anabolic. I'm sure you've seen the word anabolic before. It means what he says, it's tissue building and muscle burning.
> 
> 
> 
> He explained it himself.
> 
> He said he was sick and needed help.
> 
> His results show very clearly that he got that help.
> 
> Was it from this or what this was masking? It doesn't matter. He's guilty.


I’m well aware of half-life and indeed it’s variability depending on the load on the body’s activity and excretion rate. I just hope that I’m never put on any medicine that you are involved with. Your assertions are baseless


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> I think you got that backwards. I have no dog in this fight. I don't hate Froome and I don't love him. I don't try to justify cheating though by speculating about this and that when there is clear precedent on how WADA and the UCI treat these cases. I am also guessing McQuiad has a bit more insight than you do. However it turns out, pro cycling desperately needs the process to be extremely fair and for that to be clear. There's too much dust in the air with Sky's name attached to it. They need to do the right thing here and if that involves giving Sky and Froome a pass, it needs to painfully clear why they are doing so. The smart move is to treat him just like Pettachi and Ulissi. That's actually how you steer clear of your pro Sky emotions....


I have no dog in this fight either. If you notice, it was me who posted first on this and I think Froome is in trouble. As for McQuaid and his insights, I’m quite happy to disassociate myself from any of them but if you think he represents all that is good about cycling governance then that is up to you


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> I have no dog in this fight either. If you notice, it was me who posted first on this and I think Froome is in trouble. As for McQuaid and his insights, I’m quite happy to disassociate myself from any of them but if you think he represents all that is good about cycling governance then that is up to you


Sure you don't... I never said McQuaid is a saint, I said my guess is he knows more about this than you and that I would place more weight on his opinion than I do some random internet dude that is speculating all over the place. Your response is just childish in light of the actual point I made as a result. 

Look man, if you need to engage in mental gymnastics to convince yourself that Froome really didn't intentionally do a bad thing here or that he is above reproach/punishment, etc., by all means, do you. Just don't expect all of the rest of us to come along for the ride. You should have expected that when you posted in my opinion. That's all. Carry on with the debate about whether he inhaled or it was a contact high....


----------



## Neolithic

Rashadabd said:


> Again, we did not do that for Pettachi, we did not do that for Ulissi, so why are now jumping through all of these mental hurdles for Sky and Froome? Why does the benefit of the doubt suddenly surface when we are talking about Team Sy and the multi time almost super human reigning TdF champ?


I'm not saying he should get no punishment. They were well known and well stated rules and he violated them.

Where this case is different we have a good opportunity of using a high profile case to spur the effort of re-evaluating the nature of the rules or explicitly confirming them. Maybe this rule was put in as part of overreacting to the extreme doping for many years and it should be relaxed. Or maybe it's a masking agent (or has different results at extreme doses) and you can use the stage to show everyone else that there is an extremely good reason for the limits in place. *That* is what I want to see come out of this.


----------



## Rashadabd

Neolithic said:


> I'm not saying he should get no punishment. They were well known and well stated rules and he violated them.
> 
> Where this case is different we have a good opportunity of using a high profile case to spur the effort of re-evaluating the nature of the rules or explicitly confirming them. Maybe this rule was put in as part of overreacting to the extreme doping for many years and it should be relaxed. Or maybe it's a masking agent (or has different results at extreme doses) and you can use the stage to show everyone else that there is an extremely good reason for the limits in place. *That* is what I want to see come out of this.


You don't re-evaluate midstream when one of the biggest names in your sport gets popped for a common drug that has been abused by others that got suspended. That's compliance 101. You re-evaluate when there is no case in front of you in the offseason. If you want to cite his case as one of the reasons for a rule change, fine, but you don't take one step in a direction that makes it look like you are giving a multi-time TdF champion preferential treatment. You definitely don't do that after the Armstrong debacle and the Contador case.


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> Sure you don't... I never said McQuaid is a saint, I said my guess is he knows more about this than you and that I would place more weight on his opinion than I do some random internet dude that is speculating all over the place. Your response is just childish in light of the actual point I made as a result.
> 
> Look man, if you need to engage in mental gymnastics to convince yourself that Froome really didn't intentionally do a bad thing here or that he is above reproach/punishment, etc., by all means, do you. Just don't expect all of the rest of us to come along for the ride. You should have expected that when you posted in my opinion. That's all. Carry on with the debate about whether he inhaled or it was a contact high....


OK. I see the problem. I can see that mental gymnastics is not your strong point so I’ll help you.

I can’t see why he would intentionally take a drug that proved to have no performance gain and that is now recognized not to be a masking agent in the full knowledge that he would be caught, so that leads me to suspect that it has an OD caused by the team admin (so he gets a ban as per Yates and Orica) or it is a physiological issue (potentially no ban depending on what the UCI determine or a ban because that possibility doesn’t fly)

My guess right now is the former and a ban

BTW. Who is this “rest of us” of which you speak?


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> OK. I see the problem. I can see that mental gymnastics is not your strong point so I’ll help you.
> 
> I can’t see why he would intentionally take a drug that proved to have no performance gain and that is now recognized not to be a masking agent in the full knowledge that he would be caught, so that leads me to suspect that it has an OD caused by the team admin (so he gets a ban as per Yates and Orica) or it is a physiological issue (potentially no ban depending on what the UCI determine or a ban because that possibility doesn’t fly)
> 
> My guess right now is the former and a ban
> 
> BTW. Who is this “rest of us” of which you speak?


More gymnastics. And yes, you are correct, I prefer logic over contrived attempts to justify what shouldn't be justified. What you can or cannot see is irrelevant. What you suspect or do not suspect is irrelevant. Why can't you understand that? It's all comes down to how these cases are processed and what Froome can or cannot prove. That is exactly what McQuaid was speaking to. I am speaking for the people using the royal "We." The end. 

Edit... did you just say ban? Ah, you are finally seeing the light laddie....


----------



## Neolithic

Again, I'm not saying treat him differently. I'm saying use the high profile case as political capital to start the potentially expensive and time consuming process of rule making moving forward.

You lose faith if you pop people for technicalities that don't effect the outcome. Similarly you lose faith if you always hand wave concerns with, "trust us."

Think "Reefer Madness". Marijuana and heroin were presented as serious problems. Experimentation with marijuana showed it's not a serious problem so a number assumed they were lied to about heroin as well.

Cycling thrives off sponsorship. Sponsorship relies on perception more often than fact, unfortunately. Occasionally spend the money/time/effort to show that the UCI and WADA are able to adapt with new information *or* has legitimately arrived at an effective rule.

But I also must admit that there's a difference between legitimate reassurance and a dog-and-pony-show to distract. It can be a very difficult problem.

So in short, I may just be playing entirely too much devil's advocate here...


----------



## MMsRepBike

coldash said:


> I can’t see why he would intentionally take a drug that *proved to have no performance gain* and that is *now recognized not to be a masking agent* in the full knowledge that he would be caught, so that leads me to suspect that it has an OD caused by the team admin (so he gets a ban as per Yates and Orica) or it is a physiological issue (potentially no ban depending on what the UCI determine or a ban because that possibility doesn’t fly)
> 
> My guess right now is the former and a ban


Wrong again.

As I stated above and several others much smarter than you have, it IS performance enhancing at those higher doses. It's ANABOLIC.

It's LISTED as a MASKING AGENT in the WADA code.


----------



## David Loving

Why not just ban the use of Salbutamol, period? If one has exercise induced asthma, cycling is not the sport for that person.


----------



## love4himies

coldash said:


> Yes but..... AIUI, the urine test can differentiate between the inhaled and the ingested / injected forms so that should be easy to resolve. And nothing explains why he would take such an amount knowing that he would be tested, as the current leader, and “caught”
> 
> I cant rationalize any of it but my best guess would be that it was either a Sky administrative problem i.e. they gave him more than they thought or that he has got the physiology that explains the input / output mismatch. If I was going to bet on it, I would go for the admin error, in which case, IMHO, it should follow the Yates precedent. But who knows?


He is still responsible for what goes into his body and to ensure that all the proper paperwork gets filed, otherwise everybody could use that excuse. 

If Froome gets off from being banned it will just show that cycling hasn't changed since the Armstrong days.


----------



## Rashadabd

love4himies said:


> He is still responsible for what goes into his body and to ensure that all the proper paperwork gets filed, otherwise everybody could use that excuse.
> 
> If Froome gets off from being banned it will just show that cycling hasn't changed since the Armstrong days.


Amen.... listen to love4hymies and you won't get so many headaches from all of that gymnastics you are doing..... :thumbsup:


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> More gymnastics. And yes, you are correct, I prefer logic over contrived attempts to justify what shouldn't be justified. What you can or cannot see is irrelevant. What you suspect or do not suspect is irrelevant. Why can't you understand that? It's all comes down to how these cases are processed and what Froome can or cannot prove. That is exactly what McQuaid was speaking to. I am speaking for the people using the royal "We." The end.
> 
> *Edit... did you just say ban? Ah, you are finally seeing the light laddie.*...


Finally seeing the light?... I said that in post 37 and post 39 and now again. I can only assume that you don’t know what the Yates precedent is. Look it up. Clue, he gor a ban because the team failed to register a TUE properly. Team fault - rider ban. I’ll even include a link
Simon Yates handed four-month 'non-intentional' doping ban | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## coldash

love4himies said:


> He is still responsible for what goes into his body and to ensure that all the proper paperwork gets filed, otherwise everybody could use that excuse.
> 
> If Froome gets off from being banned it will just show that cycling hasn't changed since the Armstrong days.


Completely agree. He claims that what went in was legal and takes responsibility for that The dispute from his point of view is the relationship between that and what comes out. I doubt that hence why I quoted the Yates precedent
Simon Yates handed four-month 'non-intentional' doping ban | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> Finally seeing the light?... I said that in post 37 and post 39 and now again. I can only assume that you don’t know what the Yates precedent is. Look it up. Clue, he gor a ban because the team failed to register a TUE properly. Team fault - rider ban. I’ll even include a link
> Simon Yates handed four-month 'non-intentional' doping ban | Cyclingnews.com


I know exactly what happened to Yates. My wife would be the first to tell you that I watch more pro cycling than any human probably should. Why are you debating then if you understand the precedent? You kind of have to agree with McQuaid if you do. 

Now, are you seriously suggesting, with nothing to go on other than your own good heart and Froome love, that Froome is in no way responsible for his failed test? If so, I can't with this one. I just have to let go at this point. Believe what you need to buddy. Hopefully, Team Sky sends you a t-shirt or something....

Edit: Psst- there is no such thing as team fault, rider ban. Every athlete is responsible for what goes in their body. This is another precedent that has been firmly established across multiple sports.


----------



## coldash

MMsRepBike said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> As I stated above and several others much smarter than you have, it IS performance enhancing at those higher doses. It's ANABOLIC.
> 
> It's LISTED as a MASKING AGENT in the WADA code.


This has been widely posted



> For example, from Daniel Freibe: Have seen speculation over last 24hrs about salbutamol possibly being a masking agent. France National Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) testing director Michel Audran told me today this is definitely NOT the case.


But what would he know


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> I know exactly what happened to Yates. My wife would be the first to tell you that I watch more pro cycling than any human probably should. Why are you debating then if you understand the precedent? You kind of have to agree with McQuaid if you do.
> 
> Now, are you seriously suggesting, with nothing to go on other than your own good heart and Froome love, that Froome is in no way responsible for his failed test? If so, I can't with this one. I just have to let go at this point. Believe what you need to buddy. Hopefully, Team Sky sends you a t-shirt or something....
> 
> Edit: Psst- there is no such thing as team fault, rider ban. Every athlete is responsible for what goes in their body. This is another consistent precedent.


How did you manage to miss the significance of the Yates precedent comment if you you know so much or does it have to be posted 3 times before you get it. I’m sure the Sky t shirt is on its way to thank me for raising this thread. It was all a cunning plan

The team fault-rider ban is reality. The team told the rider one thing (and the rider has no way in reality to validate this) and it turns out to be wrong. The rider takes the ban. That is the way it works see Yates precedent yet again


----------



## Rashadabd

More on the issue. The reality remains the same, he has to prove he took the allowed amounts.....

Anti-doping expert on Froome: ‘It doesn't quite add up' | VeloNews.com

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-at-all-times/beta-2-agonists


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> More on the issue. * The reality remains the same, he has to prove he took the allowed amounts.....*
> 
> Anti-doping expert on Froome: â€˜It doesn't quite add up' | VeloNews.com
> 
> https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-at-all-times/beta-2-agonists


On that we agree. That is one of the reason why as per the title he is in trouble

PS It might be an odd place to say it but thanks for your best wishes regarding my cardiac operation recovery (posted on another thread). I’m well on the road to full recovery but am currently taking a large number of non performance enhancing drugs. They also found a problem with the electrics so far now have a pacemaker. It can’t be programmed to increase my heart rate on demand so I guess that is also non performance enhancing


----------



## Rashadabd

coldash said:


> How did you manage to miss the significance of the Yates precedent comment if you you know so much or does it have to be posted 3 times before you get it. I’m sure the Sky t shirt is on its way to thank me for raising this thread. It was all a cunning plan
> 
> The team fault-rider ban is reality. The team told the rider one thing (and the rider has no way in reality to validate this) and it turns out to be wrong. The rider takes the ban. That is the way it works see Yates precedent yet again


If that's the case, what are you arguing about? Just say I agree he should be banned and move on...... You seem to be bouncing back and forth contradicting yourself at times to be honest. If I misread the point you were attempting to make, my bad, but....

Read my last post. There is no sport where you can say the doctor told me to take it so I did and be cleared. The anti-doping official interviewed by Velonews touches on that among other things. He also says a bunch of semi-neutral nice things, but his conclusion is right where a number of people in this thread/world are: It doesn't add up and the situation will be difficult to explain away.


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> If that's the case, what are you arguing about? Just say I agree he should be banned and move on...... You seem to be bouncing back and forth contradicting yourself at times to be honest. If I misread the point you were attempting to make, my bad, but....
> 
> Read my last post. There is no sport where you can say the doctor told me to take it so I did and be cleared. The anti-doping official interviewed by Velonews touches on that among other things. He also says a bunch of semi-neutral nice things, but his conclusion is right where a number of people in this thread/world are: It doesn't add up and the situation will be difficult to explain away.


To honest, I think you did misread my point. I think we are having a heated agreement


----------



## Rashadabd

This is where you started to lose some of us btw....

I guess this will have been reported 

'Chris Froome's drug reading makes his Vuelta a Espana win more remarkable'

elsewhere but it could lead to the position where if he was found in contravention of the WADA and UCI rules, he couls appeal and win at the CAS* because the rule is unjustifiable because the use of the substance gives no competitive advantage other than to combat athsma"*


----------



## coldash

Rashadabd said:


> This is where you started to lose some of us btw....
> 
> I guess this will have been reported
> 
> 'Chris Froome's drug reading makes his Vuelta a Espana win more remarkable'
> 
> elsewhere but it could lead to the position where if he was found in contravention of the WADA and UCI rules, he couls appeal and win at the CAS* because the rule is unjustifiable because the use of the substance gives no competitive advantage other than to combat athsma"*


I didn’t say I agreed with it just that it is a possibility and the CAS have overturned governing bodies decisions in the past, not just in cyclng


----------



## SNS1938

coldash said:


> Nobody yet knows how many puffs he took. All that is known is the test results. If Froome’s “conversion ratio” is abnormal then the number of puffs may differ from the estimate.
> 
> What seems odd is why would anyone “OD” on a substance that the consensus now suggests has no performance advantages



Just seems that if he's used it for years and been heavily tested for years, he'd have a really good idea of X puffs = Y result, and this time he got it way wrong (unless his body, this time, processed it differently).

It's all so timely, Wiggan's TUEs, Jiffy bag, Sutton's interview, and now this. And sky changed their kit from Black to White ... I kind of thing it should be grey.


----------



## coldash

SNS1938 said:


> Just seems that if he's used it for years and been heavily tested for years, he'd have a really good idea of X puffs = Y result, and this time he got it way wrong (unless his body, this time, processed it differently).
> 
> It's all so timely, Wiggan's TUEs, Jiffy bag, Sutton's interview, and now this. And sky changed their kit from Black to White ... I kind of thing it should be grey.


Excellent point. I would guess that the team should already have much of the data. I would also guess that the UCI already have a good idea about what happened. This case was in progress before it was leaked to the Press. We’ve got no idea about how many other investigations have been held because it is all supposed to be secret and remains that way unless a guilty verdict is determined


----------



## tommybike

This. Plus if he was dehydrated it can increase the readings. From an inhaler it would not be terribly performance enhancing. Although I guess being able to breathe normally is a performance enhancement over suffocating. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## tommybike

You could make the same comment about surgeries and other medical procedures. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Rashadabd

Copeland: Most teams would suspend Froome | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## zero85ZEN

Seems the most obvious explanation isn't that he over puffed on his inhaler at the Vuelta...but that he infused a stored bag of blood that was "glowing" from Salbutamol use during a period of training when he was using it for it's muscle building and weight loss benefits. 
So, in that light, the Salbutamol levels at the Vuelta would have no benefits to him...but the re-infused blood would! ;-)


----------



## love4himies

Rashadabd said:


> Copeland: Most teams would suspend Froome | Cyclingnews.com


Of course they would. And this just perpetuates that cycling is no better than it was back in the Armstrong era.

I never understood why they didn't join MPCC, but now I do. If they were a member they would have to suspend him. Not doing so, just keeps the suspicion of their riders being dopers or at the very least, pushing the "grey" area of doping.


----------



## love4himies

zero85ZEN said:


> Seems the most obvious explanation isn't that he over puffed on his inhaler at the Vuelta...but that he infused a stored bag of blood that was "glowing" from Salbutamol use during a period of training when he was using it for it's muscle building and weight loss benefits.
> So, in that light, the Salbutamol levels at the Vuelta would have no benefits to him...but the re-infused blood would! ;-)


Good point. This is just too suspicious as asthma isn't new to him and they have plenty of urine samples that would show a trend of how his body synthesizes it. He is claiming dehydration, but I'm sure he has been tested while dehydrated plenty of times. 

This time something went wrong in their "process" and they/he got caught.


----------



## Rashadabd

love4himies said:


> Of course they would. And this just perpetuates that cycling is no better than it was back in the Armstrong era.
> 
> I never understood why they didn't join MPCC, but now I do. If they were a member they would have to suspend him. Not doing so, just keeps the suspicion of their riders being dopers or at the very least, pushing the "grey" area of doping.


You are right on point again. I agree 100%. There is something very fishy about how they use TUEs. It looks very much like the evolution of organized doping. The only difference being, in this era, they hide it in plain sight via the use of medical conditions and TUEs. We'll see how it plays out, but this doesn't look good at all. The governing bodies desperately need to follow the protocol they have in similar cases involving excessive use of this drug. 

Don't forget this little gem has already been let out of the bag:

Sutton defends Wiggins' TUE use for marginal gains | Cyclingnews.com

Edit:

Armstrong era: EPO, blood transfusions, corticosteriods, testosterone, etc. -very covert, hidden, but doctor assisted

Contador era: Clenbuterol and similar drugs- covert & hidden personal program

Contador, Three-Time Tour de France Champion, Is Found Guilty of Doping - The New York Times

Sky era: Salbutamol, corticosteroids, Triamcinolone acetonide, and possibly other drugs via TUEs (team organized, no need to hide because you appear to be technically playing by the rules)....????

Bradley Wiggins explains TUE use, asthma and allergies | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Fredrico

David Loving said:


> Why not just ban the use of Salbutamol, period? If one has exercise induced asthma, cycling is not the sport for that person.


But Froome's a champ. He's the best. Shame to ban him from the sport because at the end of the season he sometimes gets asthma. I used to get it every Fall during ragweed season. Very common Fall allergy. If the drug doesn't affect performance, that makes Froome's situation even more ridiculous. Really. Is the world going insane or what?


----------



## velodog

Fredrico said:


> But Froome's a champ. He's the best. Shame to ban him from the sport because at the end of the season he sometimes gets asthma. I used to get it every Fall during ragweed season. Very common Fall allergy. If the drug doesn't affect performance, that makes Froome's situation even more ridiculous. Really. Is the world going insane or what?


Well, hell, Armstrong's a champ too, just needed to take PEDs because he only has one testicle. May as well give him back his Tour's de France standings.

I mean what the hell, just because the substance is banned, or someone is over the limit, why bother to enforce those rules. They're "champs".


----------



## David Loving

It is doping hiding in plain sight. If he's asthmatic, maybe he ought to get into power lifting or some other non-endurance sport. Does everybody get a pass? Well, except LA.


----------



## Rashadabd

Mr. Froome has lawyered up. I wonder why this guy wasn't hired in September when Froome and the team were notified of the failed test?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chr...neel-and-contador-lawyer-for-salbutamol-case/


----------



## Rashadabd

Once you get passed the commentary on the insult, there is some interesting content in this article:

Bradley Wiggins' wife calls Chris Froome a 'slithering reptile' | road.cc


----------



## DaveG

Fredrico said:


> But Froome's a champ. He's the best. Shame to ban him from the sport because at the end of the season he sometimes gets asthma. I used to get it every Fall during ragweed season. Very common Fall allergy. If the drug doesn't affect performance, that makes Froome's situation even more ridiculous. Really. Is the world going insane or what?


Fred,
You are talking about you getting allergies. That is not the same as thing as asthma which is a lung disease. The rules are there to protect against doping. If we want the sport cleaned up then we cant let cheaters go because the are champions while others are getting suspensions.


----------



## Rashadabd

A little tongue-in-cheek, but makes some valid points. 

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...me-affair-team-sky-champion-misunderstandings


----------



## Alaska Mike

Well, all Froome has to do is wait ten years and he'll be an honored guest at de Ronde.


----------



## DaveG

Rashadabd said:


> Mr. Froome has lawyered up. I wonder why this guy wasn't hired in September when Froome and the team were notified of the failed test?
> 
> Chris Froome hires former Bruyneel and Contador lawyer for salbutamol case | Cyclingnews.com


You get a "Lawyer of the Year" award for representing cheaters? That is sad


----------



## Rashadabd

This is how you respond when you are a team trying to do the right thing in my opinion:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lot...-lobato-tolhoek-and-eenkhoorn-over-sleep-aid/


----------



## Rashadabd

DaveG said:


> You get a "Lawyer of the Year" award for representing cheaters? That is sad


You get "Lawyer of the Year" because you know people and have influential friends that vouch for you.


----------



## Fredrico

DaveG said:


> Fred,
> You are talking about you getting allergies. That is not the same as thing as asthma which is a lung disease. The rules are there to protect against doping. If we want the sport cleaned up then we cant let cheaters go because the are champions while others are getting suspensions.


Asthma is a symptom of allergic reactions to ragweed, among other things, so yes we are talking about allergies. I had intense asthma from a pet cat my wife brought to the apartment. The floozy had 4 kittens and I was off. No way I could have won bike races at the time. 

Many athletes get asthma at the end of the season after being beat up for a year racing. There are plenty of Fall allergens as well as Spring. Froome's excuse is he was dehydrated from racing so the concentration of the drug was higher in his blood, leading to the high reading. Logical excuse. No other positive drug tests. 

If the substance doesn't enhance performance, why then is it banned? I think this is an effort to bring down a hero, nothing less, on a single questionable allegation. Other champs have been attacked on drug violations, Eddy Merckx being one. He claims innocence to this day.

We face the same over reactions in bike racing now that accomplished men are being racked over the coals of guilt for lusting after women in their youths. I think its a social sickness taking over Puritan America. So perverse in terms of personal freedom and the idea of innocent until proven guilty. :nono:

No comparison to Armstrong. He was on a regular doping program involving testosterone and EPO injections which definitely enhance performance. Big difference.


----------



## DaveG

Fredrico said:


> I think this is an effort to bring down a hero, nothing less, on a single questionable allegation. .


How is this some sort of conspiracy to bring him down? The stuff didn't just get banned. It was banned, he got a TUE and had a team doctor helping him administer it. He was well aware of the rules and he broke them. That is no one's faults but Froome's. If you make exceptions for riders because they are stars you have completely undermined your anti-doping campaign. How you worked in sexual harassment into the argument is an amazing segue


----------



## Rashadabd

^^^Exactly! Have you even been reading this thread and the articles that have been posted? The drug has been banned at that level for years. The rules were clear and he knew them, but violated them. He has acknowledged this himself, but is now trying to justify/explain the situation. Your “analysis” sound a little kooky bro....


----------



## BCSaltchucker

Alaska Mike said:


> Well, all Froome has to do is wait ten years and he'll be an honored guest at de Ronde.


and so he should, lol.

hey water under the bridge now. I think Armstrong would be a much better commentator at these pro events, even though I never liked the guy until this past summer and am disgusted by his cheating. 

I am disappointed with Froome. But not angry or shouting for his head.

why?

because: Sports is not important. it is just entertainment. What is important is me riding my bike and getting healthier.


----------



## 9W9W

Fredrico said:


> If the substance doesn't enhance performance, why then is it banned? I think this is an effort to bring down a hero, nothing less, on a single questionable allegation. Other champs have been attacked on drug violations, Eddy Merckx being one. He claims innocence to this day.
> We face the same over reactions in bike racing now that accomplished men are being racked over the coals of guilt for lusting after women in their youths.


Nothing you've written in the past has made much sense... so this current semi incoherent rant supported by not much really doesn't surprise me one bit. 
There's a limit and he exceed it. 



BCSaltchucker said:


> I am disappointed with Froome. But not angry or shouting for his head.
> 
> why?
> 
> because: Sports is not important. it is just entertainment. What is important is me riding my bike and getting healthier.


B please.


----------



## Fredrico

DaveG said:


> How is this some sort of conspiracy to bring him down? The stuff didn't just get banned. It was banned, he got a TUE and had a team doctor helping him administer it. He was well aware of the rules and he broke them. That is no one's faults but Froome's. If you make exceptions for riders because they are stars you have completely undermined your anti-doping campaign. How you worked in sexual harassment into the argument is an amazing segue


If detractors can prove Froome or his doctor purposely prescribed anti asthmatics to enhance performance, I'll agree with y'all's witch hunt. OTOH, if it was to enhance breathing so he could stay in the race, don't throw the guy away. The drug is legal for asthma treatment for the racers. He just went over the limit, which will vary according to the activity level and hydration of the individual. 

They shouldn't ban riders for this particular drug if it doesn't enhance performance, anyway. 

What's going on? Witch hunt trolling to bring down successful famous people, your favorite media star, politician, and sports hero, and the Victorian gentlemen news anchors rub our noses in the dirt--for ratings. I have better things to get wadded up about. This casting of guilt is getting old. If it weren't below freezing, I'd ride my bike. 

I've had it when they took down Garrison Keillor. Come on folks, is this guy a sexual predator? Really? Why is everyone so bloodthirsty? :shocked:


----------



## MMsRepBike

Fredrico said:


> They shouldn't ban riders for this particular drug if it doesn't enhance performance, anyway.


It does enhance performance.

They have already banned several riders and other athletes for this in the recent past. All of which had less than what Froome had in their systems.


----------



## SNS1938

Interesting that the rule has been around for years, and now Froome breaks the rule, there are many saying the rule is silly. 

There's a rule.
Froome has taken salbutamol for years, and been regularly tested for years.
It's not the first time he's taken it in a race, and been dehydrated etc. I presume he's never been over the limit before, and now he's twice the limit. I have seen zero arguments presented which show Froome to be anything buy someone broke a rule, and should have the same punishment handed out as the previous riders who got bans.

Sky love the grey area. It's not a 'we win on bread and water', it's a 'we win with everything we can possibly use that won't make us fail a test' ... except this time.

I hope the Fox sale to Disney will end the Sky funding, and we won't have a team with such a limitless budget to explore this grey area.

I have to wonder if Froome accepted the Giro, knowing he won't be going anyway.

A TdF without Froome in July would be far more exciting than the previous years.


----------



## GlobalGuy

PED and perceived PED use is rampant in athletes. It has been for many decades going back well into the last century. Despite the outcry in many areas from both the sincere and the hypocritical alike the use of PED is increasing. 

Organizations like the USADA and UCI are frauds and dishonest agencies. The least of their motives is to make athletes clean. That goal is just a guise for those organizations selfish motives. They demonstrate that through many diverse acts or methods. 

Just my two-cents worth or in Internet slang IMO. <script>(function () { var pb_blacklist = ["adrunnr","successforyu.clickfunnels.com","fmovies.se","in-365-tagen.info","5000-settimanale.com","shop.mazzugioielli.com","maxigossip.com","lp.yazizim.com","beyourxfriend.com","99tab.com","zzqrt.com","canuck-method.net","bewomenly.com","playnow.guru","datingforyou-48e1.kxcdn.com","trafficnetworkads24.com","sistemadedinerogratis.com","canuckmethodprofit.co","consumerresearchnetwork.com","securemacfix.com","zz3d3.ru","zd1.quebec-bin.com","hot-games4you.xyz","om.elvenar.com","superpccleanup.com","gomediaz.com","judithi.xyz","free.atozmanuals.com","yoursuccess.ravpage.co.il","123hop.ir","quizcliente.pw","aussiemethod.biz","hlpnowp-c.com","picbumper.com","shaneless.com","anacondamonster.com","altrk1.com","health.todaydiets.com","download.weatherblink.com","happyluketh.com","go.ameinfo.com","50kaweek.net","thepornsurvey.com","ofsiite.ru","fulltab.com","1000spins.com","time2play-online.net","vintacars.com","welcome.*****saga.com","free-desktop-games.com","download.televisionfanatic.com","theprofitsmaker.net","sgad.info","algocashmaster.net","sunmaker.com","topvipdreams.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornvideos.com","filesharefanatic.com","safedownloadhub.com","7awlalalam.blogspot.com","tvplusnewtab.com","trendingpatrol.com","moneymorning.com","ifileyou.com","classifiedcanada.ca","firefan.com","methode-binaire.com","letmetell.com","kenduktur.com","getafuk.com","yotraleplahnte.ru","jackpot.88beto.com","pwwysydh.com","search.queryrouter.com","v.lvztxy.com","*****saga.com","saffamethod.com","prezzonline.com","searchprivacy.website","3d2819216eb4e1035879-7c248de0c99745406e9b749fc86ec3e4.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com","only2date.com","mysagagame.com","themillionaireinpjs.net","wlt.kd2244.com","quickprivacycheck.com","hotchatdate.com","autotraderbot.com","z1.zedo.com","youlucky2014.com","traffic.getmyads.com","appcloudprotected.com","safensecure.com-allsites3.xyz","newpoptab.com","static.williamhill.com","myhealthyblog.co","greatestmobideals.com","sweetclarity.com","mgid.com","securepccure.com","autopengebygger.com","am15.net","es.reimageplus.com","o2.promos-info.com","it.reimageplus.com","west****s.com","spinandwin.com-ser.pw","reimageplus.com","vodafone.promos-info.com","vinnmatpengar.se","movie.ienjoyapps.com","love4single.com","origin.getprice.com.au","ohmydating.com","lp.want-to-win.com","yabuletchrome.ru","bamdad.net","gotositenow.com","vcrypt.pw","newtabtv.com","mon.setsu.xyz","youforgottorenewyourhosting.com","zone-telechargement.ws","land.pckeeper.software","ad.adpop-1.com","advancedpctools.com","videos.randolphcountyheraldtribune.com","web-start.org","softreadynow.installupgradenowfreshandforyou.website","uplod.ws","pornhubcasino.com","maxbet.ro","2016prizefeed.com","thevideo.me","wantubad.com","tavanero.com","xcusmy.club","daclips.in","gaymenofporn.online","jackpotcitycasino.com","italian-method.com","getsearchincognito.com","youjustwonprize.com","finanz-nachrichten.me","quizcliente.site","da.reimageplus.com","jkanime.net","britmoneymethod.com","uae.souq.com","ka.azzer.net","safensecure.xyz","8t.hootingrhejkz.online","www6.blinkx.com","wizzcaster.com","comparaison-prix.com","vodlocker.lol","fr.reimageplus.com","free.fromdoctopdf.com","userscloud.com","myprivatesearch.com","fanli90.cn","tutticodicisconto.it","mediadec.com","gogamego.thewhizproducts.com","download.weatherblink.com","free.videodownloadconverter.com","we-are-gamers.com","sesso.communityadult.net","lp.blpmovies.com","search.queryrouter.com","bbb-johannesburg.localspecific.com","lp.blpmovies.com","go.ppixelm.com","r0.ru","sesso.communityadult.net","bbb-johannesburg.localspecific.com","ppixelm.com","cyberguardianspe.info","we-are-gamers.com","loginfaster.com/new","www.alfacart.com","www.foresee.com","mobile-win.com","www.plusnetwork.com","www.amicafarmacia.com","www.ienjoyapps.com","cheapcheap.io","screenaddict.thewhizproducts.com","nova.rambler.ru","free.gamingwonderland.com","p9328ujeiw1.ru","mobilecasinoclub.co.uk","pfhsystem.com","regtuneup.com","theprofitsmaker.net","bodogpromotions.eu","heroesreplay.org","financialsecrets.info","mymoneymakingapp.com","sunmaker.com","888casino-promotions.com","vogliosesso.com","scienceremix.com","allinonedocs.com","arabia.starzplay.com","allirishcasino.com","advancepctools.info","movie.ienjoyapps.com","surveyform001.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com","mgs188.com","pfhsystem.com","lpeva.com","ddsh8.com","theprofitsmaker.net","b2.ijquery11.com","sporthero.thewhizmarketing.com","securefastmac.tech","seen-on-screen.thewhizmarketing.com","1000spins.com","search.queryrouter.com","pfhsystem.com","reimageplus.com","offer.alibaba.com","searchlistings.org","search.queryrouter.com","search.queryrouter.com","mybinaryoptionsrobot.com","duplicashapp.com","search.queryrouter.com","bestgame.directory","droidclub.net",".rivalo.com","yoursuperprize.com","mediaexplained.com","om.elvenar.com","shinar.club","revitoleczemacream.com","freelotto.com","screenaddict.thewhizproducts.com","download.bringmesports.com/","allinonedocs.com","driver-fixer.com","arabydeal.com","cleanyourcomputertoday.com","arabydeal.com","music.mixplugin.com","1se.info","survey12.com","freesoftwaredlul.com","pldist01.com","ad.adpop-1.com","searchanonymous.net","abrst.pro","muzikfury.thewhizmarketing.com","lp.mbtrx.com","th1.forfun.maxisize-pro.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornbox.com","new.freelotto.com","desktoptrack.com","search.queryrouter.com","offer.alibaba.com","1000spins.com","promotions.coral.co.uk","search.queryrouter.com","tbsia.com","tbsia.com","multtaepyo.com","search.queryrouter.com","czechmethod.com","consumerview.co","wayretail.com","72onbase.com","funsafetab.com","search.queryrouter.com","speedyfiledownload.com","driver-fixer.com","arabydeal.com","cleanyourcomputertoday.com","arabydeal.com","music.mixplugin.com","1se.info","survey12.com","freesoftwaredlul.com","pldist01.com","ad.adpop-1.com","searchanonymous.net","abrst.pro","muzikfury.thewhizmarketing.com","lp.mbtrx.com","th1.forfun.maxisize-pro.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornbox.com","new.freelotto.com","desktoptrack.com","search.queryrouter.com","offer.alibaba.com","1000spins.com","promotions.coral.co.uk","search.queryrouter.com","tbsia.com","tbsia.com","surveyform001.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com","mgs188.com","pfhsystem.com","lpeva.com","ddsh8.com","theprofitsmaker.net","quantomcoding.com","sporthero.thewhizmarketing.com","popads.net","onclkds.com","consumerview.co","12kotov.ru","ruhotpair2.fingta.com","easytelevisionaccessnow.com","ahwrd.com","lpeva.com","ppgzf.com","zjstx.com","kituure.xyz","join.pro-gaming-world.com","mackeeperapp.mackeeper.com","tracknotify.com","2075.cdn.beyondhosting.net","idollash.com","ds.moviegoat.com","fulltab.com","rackcdn.com","prestoris.com","adsterra.com","swampssovuuhusp.top","streesusa.info","freesoftwaredlul.com","adreactor.com","a-static.com","codeonclick.com","heheme.com","adf.ly","seen-on-screen.thewhizmarketing.com","openload.co"]; var pb_whitelist = ["verizonwireless.com","foxnews.com","www.wunderground.com","wellsfargo.com","tvguide.com","linkedin.com","google","www.gmail.com","www.pinterest.com","www.youtube.com","www.facebook.com","search.yahoo.com","chrome://newtab","www.food.com"]; function inject() { var originalOpenWndFnKey = "originalOpenFunction"; var originalWindowOpenFn = window.open; var originalCreateElementFn = document.createElement; var originalAppendChildFn = HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild; var originalCreateEventFn = document.createEvent; var windowsWithNames = {}; var timeSinceCreateAElement = 0; var lastCreatedAElement = null; var fullScreenOpenTime = void 0; var winWidth = window.innerWidth; var winHeight = window.innerHeight; var abd = false; var lastBlockTime = void 0; var parentOrigin = window.location != window.parent.location ? document.referrer || window.parent.location || '*' : document.location; var parentRef = window.parent; //window[originalOpenWndFnKey] = window.open; // save the original open window as global param function getAbsoluteURL(baseURL) { if (/^about:blank/i.test(baseURL)) { return baseURL; } if (/^(https??\/\//.test(baseURL)) { return baseURL; } baseURL = location.origin + (!/^\//.test(baseURL) ? '/' : '') + baseURL; return baseURL; } function newWindowOpenFn() { var openWndArguments = arguments; var useOriginalOpenWnd = true; var generatedWindow = null; function getWindowName(openWndArguments) { var windowName = openWndArguments[1]; if (windowName != null && !["_blank", "_parent", "_self", "_top"].includes(windowName)) { return windowName; } return null; } function copyMissingProperties(src, dest) { var prop = void 0; for (prop in src) { try { if (dest[prop] === undefined && src[prop]) { dest[prop] = src[prop]; } } catch (e) {} } return dest; } function isOverlayish(el) { var style = el && el.style; if (style && /fixed|absolute/.test(style.position) && el.offsetWidth >= winWidth * 0.6 && el.offsetHeight >= winHeight * 0.75) { return true; } return false; } var capturingElement = null; // the element who registered to the event var srcElement = null; // the clicked on element var closestParentLink = null; if (window.event != null) { capturingElement = window.event.currentTarget; srcElement = window.event.srcElement; } if (srcElement != null) { closestParentLink = srcElement.closest('a'); if (closestParentLink && closestParentLink.href) { openWndArguments[3] = closestParentLink.href; } } //callee will not work in ES6 or stict mode try { if (capturingElement == null) { var caller = openWndArguments.callee; while (caller.arguments != null && caller.arguments.callee.caller != null) { caller = caller.arguments.callee.caller; } if (caller.arguments != null && caller.arguments.length > 0 && caller.arguments[0].currentTarget != null) { capturingElement = caller.arguments[0].currentTarget; } } } catch (e) {} ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Blocked if a click on background element occurred (<body> or document) ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// if (capturingElement == null) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened without any user interaction'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else if (capturingElement != null && (capturingElement instanceof Window || parent.Window && capturingElement instanceof parent.Window || capturingElement === document || capturingElement.URL != null && capturingElement.body != null || capturingElement.nodeName != null && (capturingElement.nodeName.toLowerCase() == "body" || capturingElement.nodeName.toLowerCase() == "document"))) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because it was triggered by the ' + capturingElement.nodeName + ' element'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else if (isOverlayish(capturingElement)) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened when clicking on an element that seems to be an overlay'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else { useOriginalOpenWnd = true; } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Block if a full screen was just initiated while opening this url. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// var fullScreenElement = document.webkitFullscreenElement || document.mozFullscreenElement || document.fullscreenElement; if (new Date().getTime() - fullScreenOpenTime < 1000 || isNaN(fullScreenOpenTime) && isDocumentInFullScreenMode()) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because a full screen was just initiated while opening this url.'; /* JRA REMOVED if (window[script_params.fullScreenFnKey]) { window.clearTimeout(window[script_params.fullScreenFnKey]); } */ if (document.exitFullscreen) { document.exitFullscreen(); } else if (document.mozCancelFullScreen) { document.mozCancelFullScreen(); } else if (document.webkitCancelFullScreen) { document.webkitCancelFullScreen(); } useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// var openUrl = openWndArguments[0]; var inWhitelist = isInWhitelist(location.href); if (inWhitelist) { useOriginalOpenWnd = true; } else if (isInBlacklist(openUrl)) { useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } if (useOriginalOpenWnd == true) { generatedWindow = originalWindowOpenFn.apply(this, openWndArguments); // save the window by name, for latter use. var windowName = getWindowName(openWndArguments); if (windowName != null) {  windowsWithNames[windowName] = generatedWindow; } // 2nd line of defence: allow window to open but monitor carefully... ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Kill window if a blur (remove focus) is called to that window ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// if (generatedWindow !== window) { (function () { var openTime = new Date().getTime(); var originalWndBlurFn = generatedWindow.blur; generatedWindow.blur = function () { if (new Date().getTime() - openTime < 1000 && !inWhitelist /* one second */) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because a it was blured'; generatedWindow.close(); blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments); } else { originalWndBlurFn(); } }; })(); } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// } else { (function () { // (useOriginalOpenWnd == false) var location = { href: openWndArguments[0] }; location.replace = function (url) { location.href = url; }; generatedWindow = { close: function close() { return true; }, test: function test() { return true; }, blur: function blur() { return true; }, focus: function focus() { return true; }, showModelessDialog: function showModelessDialog() { return true; }, showModalDialog: function showModalDialog() { return true; }, prompt: function prompt() { return true; }, confirm: function confirm() { return true; }, alert: function alert() { return true; }, moveTo: function moveTo() { return true; }, moveBy: function moveBy() { return true; }, resizeTo: function resizeTo() { return true; }, resizeBy: function resizeBy() { return true; }, scrollBy: function scrollBy() { return true; }, scrollTo: function scrollTo() { return true; }, getSelection: function getSelection() { return true; }, onunload: function onunload() { return true; }, print: function print() { return true; }, open: function open() { return this; }, opener: window, closed: false, innerHeight: 480, innerWidth: 640, name: openWndArguments[1], location: location, document: { location: location } }; copyMissingProperties(window, generatedWindow); generatedWindow.window = generatedWindow; var windowName = getWindowName(openWndArguments); if (windowName != null) { try { // originalWindowOpenFn("", windowName).close(); windowsWithNames[windowName].close(); } catch (err) {} } var fnGetUrl = function fnGetUrl() { var url = void 0; if (!(generatedWindow.location instanceof Object)) { url = generatedWindow.location; } else if (!(generatedWindow.document.location instanceof Object)) { url = generatedWindow.document.location; } else if (location.href != null) { url = location.href; } else { url = openWndArguments[0]; } openWndArguments[0] = url; blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments); }; //why set timeout? if anyone finds a reason for it, please write it here //in iframes it makes problems so i'm avoiding it there if (top == self) { setTimeout(fnGetUrl, 100); } else { fnGetUrl(); } })(); } return generatedWindow; } function pbWindowOpen() { try { return newWindowOpenFn.apply(this, arguments); } catch (err) { return null; } } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Replace the window open method with Poper Blocker's ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// window.open = pbWindowOpen; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Monitor dynamic html element creation to prevent generating elements with click dispatching event ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild = function () { var newElement = originalAppendChildFn.apply(this, arguments); if (newElement.nodeName == 'IFRAME' && newElement.contentWindow) { try { var code = '(function () {\n var pb_blacklist = ' + JSON.stringify(pb_blacklist) + ';\n var pb_whitelist = ' + JSON.stringify(pb_whitelist) + ';\n ' + inject.toString() + ';\n inject();\n })();'; var s = document.createElement('script');s.text = code; newElement.contentWindow.document.body.appendChild(s); } catch (e) {} } return newElement; }; document.createElement = function () { var newElement = originalCreateElementFn.apply(document, arguments); if (arguments[0] == "a" || arguments[0] == "A") { (function () { timeSinceCreateAElement = new Date().getTime(); var originalDispatchEventFn = newElement.dispatchEvent; newElement.dispatchEvent = function (event) { if (event.type != null && ('' + event.type).toLocaleLowerCase() == "click") { if (!isInWhitelist(newElement.href)) { window.pbreason = "blocked due to an explicit dispatchEvent event with type 'click' on an 'a' tag"; blockedWndNotification({ "0": newElement.href }); return true; } } return originalDispatchEventFn.call(this, event); }; lastCreatedAElement = newElement; })(); } return newElement; }; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Block artificial mouse click on frashly created elements ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// document.createEvent = function () { try { if (arguments[0].toLowerCase().includes("mouse") && new Date().getTime() - timeSinceCreateAElement <= 50) { //block if the origin is not same var isSelfDomain = false; try { var openUrlDomain = new URL(lastCreatedAElement.href).hostname; var topUrl = window.location != window.parent.location ? document.referrer : document.location.href; var topDomain = new URL(topUrl).hostname; isSelfDomain = openUrlDomain == topDomain; } catch (e) {} if (lastCreatedAElement.href.trim() && !isInWhitelist(lastCreatedAElement.href) && !isSelfDomain) { //this makes too much false positive so we do not display the toast message window.pbreason = 'Blocked because \'a\' element was recently created and ' + arguments[0] + ' event was created shortly after'; arguments[0] = lastCreatedAElement.href;  blockedWndNotification({ "0": lastCreatedAElement.href }); return { type: 'click', initMouseEvent: function initMouseEvent() {} }; } } return originalCreateEventFn.apply(document, arguments); } catch (err) {} }; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Monitor full screen requests ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// function onFullScreen(isInFullScreenMode) { if (isInFullScreenMode) { fullScreenOpenTime = new Date().getTime(); } else { fullScreenOpenTime = NaN; } } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// function isDocumentInFullScreenMode() { // Note that the browser fullscreen (triggered by short keys) might // be considered different from content fullscreen when expecting a boolean return document.fullScreenElement && document.fullScreenElement !== null || // alternative standard methods document.mozFullscreenElement != null || document.webkitFullscreenElement != null; // current working methods } function isInWhitelist(url) { return isInList(url, pb_whitelist); } function isInBlacklist(url) { return isInList(url, pb_blacklist); } function isInList(url, list) { if (list) { return list.some(function (li) { return new RegExp("https?://(www\.|.*\.)?" + li + "+").test(url); }); } else { return false; } } function blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments) { //this is to prevent a site that "stuck" on trying to open a new window to send endless calls to the extension if (!lastBlockTime || lastBlockTime < Date.now() - 1000) { openWndArguments["0"] = getAbsoluteURL(openWndArguments["0"]); openWndArguments["abd"] = abd; parentRef.postMessage({ type: "blockedWindow", args: JSON.stringify(openWndArguments) }, parentOrigin); } lastBlockTime = Date.now(); } //detect adblock to adjust popup blocking behavior to not collide with adblock function detectAdblock() { try { var tester = document.createElement('div'); tester.innerHTML = ' '; tester.className = 'adsbox'; tester.style.cssText = "position:absolute;top-1000px;left:-1000px;"; document.body.appendChild(tester); window.setTimeout(function () { if (tester.offsetHeight === 0) { abd = true; } tester.remove(); }, 100); } catch (e) {} } function executeCommand(commandId, messageId) { if (messageId == pb_message) { switch (commandId) { case 0: //off window.open = originalWindowOpenFn; document.createElement = originalCreateElementFn; document.createEvent = originalCreateEventFn; HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild = originalAppendChildFn; break; case 1: //allow once break; } } } document.addEventListener("fullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.fullscreen); }, false); document.addEventListener("mozfullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.mozFullScreen); }, false); document.addEventListener("webkitfullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.webkitIsFullScreen); }, false); document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () { detectAdblock(); }, false); (function () { window.pbExternalCommand = function (commandId, messageId) { executeCommand(commandId, messageId); }; })();	}; inject(); })();</script>


----------



## Fredrico

SNS1938 said:


> Interesting that the rule has been around for years, and now Froome breaks the rule, there are many saying the rule is silly.
> 
> There's a rule.
> Froome has taken salbutamol for years, and been regularly tested for years.
> It's not the first time he's taken it in a race, and been dehydrated etc. I presume he's never been over the limit before, and now he's twice the limit. I have seen zero arguments presented which show Froome to be anything buy someone broke a rule, and should have the same punishment handed out as the previous riders who got bans.
> 
> Sky love the grey area. It's not a 'we win on bread and water', it's a 'we win with everything we can possibly use that won't make us fail a test' ... except this time.
> 
> I hope the Fox sale to Disney will end the Sky funding, and we won't have a team with such a limitless budget to explore this grey area.
> 
> I have to wonder if Froome accepted the Giro, knowing he won't be going anyway.
> 
> A TdF without Froome in July would be far more exciting than the previous years.


I'd prefer to see someone challenge Froome next year and beat him, rather than see a change of guard caused entirely by his absence with a dope conviction. An ignominious ending to a bright career, at least most of it drug free.

But yes, it would be fun to see how the field finds a new pecking order and how that changes as the race progresses. Riders will have to cobble together strategies. The action will be spurious. Favorites could change daily. It should be a dramatic race.

I wouldn't bad mouth Sky. They keep the US on the map in pro racing. That's good for bike culture right here in river city. Another reason to add some perspective when the racers do what everyone else does to stay in contention and win races. 

We also, even if the boy disappointed us, have to give Lance lots of credit for popularizing the sport. He did his thing and left a lasting positive effect on the sport among the public. Riders are getting respect on the roads. There was much angry resistance from motorists when the oil embargo kicked up bicycling in the late 70s. 

We shouldn't abandon our champions because of one puny doping allegation. Nor should we destroy the lives of guys like Keillor or.Dustin Hoffman, over questionable, unverifiable sexual harassment charges, who gave us so much humor over the years. 

I'm gonna ride my bike regardless of what the pros do for money.


----------



## KoroninK

Yes I'm a little late to this thread. I have a couple of thoughts on this.

Why are we only now hearing about this. One theory is Cookson was trying to cover it up and the new UCI president allowed it to be leaked?

My opinion is there is already precedent to strip Froome of his Vuelta title (and Worlds medals) and give him a 9 to 12 month ban based on two riders having had this exact same offense. Truthfully I think if they do not give him some sort of penalty it could be worse for the sport than either the Italian doping scandal or Operation Puerto.

Oldchipper made a comment about maybe Russian swapped the urine blood bags. Well interesting excuse as Valverde actually did attempt to use the excuse that Italian anti-doping authorities messed with his DNA to match it to the Operation Puerto blood bag they had.

Unlike Nibali and T. Martin Movistar's riders have had more diplomatic comments about the situation. Landa basically said he wasn't at the Vuelta so has no idea what was going on. (I would have to think he's glad to not be at Sky right now). Valverde made his typically diplomatic comments but then added in two more interesting things. First he said that Froome's results were twice the allowable amount, thus breaking the rules and there must be consequences. The other thing did not translate as well into English, but along the lines of as a rider you and only you are responcible for what goes into your body. He was saying something about having a family and a medicine cabinet and his wife and kids could take anything, but a good portion of the medicine has banned substances so he has to be very careful and read labels before he takes anything.


----------



## KoroninK

Fredrico said:


> I'd prefer to see someone challenge Froome next year and beat him, rather than see a change of guard caused entirely by his absence with a dope conviction. An ignominious ending to a bright career, at least most of it drug free.
> 
> But yes, it would be fun to see how the field finds a new pecking order and how that changes as the race progresses. Riders will have to cobble together strategies. The action will be spurious. Favorites could change daily. It should be a dramatic race.
> 
> I wouldn't bad mouth Sky. They keep the US on the map in pro racing. That's good for bike culture right here in river city. Another reason to add some perspective when the racers do what everyone else does to stay in contention and win races.
> 
> We also, even if the boy disappointed us, have to give Lance lots of credit for popularizing the sport. He did his thing and left a lasting positive effect on the sport among the public. Riders are getting respect on the roads. There was much angry resistance from motorists when the oil embargo kicked up bicycling in the late 70s.
> 
> We shouldn't abandon our champions because of one puny doping allegation. Nor should we destroy the lives of guys like Keillor or.Dustin Hoffman, over questionable, unverifiable sexual harassment charges, who gave us so much humor over the years.
> 
> I'm gonna ride my bike regardless of what the pros do for money.


Agree with you that Lance did at least bring people to the sport and although has done a lot of damage he also did good as well. I still say Lance's problems are not his doping but the fact he's a jerk. Remember the Spaniards continued to love and support both Contador and Valverde after their doping convictions. They also still like Sanchez, although are disappointed in him.

Agree with you that I'd also rather see someone dethrone Froome on the road, however, he must be punished for breaking the rules.

As for the Tour, without Froome I think there would be 3 main favorites going into the Tour. Nibali (who will have the Izagirre brothers for support), Bardet (2 Tour podiums), and the Movistar contingent. With Movistar until proven differently you'll have to count all 3 GC riders together as one until we find out if they can work together or there are fireworks between Quintana and Landa. I do not believe Movistar or Bahrain-Marida change their plans. Remember Bahrain-Marida will have a strong team in support of Nibali. Movistar should have a strong team IF they can keep their 3 stars from infighting. (Or at least Quintana and Landa from infighting).


----------



## coldash

KoroninK said:


> Yes I'm a little late to this thread. I have a couple of thoughts on this.
> 
> Why are we only now hearing about this. One theory is Cookson was trying to cover it up and the new UCI president allowed it to be leaked?
> 
> My opinion is there is already precedent to strip Froome of his Vuelta title (and Worlds medals) and give him a 9 to 12 month ban based on two riders having had this exact same offense. Truthfully I think if they do not give him some sort of penalty it could be worse for the sport than either the Italian doping scandal or Operation Puerto.
> 
> Oldchipper made a comment about maybe Russian swapped the urine blood bags. Well interesting excuse as Valverde actually did attempt to use the excuse that Italian anti-doping authorities messed with his DNA to match it to the Operation Puerto blood bag they had.
> 
> Unlike Nibali and T. Martin Movistar's riders have had more diplomatic comments about the situation. Landa basically said he wasn't at the Vuelta so has no idea what was going on. (I would have to think he's glad to not be at Sky right now). Valverde made his typically diplomatic comments but then added in two more interesting things. First he said that Froome's results were twice the allowable amount, thus breaking the rules and there must be consequences. The other thing did not translate as well into English, but along the lines of as a rider you and only you are responcible for what goes into your body. He was saying something about having a family and a medicine cabinet and his wife and kids could take anything, but a good portion of the medicine has banned substances so he has to be very careful and read labels before he takes anything.


We are only hearing about it now because the process is supposed to remain secret until the investigation is complete. There may be many other ongoing and / or resolved investigations into other riders that we don’t know about. If Cookson did know about it and said nothing then that is the correct procedure. If the new UCI president did or permitted it to be leaked then that is a breach of the rules. Whatever, it was leaked to some of the French and English press. 

As for Nibali talking about cheating ... we’ll let me grab something to steady myself - maybe a team car door for example and T Martin (Katusha!) shows that he doesn’t understand the process rules.

IMO, the only team/riders that have handled the publicity/ questions well are Movistar. Their response was very measured and rational


----------



## coldash

Oh, and just an idle thought. Suppose, Froome is found guilty along the lines of the Simon Yates case and gets a similar 4 month ban, that would mean that he would need to leave Team Sky, given their public stance on such cases.

So... who would take Froome on. Given that he is a better bet than Katusha’s or Bahrain-Merida’s candidates, they might be able to accommodate him and give Sky some real competition. Tony Martin might find he has a new team mate

PS. Forgot another obvious potential team - BMC!


----------



## ddave12000

DaveG said:


> How is this some sort of conspiracy to bring him down? The stuff didn't just get banned. It was banned, he got a TUE and had a team doctor helping him administer it. He was well aware of the rules and he broke them. That is no one's faults but Froome's. If you make exceptions for riders because they are stars you have completely undermined your anti-doping campaign. How you worked in sexual harassment into the argument is an amazing segue


I'm not defending Froome, but for the sake of clarity...Salbutamol is not a banned substance and you don't need a TUE to use it. FYI.


----------



## coldash

ddave12000 said:


> I'm not defending Froome, but for the sake of clarity...*Salbutamol is not a banned substance *and you don't need a TUE to use it. FYI.


Correct. It is a specified substance not a banned one.


----------



## KoroninK

coldash said:


> We are only hearing about it now because the process is supposed to remain secret until the investigation is complete. There may be many other ongoing and / or resolved investigations into other riders that we don’t know about. If Cookson did know about it and said nothing then that is the correct procedure. If the new UCI president did or permitted it to be leaked then that is a breach of the rules. Whatever, it was leaked to some of the French and English press.
> 
> As for Nibali talking about cheating ... we’ll let me grab something to steady myself - maybe a team car door for example and T Martin (Katusha!) shows that he doesn’t understand the process rules.
> 
> IMO, the only team/riders that have handled the publicity/ questions well are Movistar. Their response was very measured and rational


Movistar's riders handled this the way they handle pretty much anything as diplomatic as possible. It's the way that team has done thing for decades really. I would expect nothing less from them.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Another take on Froome's Salbutamol use: Cycling in the South Bay

Whether you disagree with Wanky or not, the whole "there's no performance enhancement for non-asthmatics" is not exactly true- the enhancement just comes out of competition as you're trying to build lean muscle. So, him popping for that amount that late into the race is interesting, to say the least.

Malfunctioning puffer? Distracted overdosing? Desperation at the onset of an asthma attack? I have no idea, but I'm sure Sky is looking at all possibilities to manage the damage.

As Wanky alludes to, Sky 's management are masters of misdirection in these situations. The highly regulated organization suddenly assumes the mantle of the Three Stooges when confronted with negative findings. Curious...

I honestly hope Froome is telling the truth here. I think he's going to lose the Vuelta title and probably do a little downtime, but I hope this was just a stupid mistake. He's shown flashes of panache at times, breaking from the Sky playbook. I don't like Sky as a team, but I do like some of the individual riders. 

I wish they would enact a salary cap so the talent would be spread out among the ProTour teams more. I'm not sure the reduction in team size is going to have the same effect, but I'm hopeful. The Tour has been almost unwatchable for a long time as the GC battles are decided more by Postal-style attrition than by individual attacks. Ride a good TT, have your team grind down the competition, maybe ride away on a mountaintop if you see a chance... It may not be easy to do, but it's certainly scripted.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand- the bottom line is that he popped for over the amount of a specified substance. Doesn't really matter why at this point. Take the title and give him a ban for a while. We'll see what he rides like when he comes back. If he's lucky, it will be months instead of years.


----------



## DaveG

Interesting article. It certainly tempers a lot of the "there is no benefit" arguments. WADA and the UCI will have to follow due process but I don't. I have already declared him guilty


----------



## KoroninK

You forgot the obvious Astana. 
I don't think Bahrain-Merida would. They have Nibali and the Izagirre brothers.

Would Sky actually hold to their public stance and terminate Froome or would they ignore it and keep him?

I think we can safely say AG2R, FDJ, Quickstep, Cannondale, and Movistar would not be interested.


----------



## coldash

KoroninK said:


> Movistar's riders handled this the way they handle pretty much anything as diplomatic as possible. It's the way that team has done thing for decades really. I would expect nothing less from them.


Oh I don’t know about that. They had a real tantrum when Vacansoleil attacked them when Valverde had a problem in the TdF a few years ago. It was payback for Movistar doing the same earlier in the season. Movistar had a bit of a poor reputation during that period


----------



## Alaska Mike

KoroninK said:


> I think we can safely say AG2R, FDJ, Quickstep, Cannondale, and Movistar would not be interested.


I disagree. They would be interested in Froome, but they couldn't afford him and the support riders he would require.

I would say the French teams, if they could afford him, would fall all over themselves to have him. His known transgression(s) thus far haven't been on the level of blood-doping, so they would probably implement a set of "rigorous" controls and defend "their" rider. If you can't have a French winner of the Tour, might as well be a French team. Moot point, because they don't have the budgets. Same with Cannondale. Sideburns has has a flexible morality when it comes to dopers, but he can barely keep what he has afloat.

Quickstep would as well, but their budget is always tied up in the Classics.

Movistar doesn't need another GC contender, and anything that hurts Froome helps them. 

Froome isn't going anywhere. Sky has built their empire around him, and until he starts losing because of anything but wrecks, they'll stick by their boy. I figure he has a couple more years before that starts to happen.


----------



## aclinjury

he broke a rule by going doubly over the limit. If he is allowed to weasel his way out, then what are the ramifications of past transgressors and future transgressors? Rules are rules, and they must be respected.


----------



## izza

WADA’s Prohibited List provides that: “The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.”

So Sky will be getting/fabricating (delete as appropriate) the paperwork as quick as possible. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alaska Mike

aclinjury said:


> he broke a rule by going doubly over the limit. If he is allowed to weasel his way out, then what are the ramifications of past transgressors and future transgressors? Rules are rules, and they must be respected.


The problem is the rules have been applied unevenly in the past, so Froome's new lawyer (who I understand has some background in this sort of law) and the Sky machine will have plenty of wiggle room. He may not get off completely, but you can bet this will be defended vigorously. The only thing Sky/Froome have working against them is time, as the season starts soon. The longer this drags out, the less a Giro or Tour start looks possible.

However, since just this fall Cookson said Sky's name and reputation should be cleared of any possible wrongdoing, we should just go about our business. Nothing to see here. Glad that's settled.


----------



## Fredrico

izza said:


> WADA’s Prohibited List provides that: “The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.”
> 
> So Sky will be getting/fabricating (delete as appropriate) the paperwork as quick as possible.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Salbutamol is a derivative of aspirin and acts in a similar way as a bronchodilator. Is aspirin illegal? The finding also leaves open the question of whether Froome needed a bronchodilator to come back from an asthma attack, and should have gotten a TUE. 

I believe this is a legitimate issue, and have to suggest taking a drug that restores free breathing is not of the magnitude of cheating with EPO, blood doping, testosterone, amphetamines, and such.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Fredrico said:


> I believe this is a legitimate issue, and have to suggest taking a drug that restores free breathing is not of the magnitude of cheating with EPO, blood doping, testosterone, amphetamines, and such.


I don't think anyone would disagree with you that we aren't talking about EPO here. That said, there are non-legitimate uses for the drug which is why there are limits and possible sanctions for exceeding them. Doubling that limit? That's excessive. 

To be honest, I don't know if that sort of dosage is healthy. If he was bad enough off that he had to up the dosage that much, he shouldn't have been racing. Of course, there's this take on the need for Sabutamol during that time period:
_"Nibali revealed he also suffers with asthma but suggested rain during the final stages of the Vuelta meant there was no need to use an asthma inhaler that contained salbutamol."_ -Cyclingnews

You'd think after all of the jiffy bag drama Sky would have had their asthma medication protocols locked down, but I guess not.


----------



## love4himies

aclinjury said:


> he broke a rule by going doubly over the limit. If he is allowed to weasel his way out, then what are the ramifications of past transgressors and future transgressors? Rules are rules, and they must be respected.


Agree. You can't let one go without exonerating the others and then removing it from the ban list.


----------



## MMsRepBike

> Why would someone so careful and professional as Chris Froome take so much of that drug that day? Especially if it wasn't going to help the condition it was supposed to treat.





> The drug is listed in the WADA code as a masking agent. At those abnormally high doses it can block detection of other substances.


I'm not seeing many people making this guess.

If CF messed up somehow... maybe took a blood bag that he wasn't quite supposed to or something... and needed to mask that or fail for that...

The "mystery inhaler dosage" is listed as a masking agent by WADA. Nobody is guessing that he could have CHOSEN IT AS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS knowing that he was going to fail for a worse drug instead.


----------



## aclinjury

Alaska Mike said:


> The problem is the rules have been applied unevenly in the past, so Froome's new lawyer (who I understand has some background in this sort of law) and the Sky machine will have plenty of wiggle room. He may not get off completely, but you can bet this will be defended vigorously. The only thing Sky/Froome have working against them is time, as the season starts soon. The longer this drags out, the less a Giro or Tour start looks possible.
> 
> However, since just this fall Cookson said Sky's name and reputation should be cleared of any possible wrongdoing, we should just go about our business. Nothing to see here. Glad that's settled.


and that's part of problem when they started to make exceptions to the rules. 

But having said that, let's ask, did past transgressors have DOUBLE the limit?? It's one thing to let a guy slide by because he barely went over the limit, but's it's another to let him slide by if he doubled it. If Froome is allowed to slide by, then this rule now has pretty much become invalid because every guy out their will now claim to have asthma and will inhale/ingest this stuff until they hit double limit, and they would have Froome to use as precedence.

And I think Sky is not going to be able to prove this case from a pharmacological stance, unless Froome has alien non-human physiology. Will be interesting to see the pharmacology evidence from the spin machine.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you have "severe asthma sincec childhood", you don't get to be an endurance athlete. Yea, exercise will make it worse, that's why we human value such feat of physiological challenge, it's the totality of the human body that can withstand such feat. Asthma? I'm sorry sir, life is not fair. Should a person with some genetic muscle-wasting disease be allowed to take roides so he can "evenly" compete in powerlifting? Of course not, and while we applaud his ambition to compete in such an activity that his body is at a disadvantage from the get-go, but we must also know that life is not fair, so no drugs.

On a related note, my stance is also the same for all those tri- and ironman atheltes who pretty much abuse these inhalers. The startline of these events are littered with inhalers. I was like, wtf? is this even natural, bro?


----------



## n2deep

Interesting that an estimated 10% of Olympic/Tri/Elete athletes struggle with asthma and there's suggestive evidence that points to the degree of training/lifestyle as a contributing factor.

Also professional athletes know exactly what they ingest and the legal limits. Maybe Froome forgot, or felt that he needed a higher dose that day and/or ??? These guys know the rules and limits much better than we do and are schooled by their coaches and doctors and yet he chooses to ignore the rule because he could mitigate the consequences?? This should be interesting?.


----------



## coldash

n2deep said:


> Interesting that an estimated 10% of Olympic/Tri/Elete athletes struggle with asthma and there's suggestive evidence that points to the degree of training/lifestyle as a contributing factor.
> 
> Also professional athletes know exactly what they ingest and the legal limits. Maybe Froome forgot, or felt that he needed a higher dose that day and/or ??? These guys know the rules and limits much better than we do and are schooled by their coaches and doctors and yet he chooses to ignore the rule because he could mitigate the consequences?? This should be interesting?.


On that first point, there is also the issue that these people get more routine medical examinations that the general public and therefore more likely to know about these conditions at an earlier stage.

OT but the increased use of medical screening over the past few decades is reckoned to be the cause of the increase in some cancer survival rates. That is measured from the time that the cancer is discovered until the death that it causes so if it is discovered earlier, the survival period appears to be getting better, although the age of death is probably the same. This is well documented with Chronic lymphocytic leukemia for which there is no cure. Routine blood testing is picking this up way earlier now and long before symptoms appear. 

Back OT. Athletes pick up potential heart problems at an earlier stage because they load the heart much more than the general population and get routine ECGs that will show otherwise asymptomatic problems.

So.. it isn't too surprising that the conditions appear to be more common. The problem in drawing any firm conclusions is that there no reliable comparable data for the general population


----------



## Marc

n2deep said:


> Interesting that an estimated 10% of Olympic/Tri/Elete athletes struggle with asthma and there's suggestive evidence that points to the degree of training/lifestyle as a contributing factor.
> 
> Also professional athletes know exactly what they ingest and the legal limits. Maybe Froome forgot, or felt that he needed a higher dose that day and/or ??? These guys know the rules and limits much better than we do and are schooled by their coaches and doctors and yet he chooses to ignore the rule because he could mitigate the consequences?? This should be interesting?.



It isn't that unusual actually. The CDC numbers on Asthma currently point to about 8% of US residents having been diagnosed with asthma.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/asthma.htm 


One thing to bear in mind...is that there is such a thing as the Nocebo Effect. Our brains can make us experience real physical pain from things that are not actually harmful. That can sound like voodoo, but there's medical science behind it. The case in this instance, Nibali said the rain helped his allergies/asthma and didn't hurt them....But you can have an asthma attack due to a nocebo effect.


Now...all that is a bit immaterial WRT Froome who was caught ODing on a drug in violation of the rules. That is the end of it full stop.


----------



## zero85ZEN

Fredrico said:


> Salbutamol is a derivative of aspirin and acts in a similar way as a bronchodilator. Is aspirin illegal? The finding also leaves open the question of whether Froome needed a bronchodilator to come back from an asthma attack, and should have gotten a TUE.
> 
> I believe this is a legitimate issue, and have to suggest taking a drug that restores free breathing is not of the magnitude of cheating with EPO, blood doping, testosterone, amphetamines, and such.


It does have performance enhancing benefits outside of its benefits as a bronchodilator. If used in high dosages during training it helps increase muscle mass while dropping weight (leaning out to less body fat percentage). The likely reason for Froome’s suddenly high reading was because of re-infusing a blood bag that was “glowing”, in other words the blood drawn and stored came from a period during his training when he was on high doses of Salbutamol. He was after the benefits of the blood re-infusion at the Vuelta. Being popped for an elevated Salbutamol level was probably an unintended consequence of not being careful enough with his blood harvesting timetable.

If this is the true cause of the AAF, Froome’s actions ABSOLUTELY rise to the magnitude of cheating with EPO, BLOOD DOPING, etc...

;-)


----------



## KoroninK

coldash said:


> Oh I don’t know about that. They had a real tantrum when Vacansoleil attacked them when Valverde had a problem in the TdF a few years ago. It was payback for Movistar doing the same earlier in the season. Movistar had a bit of a poor reputation during that period


Ok, I'll rephrase if it doesn't involved their own team in one way or another they are typically diplomatic about it.

Well Movistar and Sky in race situations such as attacking when another rider has an issue is a long going feud between the two teams dating back to 2012 and does not appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.


----------



## KoroninK

zero85ZEN said:


> It does have performance enhancing benefits outside of its benefits as a bronchodilator. If used in high dosages during training it helps increase muscle mass while dropping weight (leaning out to less body fat percentage). The likely reason for Froome’s suddenly high reading was because of re-infusing a blood bag that was “glowing”, in other words the blood drawn and stored came from a period during his training when he was on high doses of Salbutamol. He was after the benefits of the blood re-infusion at the Vuelta. Being popped for an elevated Salbutamol level was probably an unintended consequence of not being careful enough with his blood harvesting timetable.
> 
> If this is the true cause of the AAF, Froome’s actions ABSOLUTELY rise to the magnitude of cheating with EPO, BLOOD DOPING, etc...
> 
> ;-)


If this is the case then the 4 year ban is what should be given to him instead of the 9 month to 12 month ban which other riders with this level have been given in the past. Or even the 4 month ban the one Yates twin was given when they proved the team screwed up with filing the paperwork for the TUE for him. I do not believe that we have the Yates/Orica case of having not filed the proper paper work in this Froome/Sky case.


----------



## aclinjury

zero85ZEN said:


> It does have performance enhancing benefits outside of its benefits as a bronchodilator. If used in high dosages during training it helps increase muscle mass while dropping weight (leaning out to less body fat percentage). The likely reason for Froome’s suddenly high reading was because of re-infusing a blood bag that was “glowing”, in other words the blood drawn and stored came from a period during his training when he was on high doses of Salbutamol. He was after the benefits of the blood re-infusion at the Vuelta. Being popped for an elevated Salbutamol level was probably an unintended consequence of not being careful enough with his blood harvesting timetable.
> 
> If this is the true cause of the AAF, Froome’s actions ABSOLUTELY rise to the magnitude of cheating with EPO, BLOOD DOPING, etc...
> 
> ;-)


hmm I never thought about that one! But hell if that is the case, then Froomie and Sky just pulled off a big heist, because a ban based on OD'ing on salbutemol is helluva lot lighter than a ban based on blood doping!! Interesting take!


----------



## aclinjury

n2deep said:


> Interesting that an estimated 10% of Olympic/Tri/Elete athletes struggle with asthma and there's suggestive evidence that points to the degree of training/lifestyle as a contributing factor.
> 
> Also professional athletes know exactly what they ingest and the legal limits. Maybe Froome forgot, or felt that he needed a higher dose that day and/or ??? These guys know the rules and limits much better than we do and are schooled by their coaches and doctors and yet he chooses to ignore the rule because he could mitigate the consequences?? This should be interesting?.


so, general US population has an 8% asthma rate. Tri/Ironman athletes have a 10% rate. Yet, if you ever watch the startline at one of the big tri/ironman even, you'll see that it's more like 50% of them have asthma based on the amount of these inhalers get discarded onto the ground. They all claim inhalers don't give them an edge, just barely allow them to compete. But like I said, I consider asthma as part of the limitations of the body


----------



## SwiftSolo

aclinjury said:


> Sky has learned to milk TUEs to its max. Wiggin, Froome. One has to wonder what else they are doing besides TUEs. It'd be a little naive to think that TUEs are it for them.


It's obvious that all winners should be banned. That would fit right in with societies recent drive to elevate losers and losing.


----------



## Fredrico

zero85ZEN said:


> It does have performance enhancing benefits outside of its benefits as a bronchodilator. If used in high dosages during training it helps increase muscle mass while dropping weight (leaning out to less body fat percentage). The likely reason for Froome’s suddenly high reading was because of re-infusing a blood bag that was “glowing”, in other words the blood drawn and stored came from a period during his training when he was on high doses of Salbutamol. He was after the benefits of the blood re-infusion at the Vuelta. Being popped for an elevated Salbutamol level was probably an unintended consequence of not being careful enough with his blood harvesting timetable.
> 
> If this is the true cause of the AAF, Froome’s actions ABSOLUTELY rise to the magnitude of cheating with EPO, BLOOD DOPING, etc...
> 
> ;-)


Ok, so who's right?

_Dr Lipworth told Sky News: "Salbutamol of that level means his asthma is being poorly controlled. The fact that he won with those levels is utterly remarkable.


"The only performance benefit of inhaled Salbutamol is for treating asthma.


"Would he gain other performance enhancing effects from that level of Salbutamol? No. I think it's utter nonsense.


"Would an athlete taking Salbutamol without having asthma get a positive performance effect? 100% not.


"If you don't have asthma, then it's pretty stupid to take Salbutamol.


"The WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] limit is an arbitrary limit. It's pretty meaningless."_

Huh?


----------



## SNS1938

Interesting thread ... 

Either his doctor gave him bad advice that extra salbutamol would have a benefit beyond his regular dose, and that it would ping him. In which case, that doctor isn't really suitable for being a team doctor in a sport like cycling.

Or, Sky have a full on Lance Armstrong style blood doping setup, and used a bag that was created when he was training with salbutamol overloads.

Really really hope some solid answers come from this. Right now I think Sky have Froome doing the PK test every day to try to work out what he can do to show the allowed dose can cause double the allowed limit in his urine. 

And those saying that it shouldn't be banned, well, sure, but the time to address that is not when you've just been pinged for breaking the rule that was in place the day you were caught.


----------



## zero85ZEN

Fredrico said:


> Ok, so who's right?
> 
> _Dr Lipworth told Sky News: "Salbutamol of that level means his asthma is being poorly controlled. The fact that he won with those levels is utterly remarkable.
> 
> 
> "The only performance benefit of inhaled Salbutamol is for treating asthma.
> 
> 
> "Would he gain other performance enhancing effects from that level of Salbutamol? No. I think it's utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> "Would an athlete taking Salbutamol without having asthma get a positive performance effect? 100% not.
> 
> 
> "If you don't have asthma, then it's pretty stupid to take Salbutamol.
> 
> 
> "The WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] limit is an arbitrary limit. It's pretty meaningless."_
> 
> Huh?


OMG! The PR spin in this doctor’s talking points is SO over the top! Sounds like he’s on the Team Sky payroll. Here’s a tidbit of info...Salbutamol can be taken in other ways than inhaled. ;-)


----------



## aclinjury

Fredrico said:


> Ok, so who's right?
> 
> _Dr Lipworth told Sky News: "Salbutamol of that level means his asthma is being poorly controlled. The fact that he won with those levels is utterly remarkable.
> 
> 
> "The only performance benefit of inhaled Salbutamol is for treating asthma.
> 
> 
> "Would he gain other performance enhancing effects from that level of Salbutamol? No. I think it's utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> "Would an athlete taking Salbutamol without having asthma get a positive performance effect? 100% not.
> 
> 
> "If you don't have asthma, then it's pretty stupid to take Salbutamol.
> 
> 
> "The WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] limit is an arbitrary limit. It's pretty meaningless."_
> 
> Huh?


oh look a doctored being paid by Sky News to go on Sky New to say that a Sky athlete is innocent and amazing that he he won the event. I have a water bridge in space to sell too.


----------



## aclinjury

SwiftSolo said:


> It's obvious that all winners should be banned. That would fit right in with societies recent drive to elevate losers and losing.


wth you babbling about, back off sniffing Froome's jock, he OD'ed double the limit


----------



## zero85ZEN

Fredrico said:


> Ok, so who's right?
> 
> _Dr Lipworth told Sky News: "Salbutamol of that level means his asthma is being poorly controlled. The fact that he won with those levels is utterly remarkable.
> 
> 
> "The only performance benefit of inhaled Salbutamol is for treating asthma.
> 
> 
> "Would he gain other performance enhancing effects from that level of Salbutamol? No. I think it's utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> "Would an athlete taking Salbutamol without having asthma get a positive performance effect? 100% not.
> 
> 
> "If you don't have asthma, then it's pretty stupid to take Salbutamol.
> 
> 
> "The WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] limit is an arbitrary limit. It's pretty meaningless."_
> 
> Huh?


Recommended reading: https://www.google.com/amp/s/pvcycl...16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/amp/


----------



## Fredrico

aclinjury said:


> oh look a doctored being paid by Sky News to go on Sky New to say that a Sky athlete is innocent and amazing that he he won the event. I have a water bridge in space to sell too.


:lol: Who else is going to come forward and defend poor Froomie? No better authority than a medical pro, right? 

Nonetheless, checking it out shows a derivative of aspirin that opens airways blocked in asthma attacks. Asthmatic symptoms may appear in otherwise non-athsmatic patients during long periods of intense activity like winning pro bike races. Causes of asthma are also not well defined. They can be caused by allergens in the air or nervous reactions to stress, or both. The tipping point varies widely among individuals and widely in the state of health or fitness in the same individual.

Fall allergens are in full bloom during the Vuelta, and Froome was complaining about runny nose and such. Failure to restore free breathing turned bronchial infections into pneumonia in my history, triggered by Fall allergies, requiring 6 weeks recovery. That's one danger of not taking bronchodilators. If the limit is "arbitrary" it would act differently in different patients, as well as in the same patient in different venues. 

If it is used to mask other drugs, where's the evidence? What other drugs is he taking?

Also, losing fat and gaining muscle mass takes days, weeks, months, in endurance sports, years. Eating enough protein, proper exercise and recovery does the trick. Froome wouldn't need salbutamol for long term muscle gain and weight loss. He would only need it for opening up airways to permit breathing at the end of a punishing season when the body is stressed out.

As a former asthma sufferer, I find prohibitions against bronchodilators a bit over the top. During intense exercise is when you need them the most! What advantage would they provide over the non-asthmatic riders? None. Lipworth says it right! :yesnod:

Some triathletes puff inhalers at the start line as insurance the lungs will do their job, same as carbo loading the night before and drinking plenty of liquids, IMO. I think its unfair to penalized otherwise great athletic talent for something he can't do anything about. Froome definitely deserves a TUE and the benefit of the doubt. It shouldn't be a big deal. It only is because regular mortals enjoy bringing down their heroes. Makes 'em feel less guilty about their own perceived failures. :frown2:


----------



## Fredrico

zero85ZEN said:


> Recommended reading: https://www.google.com/amp/s/pvcycl...16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/amp/


Argable points:

First we already know where the author is coming from:

_All successful cyclists in the World Tour dope, in my opinion. The wattages recorded during the heyday of Armstrong’s EPO use have remained the same or increased, indicating that cyclists are as juiced as they ever were. Clean riders like Phil Gaimon have short, unexceptional World Tour careers. That’s how it is._

How about that for pre-judgment, eh?

_If you have any doubt at all that this is what Chris Froome has been doing, take a look first at this photo of his legs from 2013. Then compare it with 2017. In four short years he has put on a visible amount of muscle and lost weight. Not a lot of muscle, and not a lot of weight. Just a marginal gain … and not coincidentally one that has gone hand-in-glove with his very public announcement of a lifelong asthma condition that requires constant use of Salbutamol._

Hate to have to state the obvious, but winning several TDFs are going to end up with a light weight individual with enhanced muscle fibers, specifically slow twitch aerobic fibers. LeMond and Hinault were well cut at the end of their careers, as well as Lance and the other dopers. Training will lose weight and gain muscle mass like nothing else, comrades. So much for that argument.

_Prior to that Froome was never seen using the inhaler he now takes with him everywhere he goes. Is it plausible that he would be a severe, lifelong asthmatic fighting for a career in the pro ranks and that it would be a secret?_

Sure! Why set yourself up for drug suspicions telling the press you're a lifelong asthmatic, susceptible during Fall allergy season to asthma during competition when all stops are out? The fans don't want to hear excuses. Why would Froome inhale in public if all he wanted was for the fans to trust him?

Author assumes he cheated the system with pills Why is it not also possible to inhale twice the dosage by inhaling several times?

Sorry, ain't buying author's argument.


----------



## Fredrico

SwiftSolo said:


> It's obvious that all winners should be banned. That would fit right in with societies recent drive to elevate losers and losing.


Exactly right. :thumbsup: 

The winners are routinely tested for drugs that the others aren't, precisely because they won. ut: That's kind of nasty in my book, poor sportsmanship, especially for this particular drug, being ok under a certain arbitrary limit that would not apply equally to all riders. I thought the same about the Contador case a few years ago. Losers love losers. Makes 'em feel better! :yesnod:


----------



## coldash

An update for those who supported Tony Martin's first reaction to the Froome news, from TM's Facebook 


> I received a lot of feedback about my comment of yesterday. I even got a phone call from a UCI’s representative who took the time to clarify how the process had been handled. I now understand that the UCI is managing this case in accordance with the rules and that Chris Froome did not get any special treatment. According to the rules, in a case involving a specified substance, every athlete shall have the chance to explain whether the numbers can be due to natural causes.
> That said, I am always very angry when another case in relation to antidoping happened in our sport. I will, as I always did, continue to take a strong position regarding the fight against doping and I will always remain an outspoken advocate for a 100% clean sport.


AFAIK, Cyclingnews have chosen not to publish this update. I wonder why.


----------



## coldash

aclinjury said:


> oh look a doctored being paid by Sky News to go on Sky New to say that a Sky athlete is innocent and amazing that he he won the event. I have a water bridge in space to sell too.


That doctor is independent of Sky but let's look at one of Sky's biggest critics - David Walsh, works for the Sunday Times, published by the Sunday Times, paid by the Sunday Times which is part of the Murdoch empire.

These Sky guys are damned clever. First they ensure that their rider gets caught and then they pay an expensive journalist to highlight it. No doubt, all part of a cunning plan


----------



## MMsRepBike

CF has just recently stated that he did not take 20 or 32 or whatever many puffs people are saying. That in fact he's never taken more than the usual amount.



Froome Dog said:


> I am an asthmatic and have been since I was a child. I used a puffer to help me manage my asthma but *I’ve never taken more puffs than I’m allowed.*


So that leaves 2 plausible scenarios. 

A pill was taken to mask something else he "had" to take in order to win. 

Or he took a blood bag from training from when he was using his inhaler.

There is no other reasonable explanation at this point. I've looked into the "I was dehydrated" thing and that's, like I said before, an empty defense. So he says,



Busted Dog said:


> This is quite a horrible situation if I’m honest. We’re working as hard as we can to get to the bottom of this.


They've known since SEPTEMBER. They've hired a doping lawyer. Clearly they can't "naturally recreate" the scenario in a lab situation, they've had since September to do so. If they could have done it earlier, they would have and this never would have been news.

It's over. Only way out now is corruption.


----------



## love4himies

Fredrico said:


> Ok, so who's right?
> 
> _Dr Lipworth told Sky News: "Salbutamol of that level means his asthma is being poorly controlled. The fact that he won with those levels is utterly remarkable.
> 
> 
> "The only performance benefit of inhaled Salbutamol is for treating asthma.
> 
> 
> "Would he gain other performance enhancing effects from that level of Salbutamol? No. I think it's utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> "Would an athlete taking Salbutamol without having asthma get a positive performance effect? 100% not.
> 
> 
> "If you don't have asthma, then it's pretty stupid to take Salbutamol.
> 
> 
> "The WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] limit is an arbitrary limit. It's pretty meaningless."_
> 
> Huh?


If his asthma was so poorly managed, how in the hell did he win a grand tour when he's competing against healthy elites of the same caliber? It just doesn't make logical sense. And to win 2 in the same year????


----------



## velodog

Paul Kimmage's take

https://www.independent.ie/sport/ot...the-bullshit-why-should-we-care-36414204.html


----------



## love4himies

zero85ZEN said:


> Recommended reading: https://www.google.com/amp/s/pvcycl...16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/amp/


Good article, thanks for posting it.


----------



## love4himies

velodog said:


> Paul Kimmage's take
> 
> https://www.independent.ie/sport/ot...the-bullshit-why-should-we-care-36414204.html


He writes about the Alpe d'huez stage 20 TdF 2015:

Froome is sick since stage 17, so sick he needs antibiotics



> Hold on a minute.
> 
> Froome finished fifth in the stage - a career achievement for a lot of riders. He stuck four minutes into Dan Martin and finished almost two minutes clear of some other elite climbers - Contador, Vincenzo Nibali, Romain Bardet and Robert Gesink. A couple of days later - still coughing and wheezing presumably, and sucking on his inhaler - he was racing in Holland for a handsome appearance fee. Some might say his spirit sustained him.
> 
> 
> I call it taking the piss.


----------



## coldash

MMsRepBike said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> As I stated above and several others much smarter than you have, it IS performance enhancing at those higher doses. It's ANABOLIC.
> 
> *It's LISTED as a MASKING AGENT in the WADA code*.


Here is the WADA code



> “If a Substance or Method is not defined in this list, please verify with your Anti-Doping Organization.
> The following diuretics and masking agents are prohibited, as are other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).
> Including, but not limited to:
> •	Desmopressin; probenecid; plasma expanders, e.g. glyceroland intravenous administration of albumin, dextran, hydroxyethyl starch and mannitol.
> •	Acetazolamide; amiloride; bumetanide; canrenone; chlortalidone; etacrynic acid; furosemide; indapamide; metolazone; spironolactone; thiazides, e.g. bendroflumethiazide, chlorothiazide and hydrochlorothiazide; triamterene and vaptans, e.g. tolvaptan.
> Except:
> •	Drospirenone; pamabrom; and ophthalmic use of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (e.g. dorzolamide, brinzolamide).
> •	Local administration of felypressin in dental anaesthesia.
> The detection in an Athlete’s Sample at all times or In-Competition, as applicable, of any quantity of the following substances subject to threshold limits: formoterol, salbutamol, cathine, ephedrine, methylephedrine and pseudoephedrine, in conjunction with a diuretic or masking agent, will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete has an approved Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for that substance in addition to the one granted for the diuretic or masking agent.”


The important point in this case is



> “The detection in an Athlete’s Sample at all times or In-Competition, as applicable, of any quantity of the following substances subject to threshold limits: formoterol, *salbutamol*, cathine, ephedrine, methylephedrine and pseudoephedrine,*in conjunction with a diuretic or masking agent,*will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete has an approved Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for that substance in addition to the one granted for the diuretic or masking agent.”


i.e. salbutamol has to be in conjunction with a masking agent. It is not in itself a masking agent. That is the WADA code.


----------



## aclinjury

zero85ZEN said:


> Recommended reading: https://www.google.com/amp/s/pvcycl...16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/amp/


I like how the article mentions that Froome & Sky takes every opportunity to mention that Froome has severe asthma since childhood! Those Sky guys were already laying the foundation. You know, when somebody has to constantly tell you they're not a liar, they're not a thief, well, you can already predict eh, quack quack quack.


----------



## love4himies

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/certainly-doesnt-look-good-doctor-speaks-froome-case/

This is an interview with a sports doctor.



> The normal advised dose for Ventolin is a maximum of eight puffs a day. That can sometimes be exceeded in severe cases. But it is up to the asthmatic, no matter how bad their asthma is, to stay within the limits.
> 
> I have no doubt that Chris Froome has asthma, that is pretty much a given. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But for someone who has asthma, having a very bad attack means it is difficult to walk up a set of stairs. You are not going to be so strong on a mountain stage.






> So you are saying that you would need at least 20 puffs to reach double the threshold…
> 
> At least that, yes.


And somebody needing that type of dose:



> I have no doubt that Chris Froome has asthma, that is pretty much a given. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But for someone who has asthma, having a very bad attack means it is difficult to walk up a set of stairs. You are not going to be so strong on a mountain stage.


----------



## aclinjury

velodog said:


> Paul Kimmage's take
> 
> https://www.independent.ie/sport/ot...the-bullshit-why-should-we-care-36414204.html


funny it appears that some the best endurance cyclists are also some of the sickest people on earth. Requirement for pro cycling: you must have asthma to qualify.

but I ask, cmon folks, do you guys seriously buy these stories? Does evolution tend to make sick people into champions? Is that how the propagation of genes work in nature? Sheesh, I would like to know of the asthma gene is linked to the endurance gene? After Armstrong, every doper is presumed guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## Rashadabd

MPCC came a callin':


2017/12/18 Press Release


----------



## KoroninK

aclinjury said:


> I like how the article mentions that Froome & Sky takes every opportunity to mention that Froome has severe asthma since childhood! Those Sky guys were already laying the foundation. You know, when somebody has to constantly tell you they're not a liar, they're not a thief, well, you can already predict eh, quack quack quack.


Yep. The Yates twins have had asthma since childhood and that hardly ever is mentioned. Only very occasionally like when Simon had the ban because of the team messed up the paperwork.


----------



## Fredrico

love4himies said:


> If his asthma was so poorly managed, how in the hell did he win a grand tour when he's competing against healthy elites of the same caliber? It just doesn't make logical sense. And to win 2 in the same year????


He took too much and went over the limit. Poor management. :nono:


----------



## Rashadabd

Fredrico said:


> He took too much and went over the limit. Poor management. :nono:


It seems like it’s all there for anyone that wants to see it (Wiggins+Froome+Sutton interview). At bare minimum, Sky has probably been using TUEs and drugs that are legal at some levels, but not at others to beat/cheat the system and win consistently. They are barely even denying it. Those that are open to the possibility will see it for what it is, those that don’t want to see it won’t.


----------



## Fredrico

velodog said:


> Paul Kimmage's take
> 
> https://www.independent.ie/sport/ot...the-bullshit-why-should-we-care-36414204.html


_"But is that (health) not the essence of competition?" I suggested.

"Inhalers are not performance-enhancing," he [Froome] said. "If any normal person who doesn't have asthma takes an inhaler, they're not going to ride any faster. Their lungs are not going to open any larger than they were before. But someone who does have asthma, the airways are going to close up and that inhaler just helps them to close less. It just helps me to be more normal and I definitely don't see that as an unfair advantage."_

Well, is Froome telling the truth or not? His story sounds reasonable to me. He's over trained. His immune system is weak from traveling around and racing, and his Fall allergies are worse. But he's a champ and has the will power to overcome and do his thing: win races. An endurance cyclist should see nothing strange about that.


----------



## Fredrico

Rashadabd said:


> It seems like it’s all there for anyone that wants to see it (Wiggins+Froome+Sutton interview). At bare minimum, Sky has probably been using TUEs and drugs that are legal at some levels, but not at others to beat/cheat the system and win consistently. They are barely even denying it. Those that are open to the possibility will see it for what it is, those that don’t want to see it won’t.


I want proof Froome takes inhalers purely for performance. A good team often dominates the peloton drug free, through intelligent tactics and sheer willpower. They see success and work their a$$es off to get it. If they come clean in the drug tests, give them credit. Way too easy to shrug and say, "He's winning races! Must be on drugs!" These guys, Armstrong, Contador, Froome, would be winning races completely clean.

Damn, the Queen knighted Wiggins, Sir Bradley, for his exploits in the TDF. Is she going to take back his title? ut:

I guess I'm reaching the point of agreeing with Kimmel's cynicism. :frown2:


----------



## DaveG

Fredrico said:


> _"But is that (health) not the essence of competition?" I suggested.
> 
> "Inhalers are not performance-enhancing," he [Froome] said. "If any normal person who doesn't have asthma takes an inhaler, they're not going to ride any faster. Their lungs are not going to open any larger than they were before. But someone who does have asthma, the airways are going to close up and that inhaler just helps them to close less. It just helps me to be more normal and I definitely don't see that as an unfair advantage."_
> 
> Well, is Froome telling the truth or not? His story sounds reasonable to me. He's over trained. His immune system is weak from traveling around and racing, and his Fall allergies are worse. But he's a champ and has the will power to overcome and do his thing: win races. An endurance cyclist should see nothing strange about that.


Fred, I think you are letting hero-worship get in the way of logic. No, I don't think his story is believable at all
1. He is well aware of the dose limit for Salbutamol
2. He has team doctors helping manage his meds; they are also aware of the limits
3. He test positive for DOUBLE the max dose


----------



## love4himies

DaveG said:


> Fred, I think you are letting hero-worship get in the way of logic. No, I don't think his story is believable at all
> 1. He is well aware of the dose limit for Salbutamol
> 2. He has team doctors helping manage his meds; they are also aware of the limits
> *3. He test positive for DOUBLE the max dose*


Which takes a lot of puffs & is in danger of being life threatening. To need that much one should be on death's door and in a hospital emergency room, not winning GT.


----------



## love4himies

Fredrico said:


> He took too much and went over the limit. Poor management. :nono:


He took enough to possibly kill himself with. It wasn't just one or two puffs too much. And how did he end up winning when he needed so much to control his asthma?


----------



## velodog

Fredrico said:


> _"But is that (health) not the essence of competition?" I suggested.
> 
> "Inhalers are not performance-enhancing," he [Froome] said. "If any normal person who doesn't have asthma takes an inhaler, they're not going to ride any faster. Their lungs are not going to open any larger than they were before. But someone who does have asthma, the airways are going to close up and that inhaler just helps them to close less. It just helps me to be more normal and I definitely don't see that as an unfair advantage."_
> 
> Well, is Froome telling the truth or not? His story sounds reasonable to me. *He's over trained*. His immune system is weak from traveling around and racing, and his Fall allergies are worse. But he's a champ and has the will power to overcome and do his thing: win races. An endurance cyclist should see nothing strange about that.


Races aren't won by overtraining.


----------



## Rashadabd

Fredrico said:


> I want proof Froome takes inhalers purely for performance. A good team often dominates the peloton drug free, through intelligent tactics and sheer willpower. They see success and work their a$$es off to get it. If they come clean in the drug tests, give them credit. Way too easy to shrug and say, "He's winning races! Must be on drugs!" These guys, Armstrong, Contador, Froome, would be winning races completely clean.
> 
> Damn, the Queen knighted Wiggins, Sir Bradley, for his exploits in the TDF. Is she going to take back his title? ut:
> 
> I guess I'm reaching the point of agreeing with Kimmel's cynicism. :frown2:


You have this so backwards at this point that you are in a completely different universe. My guess is you are trolling, not reading the news, or just looking for a fight. This whole thing is actually pretty simple, so let me give you the cliff notes: He failed an existing test. Full stop, end of story. Others that failed the same test under almost identical circumstances were suspended. Full stop, end of story. 

If you desperately need more to think about, the test and standard set by it have existed for some time. He violated rules he knew he could not violate. Other riders that have done the same exact thing, involving the same exact drug received fairly lenghthy suspensions despite arguing basically what Froome has argued thus far. That is what it is. 

Accordingly, you don't get to start making up the rules or changing the burden of proof when it's the multi-time TdF champ or your favorite rider that gets popped. That's blatant bias. He should get the same punishment the other guys received. That's called equity. If he doesn't, that's called favoritism. 

Moreover, the fact that you want us all to believe (bless your heart) that it's mere coincidence that the team that has won like five of the last six TdFs and had their first champ reportedly receiving a jiffy bag filled with something under the cover of darkness and miraculously has no medical records to confirm what it was and has that same rider questionably using TUEs the year he won the TdF now has their current multi-time champ fail a test for double the levels of the asthma medication he was allowed to take the very same year he wins the TdF and the Vuelta back to back-- does not change the fact that Froome failed a drug test.

So, believe in your dream that the facts listed above are just a strange coincidence and an example of good clean guys being in the wrong place at the wrong time, believe in your dream that Contador ate contaminated meat, believe in your dream that Lance raced clean and fair and would have won without drugs if it makes you happy (well.... I guess you can't really believe in that last one anymore, but you get the point). I still say Sky, WADA, and the UCI need to do in this case what they have done in similar cases. 

Why Froome took so much medication and how that may or may not have benefited him is a minor part of the debate. It is banned at those levels for a reason, he knew it, he went beyond the banned levels, so unless he can *prove* it was an accident, he should suffer the same fate as others that could not do so under similar circumstances. There's really nothing else that can be said about the matter without sounding ridiculous, but by all means, carry on.....


----------



## Rashadabd

Froom's teammate provides a nice summary outlining the problem with TUEs and the use of asthma medication in the pro peloton.

Geraint Thomas: I believe Chris Froome but I'm racing my own Tour de France | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## love4himies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=SkBT13_ELCM

Froome after Stage 18 Vuelta 2017


----------



## Alaska Mike

"Froome and Team Sky waved the possibility of suspending when the failed test was first raised, meaning that if a suspension is handed down then it cannot be retrospectively applied." -Cyclingnews

At this point, I can't see Froome at the Giro or the Tour, since a back-dated suspension is now off the table. Unless the wheels get rolling really quickly and this gets cleared up soon, an eight month suspension (which I think might be warranted) will kill the entire 2018 season for him. Even six months would probably knock him down too far. No race days in the legs before a Grand Tour is pretty much unheard of, and selling Froome as a leader to a racer of the quality of Thomas after that is near-impossible.

He should have taken the sanction, immediately admitted his mistake (to those that would believe him), and looked to the next season. Instead, he'll probably lose the Vuelta *and* 2018. Yet another Sky public relations fiasco.


----------



## DaveG

love4himies said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=SkBT13_ELCM
> 
> Froome after Stage 18 Vuelta 2017


I think its heroic how he fights back the debilitating effects of his asthma symptoms through the interview.


----------



## Rashadabd

Driving home the only point there is to make here:

"And I remember from the Alberto Contador case that once you have got a substance in your system that is above a certain limit – in other words, this situation – that the result of the race you were competing in is gone straight away.

*Yes. And the principle of strict liability applies in some ways as well. It doesn’t really matter how it got there, it is up to the athletes to make sure that your level is still within the permitted levels.*"

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/certainly-doesnt-look-good-doctor-speaks-froome-case/


----------



## aclinjury

love4himies said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=SkBT13_ELCM
> 
> Froome after Stage 18 Vuelta 2017


not even a slightest of cough, strong breath, looked smoother fresher than a baby's butt. He even said "I was within myself", doesn't sound like a victim suffering from sever asthma since childhood to me. I need to buy me some of that asthma he's on.


----------



## DaveG

He was totally fighting it. The man is very, very sick and yet he bravely presses on as if nothing is wrong. I get choked up just thinking about it


----------



## thighmaster

coldash said:


> I’ve just read some more of the details and it is very strange. He appears to be well over the limit (x2) yet knows he was being tested every day and bound to be caught if he exceeded the limit.
> 
> In any event I hope that the UCI investigation is fair and if he is found in contravention (and right now I can’t see how he wasn’t) then the sanctions applied are consistent with previous cases.
> 
> PS. I wonder if Landa will be regretting leaning Sky now. He could have been in with a chance of TdF leadership


Watch the movie Icarus, it's easy to cheat and or you just pay the testers.


----------



## coldash

thighmaster said:


> Watch the movie Icarus, it's easy to cheat and or you just pay the testers.


Me no understand. Are you saying that they ran out of bribe money that day?

I did watch Icarus. I wanted to see more about the cycling event but it went off at a, albeit interesting, tangent


----------



## redondoaveb

Part 2 from "Wanky".
https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/the-truth-about-chris-froomes-doping-part-2/


----------



## rufus

aclinjury said:


> so, general US population has an 8% asthma rate. Tri/Ironman athletes have a 10% rate. Yet, if you ever watch the startline at one of the big tri/ironman even, you'll see that it's more like 50% of them have asthma based on the amount of these inhalers get discarded onto the ground. They all claim inhalers don't give them an edge, just barely allow them to compete. But like I said, I consider asthma as part of the limitations of the body


I read somewhere a few years ago, that the first thing a cycling team does after signing a new rider is petition to get him a TUE for asthma.


----------



## rufus

aclinjury said:


> I like how the article mentions that Froome & Sky takes every opportunity to mention that Froome has severe asthma since childhood! Those Sky guys were already laying the foundation. You know, when somebody has to constantly tell you they're not a liar, they're not a thief, well, you can already predict eh, quack quack quack.


I thought Froomie's issue was that he had some blood-born parasite or something, from his days as a youth in Africa, that wasn't discovered until he got onto a major pro-cycling team(like Sky). Once that was discovered, and the problem cured, then you got the Froome that almost beat Wiggins at the Vuelta.


----------



## Fredrico

love4himies said:


> Which takes a lot of puffs & is in danger of being life threatening. To need that much one should be on death's door and in a hospital emergency room, not winning GT.


That's why Froomie could be telling the truth: if he knew what the limit was, he could have made a mistake, overdosed, and didn't know it.


----------



## Fredrico

velodog said:


> Races aren't won by overtraining.


Survival of the fittest! Sure. 

But Froomie may have had a bad season standing up to the abuse on his body. Despite it all, he overcame with championship form and won another TDF. That'll take a lot out of the fittest athletes. Pro racing is brutal. Everybody is overtrained by the end of the season if they were putting their hearts into it. You can't put down a top level rider for overtraining. If he's winning, he's probably overtrained. Champions overcome their weaknesses with sheer willpower, the essence of racing. 

Froome's asthma hit him after the TDF when his body was worn down and most vulnerable and ragweed pollen was in the air. But this was a simple handicap easily overcome with a relative harmless medicine that has little to no performance advantage over those who's airways aren't stuffed up. Unfair to penalize him for something he had no control over. 

The guy's a champion. Why bring him down because he gets asthma after exercising at intensities we mortals can only dream about? TUEs are for correcting health handicaps. In fact Froome applied for one, just didn't fill it out right. That's an even dumber reason for suspending him.


----------



## DaveG

Fredrico said:


> Survival of the fittest! Sure.
> 
> But Froomie may have had a bad season standing up to the abuse on his body. Despite it all, he overcame with championship form and won another TDF. That'll take a lot out of the fittest athletes. Pro racing is brutal. Everybody is overtrained by the end of the season if they were putting their hearts into it. You can't put down a top level rider for overtraining. If he's winning, he's probably overtrained. Champions overcome their weaknesses with sheer willpower, the essence of racing.
> 
> Froome's asthma hit him after the TDF when his body was worn down and most vulnerable and ragweed pollen was in the air. But this was a simple handicap easily overcome with a relative harmless medicine that has little to no performance advantage over those who's airways aren't stuffed up. Unfair to penalize him for something he had no control over.
> 
> The guy's a champion. Why bring him down because he gets asthma after exercising at intensities we mortals can only dream about? TUEs are for correcting health handicaps. In fact Froome applied for one, just didn't fill it out right. That's an even dumber reason for suspending him.


Froome is an inspiration to asthmatics everywhere. We should be bestowing upon him some type of humanitarian award, as well as team Sky for being so vigilant and transparent on anti-doping causes.


----------



## MMsRepBike

Fredrico said:


> Froome's asthma hit him after the TDF when his body was worn down and most vulnerable and ragweed pollen was in the air. But this was a simple handicap easily overcome with a relative harmless medicine that has little to no performance advantage over those who's airways aren't stuffed up. Unfair to penalize him for something he had no control over.


Would you shut up about the "fall allergies" please?

THERE WAS NO POLLEN IN THE AIR, IT WAS RAINING.

Other "asthmatic" cyclists that day had no need for an inhaler, they said the environment HELPED THEIR ASTHMA THAT DAY because of the moisture in the air.

His interview that day clearly shows he had no allergy issues at all, zero.

So shut up about it please.


----------



## Jwiffle

zero85ZEN said:


> It does have performance enhancing benefits outside of its benefits as a bronchodilator. If used in high dosages during training it helps increase muscle mass while dropping weight (leaning out to less body fat percentage). The likely reason for Froome’s suddenly high reading was because of re-infusing a blood bag that was “glowing”, in other words the blood drawn and stored came from a period during his training when he was on high doses of Salbutamol. He was after the benefits of the blood re-infusion at the Vuelta. Being popped for an elevated Salbutamol level was probably an unintended consequence of not being careful enough with his blood harvesting timetable.
> 
> If this is the true cause of the AAF, Froome’s actions ABSOLUTELY rise to the magnitude of cheating with EPO, BLOOD DOPING, etc...
> 
> ;-)


I doubt with microdosing and small blood bags they would use would be enough blood to make his urine show twice the allowable amount the next day. In other words, if he took a bag of blood the evening before, even if it was contaminated with Salbutamol, most of that would Salbutamol would have been gone by a pee test the next evening after the stage. And it probably would not have been enough to put him so much over the limit. So I would think blood doping is not the reason.


----------



## velodog

Jwiffle said:


> I doubt with microdosing and small blood bags they would use would be enough blood to make his urine show twice the allowable amount the next day. In other words, if he took a bag of blood the evening before, even if it was contaminated with Salbutamol, most of that would Salbutamol would have been gone by a pee test the next evening after the stage. And it probably would not have been enough to put him so much over the limit. So I would think blood doping is not the reason.


Who cares the reason, he should pay the price. Then, and only then, should any consideration for a change in the rule be considered.

If a rule, any rule, is going to be amended, it should not be amended while a cyclist is under investigation for violating that rule. That is the only fair way of doing it.


----------



## Jwiffle

velodog said:


> Who cares the reason, he should pay the price. Then, and only then, should any consideration for a change in the rule be considered.
> 
> If a rule, any rule, is going to be amended, it should not be amended while a cyclist is under investigation for violating that rule. That is the only fair way of doing it.


Not disagreeing with you at all. Just saying it must have been taken on its own, not in a blood bag. I completely agree with you.


----------



## Jwiffle

Alaska Mike said:


> "Froome and Team Sky waved the possibility of suspending when the failed test was first raised, meaning that if a suspension is handed down then it cannot be retrospectively applied." -Cyclingnews
> 
> At this point, I can't see Froome at the Giro or the Tour, since a back-dated suspension is now off the table. Unless the wheels get rolling really quickly and this gets cleared up soon, an eight month suspension (which I think might be warranted) will kill the entire 2018 season for him. Even six months would probably knock him down too far. No race days in the legs before a Grand Tour is pretty much unheard of, and selling Froome as a leader to a racer of the quality of Thomas after that is near-impossible.
> 
> He should have taken the sanction, immediately admitted his mistake (to those that would believe him), and looked to the next season. Instead, he'll probably lose the Vuelta *and* 2018. Yet another Sky public relations fiasco.


I'm surprised a retroactive suspension would be off the table. Contador refused to accept the first offer of a one year ban, then later was handed a retroactive 2 year ban.


----------



## Fredrico

MMsRepBike said:


> Would you shut up about the "fall allergies" please?
> 
> THERE WAS NO POLLEN IN THE AIR, IT WAS RAINING.
> 
> Other "asthmatic" cyclists that day had no need for an inhaler, they said the environment HELPED THEIR ASTHMA THAT DAY because of the moisture in the air.
> 
> His interview that day clearly shows he had no allergy issues at all, zero.
> 
> So shut up about it please.


Good point. However, Froomie's defenses were worn down from the dry days before. He'd gotten a cold [upper respiratory infection] and his lungs were still in trouble. Why else did he need the drug? It opens airways, that's it. Performance enhancement is a result, as he can new breathe. Who's to say his desire was motivated by wanting to win the race [peformance] or simple survival [breathing freely]. 

Froome applied for a TUE and should have gotten it. Offer proof or anecdotal evidence this drug suddenly makes it possible for a "sick" rider to outperform everybody else and win the race, then you have an argument. Guilty until proven innocent isn't the way its supposed to work.

Never tell someone to shut up in an argument. :nono: Them's fightin' words, bwah!


----------



## Fredrico

DaveG said:


> Froome is an inspiration to asthmatics everywhere. We should be bestowing upon him some type of humanitarian award, as well as team Sky for being so vigilant and transparent on anti-doping causes.


Froome needed his anti-asthmatic. Get over it. Unless, of course, you can show he used it to mask a real performance enhancing drug, which these armchair prosecutors haven't touched on.


----------



## Fredrico

Rashadabd said:


> More on the issue. The reality remains the same, he has to prove he took the allowed amounts.....
> 
> Anti-doping expert on Froome: â€˜It doesn't quite add up' | VeloNews.com
> 
> https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-at-all-times/beta-2-agonists


This is what I've been suggesting:

_The puffers will only get you back to a ‘normal’ function. They cannot open the airways in any additional way. There is no extra benefit for anyone who might not be asthmatic. If an asthmatic took a few extra puffs, they might feel some mild stimulation. Like a jolt of caffeine. Beyond that, there are not much additional benefits to performance.

VN: And via the other methods, how does that affect an athlete?
DTB: With injections or tablets, you start getting some additional effects. You might see anabolic effects, such muscle-growing or fat-burning, similar to what Clenbuterol might do. That wouldn’t result from a couple of puffs. That would be a longer-term abuse with a higher level of it to get that anabolic effect, over weeks or even months.

VN: There have been some reports it can be used as a masking agent, are those true?
DTB: I have seen those reports, and I have not seen any scientific data to back that up. There might be some confusion because, on the banned list, Salbutamol appears in the masking agent section. If you were using Salbutamol with a diuretic, you would need a TUE for both those drugs.

VN: And how does dehydration affect the outcome of a test?
DTB: With thicker urine, and less water, any drug would appear in a higher concentration.

Read more at Anti-doping expert on Froome: â€˜It doesn't quite add up' | VeloNews.com_
Significant for determining guilt: AAF is the finding, twice the amount permitted for this drug. Now Froome has to explain to get off the hook. He could be guilty or maybe not, as I've tried to explain.


----------



## Marc

Fredrico said:


> Froome needed his anti-asthmatic. Get over it. Unless, of course, you can show he used it to mask a real performance enhancing drug, which these armchair prosecutors haven't touched on.


Froome violated the usage allowance rules...not by a little, but by a factor of 2x at least.

Get over it.


----------



## Fredrico

Marc said:


> Froome violated the usage allowance rules...not by a little, but by a factor of 2x at least.
> 
> Get over it.


I'll wait for the whole story to come clearer before deciding what to believe. So far, too many unanswered questions. 

Innocent until proven guilty, as painful as that may seem to those lusting for scandal. :frown2:


----------



## Marc

Fredrico said:


> I'll wait for the whole story to come clearer before deciding what to believe. So far, too many unanswered questions.
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty, as painful as that may seem to those lusting for scandal. :frown2:


He already is "guilty". He's double over the limit of a substance with a hard usage limit. The adverse analytical finding already was returned. Rules are rules. What the "story" is is pretty irrelevant. Heck, he even admits he uses the stuff--so it isn't "if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit"



What more do you need?


----------



## Fredrico

Marc said:


> He already is "guilty". He's double over the limit of a substance with a hard usage limit. The adverse analytical finding already was returned. Rules are rules. What the "story" is is pretty irrelevant.


Not at all. The Velo News article says that "AAF" only states the one finding after a one day race that was not consistent with any previous tests finding Froome clean. If he knew he'd be tested, why would he have taken twice over the limit? Doesn't make sense. 

What does make sense, is he didn't know he was over the limit.

Adverse analytical finding, AAF, only gives evidence to investigate. It's not a judgment of guilt. Froome can weasel out of the accusations if he has a good excuse, which he does. Gotta wait to see what the authorities come up with after hearing Froome's defense. 

This is a trivial violation compared to real PEDs like EPO and testosterone. It is based on an arbitrary limit which would vary among individuals, and also on one individual on a given day, and would therefore be difficult to determine if it enhanced performance unfairly, or qualified as "therapeutic."

As far as rules: TUE sets up exceptions to the rules. He has the opportunity to beat the charges.


----------



## Marc

Fredrico said:


> Not at all. The Velo News article says that "AAF" only states the one finding after a one day race that was not consistent with any previous tests finding Froome clean. If he knew he'd be tested, why would he have taken twice over the limit? Doesn't make sense.
> 
> What does make sense, is he didn't know he was over the limit.
> 
> Adverse analytical finding, AAF, only gives evidence to investigate. It's not a judgment of guilt. Froome can weasel out of the accusations if he has a good excuse, which he does. Gotta wait to see what the authorities come up with after hearing Froome's defense.
> 
> This is a trivial violation compared to real PEDs like EPO and testosterone. It is based on an arbitrary limit which would vary among individuals, and also on one individual on a given day, and would therefore be difficult to determine if it enhanced performance unfairly, or qualified as "therapeutic."
> 
> As far as rules: TUE sets up exceptions to the rules. He has the opportunity to beat the charges.


So the rules are rules...but they don't apply to Froome. Got it.


----------



## Fredrico

Marc said:


> So the rules are rules...but they don't apply to Froome. Got it.


Depending on lots of variables, a judge hardly ever sentences all violators to the same punishment. One guy he'll let go with a slap on the wrist [deferred adjudication] another community service and a year's probation; another he'll send to jail. So at this stage of the game Froome could very well beat the rules, you know, "therapeutic use *exception?*" I want more answers before passing judgement. So far doesn't make sense he knew he took twice the limit and did it intentionally. Doc says twice the limit would be very high. What did he say, "Death defying?" 

Froome is respected generally as an honest bloke. He ain't that sneaky, overcompensating kid from Plano, TX, willing to break the law and bully his detractors, to make a name for himself.


----------



## ddave12000

Marc said:


> So the rules are rules...but they don't apply to Froome. Got it.


I'm not a froome defender at all...but it's some of this isn't that hard to understand. He's clearly in violation of the limit - it's an undeniable fact. However, by the current rules he's allowed to run the lab tests to see if the condition can be recreated without exceeding the max allowable intake. My guess is he has no chance of doing that and the end result is that he'll face some sort of ban - 9mo to 2 years. I think all of the denials and posturing is just for PR effect more or less. Personally, I think he'd have done himself better to play a little more "dumb" than the adamant denials. I.e. "I was really struggling, so I was using the medicine and I don't think I used more than allowed but we all know the test results. Maybe I made a mistake...now I have an opportunity to prove that, if true, in a lab. If not I have to accept the consequences..." As it is, he's just sounding like every other doping denier at this point.


----------



## richdiaz

*TUE was NOT required for his inhaler!*



coldash said:


> Full story on Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol | Cyclingnews.com here
> 
> I’ll wait until the facts are established but it raises the whole TUE issue (for everyone) again


From what I've read so far, a TUE was not required for the medication in his inhaler. The only limitation on the inhaler is a not to exceed amount of 1000ML. He exceeded the allowable amount by 2x.

I had originally thought that this would be a TUE-based issue like the other SKY rider, Sir Wiggins. NOT the case.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Fredrico said:


> So at this stage of the game Froome could very well beat the rules, you know, "therapeutic use *exception?*"


Moot point. He had no TUE at that time. 

"In 2013, Froome used a TUE to use the corticoid Prednisolone to treat asthma during the Tour de Romandie. His eventual victory kicked up a firestorm when it was revealed he was using a TUE. He used another TUE in 2014. Since then, Froome has vowed not to use a TUE, and since 2015, Team Sky has raced the Tour without any riders using TUE’s." -Velonews



Fredrico said:


> He ain't that sneaky, overcompensating kid from Plano, TX, willing to break the law and bully his detractors, to make a name for himself.


Being likeable isn't going to help him beat this rap. He the UCI and WADA in a very tough spot, because to apply a sanction of less than has been historically given for lesser amounts without the 1 in a million shot of the tests proving he's innocent of ingesting over the permissible limits... well, let's just say he's hosed. The current UCI president won't likely grant many favors, even if he has any say in the matter. 

Again, reach a settlement quickly (moderate ban, statement from the UCI it wasn't intentional...), quietly serve the suspension, and hopefully make it back for the Tour. Even if he misses this year, he'll still have a couple years as a GC contender left. The longer he draws it out, the more race days he misses, the less chances he'll have to make his five and get a legitimate Vuelta and/or Giro. The longer he's gone, the more time Sky has to put in place their next GC superstar. Ask Wiggins about how that works...


----------



## Fredrico

Alaska Mike said:


> Moot point. He had no TUE at that time.
> 
> "In 2013, Froome used a TUE to use the corticoid Prednisolone to treat asthma during the Tour de Romandie. His eventual victory kicked up a firestorm when it was revealed he was using a TUE. He used another TUE in 2014. Since then, Froome has vowed not to use a TUE, and since 2015, Team Sky has raced the Tour without any riders using TUE’s." -Velonews
> 
> 
> Being likeable isn't going to help him beat this rap. He the UCI and WADA in a very tough spot, because to apply a sanction of less than has been historically given for lesser amounts without the 1 in a million shot of the tests proving he's innocent of ingesting over the permissible limits... well, let's just say he's hosed. The current UCI president won't likely grant many favors, even if he has any say in the matter.
> 
> Again, reach a settlement quickly (moderate ban, statement from the UCI it wasn't intentional...), quietly serve the suspension, and hopefully make it back for the Tour. Even if he misses this year, he'll still have a couple years as a GC contender left. The longer he draws it out, the more race days he misses, the less chances he'll have to make his five and get a legitimate Vuelta and/or Giro. The longer he's gone, the more time Sky has to put in place their next GC superstar. Ask Wiggins about how that works...


Agree on the punishment, 4-6 months ban, as a formality to uphold the law, as many are demanding. But I still think punishment is over the top for what it was, both in terms of guilt as well as performance enhancement, very much unproven.


----------



## coldash

richdiaz said:


> From what I've read so far, a TUE was not required for the medication in his inhaler. The only limitation on the inhaler is a not to exceed amount of 1000ML. He exceeded the allowable amount by 2x.
> 
> I had originally thought that this would be a TUE-based issue like the other SKY rider, Sir Wiggins. NOT the case.


Yes. Maybe poor wording. I meant the whole wider aspects of TUEs and medication. Ironically if Froome had applied for and been granted a TUE, as in the past, he would have avoided this. It was his reluctance to get a TUE and the subsequent events that have caused him his current problems.


----------



## aclinjury

BobkeTV:






Cycling is still dirty as ever. Brailsford, Team Sky, all f'kin hypocrite. I'm hoping their new owner Disney Corp will put an end to Sky and these dope cheats.


----------



## love4himies

Fredrico said:


> I'll wait for the whole story to come clearer before deciding what to believe. So far, too many unanswered questions.
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty, as painful as that may seem to those lusting for scandal. :frown2:


He has been proven guilty, the test results don't lie. IF dehydration was a factor in being over the limit, it would be much more common. He was 2x over the limit which would take almost lethal doses. If he was that sick he wouldn't have been able to race. Watch the video of him right after the stage. Does that look like a guy who had to take about 20 puffs of Salbutamol when the max daily dosage is only 8?


----------



## coldash

love4himies said:


> *He has been proven guilty*, the test results don't lie. IF dehydration was a factor in being over the limit, it would be much more common. He was 2x over the limit which would take almost lethal doses. If he was that sick he wouldn't have been able to race. Watch the video of him right after the stage. Does that look like a guy who had to take about 20 puffs of Salbutamol when the max daily dosage is only 8?


That is completely untrue. He has returned a test result that will lead to him being guilty unless he can prove otherwise. At this stage, the case is not resolved


----------



## love4himies

coldash said:


> That is completely untrue. *He has returned a test result that will lead to him being guilty* unless he can prove otherwise. At this stage, the case is not resolved


He has proven to have broken the rules, period. Whether he can defend it or not is another thing. He is not considered innocent until proven guilty, he is guilty until proven innocent. This is not a court of law.


----------



## coldash

love4himies said:


> *He has proven to have broken the rules, period. *Whether he can defend it or not is another thing. He is not considered innocent until proven guilty, he is guilty until proven innocent. This is not a court of law.


No he has not, period. If he can’t prove that his intake was within the limits then he is guilty. Until then, you’ll have to take the tar off the boil and repack the feathers


----------



## DaveG

Fredrico said:


> Agree on the punishment, 4-6 months ban, as a formality to uphold the law, as many are demanding. But I still think punishment is over the top for what it was, both in terms of guilt as well as performance enhancement, very much unproven.


I doubt an argument that the drug is not performance enhancing will come into play in prosecuting this case. The rule is in place and has been for some time and others have been banned for the same offense. Didn't Maria Sharapova try that defense with her meldonium test and lost?


----------



## DrSmile

My wife took salbutamol to stop her muscle contractions when she went into early labor from being dehydrated. This is one of the other on-label uses of salbutamol. I think people get a skewed impression when they google and only see the on-label use of the drug. The pharmacokinetics of salbutamol clearly show a path to a performance benefit by relaxing skeletal muscle, and providing an anti-inflammatory effect there. I also think it could clearly be used as a masking agent based on the pharmacokinetics relating to potassium depletion through excessive urination. I personally take albuterol (salbutamol) for allergies/asthma and I pee like a racehorse when using it. There is no way I buy that salbutamol couldn't be used as a masking agent for this purpose. I do not think the overdose was caused by inhalation because of the high level, my guess is someone read the infusion bag or syringe label wrong and missed by an extra zero. I'd also point out that salbutamol has a very short half life (~4 hours) which makes it a perfect doping drug, and it also means you really have to dose up heavily to fail the test. 

My (juryless) verdict - he's as guilty as every other professional athlete. 1 year ban, give up the title.


----------



## aclinjury

here's a question to the endurance athletes who take asthma drugs. Would you say that if you didn't take the drugs, then you wouldn't be able to complete the event or complete it in a competitive time? Well then, wouldn't you agree that any asthma drug has to be seen as "performance enhancing" then if it helps you to be competitive that you otherwise wouldn't be? Again, I'm sorry that you have asthma, but to say that asthma drugs offer no competitive benefits, is a little false argument that could only be seen as truth by those who use it?

Along this line of thinking, I think they should ban all TUEs, and allow only very miminal usage of any asthma drug, by minimal, I mean enough amount that a typical asthma person would use in his daily life, but definitely NOT in a competitive environment. These "asthma endurance athletes" are abusing these drugs like a fat kid in candy store.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I agree, he hasn't been proven guilty. All he's had is an adverse analytical finding. Guilt or innocence has not been determined, except in the court of public opinion.

The reason he took the substance hasn't been determined either. Some people say it's a masking agent, some a weight loss drug along the lines of clenbuterol. Some say there's no performance enhancement to be gained from using it. Then again, some people say EPO isn't performance enhancing either...

Again, all that's been determined is that he had twice the allowed amount of the drug in his system at the time of the post-stage drug test. This is a drug with a fairly short "glow time", and the stage was 4 hours long. I would imagine he took a couple puffs before, a few during, and a few more afterwards. Math has never been my strong suit, but that does not add up to 20. He was either running extremely high levels before the stage that his body couldn't clear or he was taking a puff every 15 minutes during the stage.

Yeah, he's busted. Not for intentionally doping, because there's just too much wiggle room there, but for being double the limit. He's suffered from asthma before during stage races, and he's never popped this hot. I doubt any testing is going to show super-special Chris Froome absorption rates.

Move forward, Chris. You aren't beating the rap.


----------



## aclinjury

DrSmile said:


> My wife took salbutamol to stop her muscle contractions when she went into early labor from being dehydrated. This is one of the other on-label uses of salbutamol. I think people get a skewed impression when they google and only see the on-label use of the drug. The pharmacokinetics of salbutamol clearly show a path to a performance benefit by relaxing skeletal muscle, and providing an anti-inflammatory effect there. I also think it could clearly be used as a masking agent based on the pharmacokinetics relating to potassium depletion through excessive urination. I personally take albuterol (salbutamol) for allergies/asthma and I pee like a racehorse when using it. There is no way I buy that salbutamol couldn't be used as a masking agent for this purpose. I do not think the overdose was caused by inhalation because of the high level, my guess is someone read the infusion bag or syringe label wrong and missed by an extra zero. I'd also point out that salbutamol has a very short half life (~4 hours) which makes it a perfect doping drug, and it also means you really have to dose up heavily to fail the test.
> 
> My (juryless) verdict - he's as guilty as every other professional athlete. *1 year ban, give up the title*.


anything less than that would be a joke


----------



## 50x25

love4himies said:


> He was 2x over the limit which would take almost lethal doses.


Not lethal levels but this indicates that at the levels Froome had, he was quite possibly taking it orally. the urine concentration after taking 8mg orally had a peak level after four hours of ingestion of 2422.2 ng/ml and another hour or so of time and that level could be much closer to 2000 ng/ml because of the drugs very short half-life. Talk about marginal gains, guess Sky thought they could explain it away. Typically people who talk the loudest about what they are not doing are doing just that.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927035


----------



## love4himies

50x25 said:


> Not lethal levels but this indicates that at the levels Froome had, he was quite possibly taking it orally. the urine concentration after taking 8mg orally had a peak level after four hours of ingestion of 2422.2 ng/ml and another hour or so of time and that level could be much closer to 2000 ng/ml because of the drugs very short half-life. Talk about marginal gains, guess Sky thought they could explain it away. Typically people who talk the loudest about what they are not doing are doing just that.
> 
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927035


I got it from this sports doctor (they are talking about inhaling, not oral though):

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/certainly-doesnt-look-good-doctor-speaks-froome-case/



> But it’s important to say that this is not just potentially an anti-doping infraction; having such high levels is actually very bad for you. Overuse of salbutamol is actually associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. So there is a substantial health risk involved too. It is lethal stuff at those sorts of levels.


----------



## coldash

Here is a contribution from someone who knows a thing or two about cycling, WADA and the UCI

Lance Armstrong on Froome case: 'Something is not right about the way this unfolded' | Cyclist

(I also think that Sky will leave the sport sometime after the Disney deal completes but I have always thought that they were in it for a limited time anyway. Teams come and go)


----------



## DaveG

coldash said:


> Here is a contribution from someone who knows a thing or two about cycling, WADA and the UCI
> 
> Lance Armstrong on Froome case: 'Something is not right about the way this unfolded' | Cyclist
> 
> (I also think that Sky will leave the sport sometime after the Disney deal completes but I have always thought that they were in it for a limited time anyway. Teams come and go)


Well, when it comes to cheating there is no one with better credentials than Armstrong. But, on the other hand, he has zero credibility and like he says "I’m the last person who should be opining on this situation"


----------



## coldash

DaveG said:


> Well, when it comes to cheating there is no one with better credentials than Armstrong. But, on the other hand, he has zero credibility and like he says "I’m the last person who should be opining on this situation"


The podcast is interesting. I think Armstrong’s views are worth listening to whether you agree with them or not.


----------



## aclinjury

DaveG said:


> Well, when it comes to cheating there is no one with better credentials than Armstrong. But, on the other hand, he has zero credibility and like he says "I’m the last person who should be opining on this situation"


but when a past cheater is smelling "sumthing not right", you know something is not right


----------



## richdiaz

Fredrico said:


> Not at all. The Velo News article says that "AAF" only states the one finding after a one day race that was not consistent with any previous tests finding Froome clean. If he knew he'd be tested, why would he have taken twice over the limit? Doesn't make sense.
> 
> What does make sense, is he didn't know he was over the limit.
> 
> Adverse analytical finding, AAF, only gives evidence to investigate. It's not a judgment of guilt. Froome can weasel out of the accusations if he has a good excuse, which he does. Gotta wait to see what the authorities come up with after hearing Froome's defense.
> 
> This is a trivial violation compared to real PEDs like EPO and testosterone. It is based on an arbitrary limit which would vary among individuals, and also on one individual on a given day, and would therefore be difficult to determine if it enhanced performance unfairly, or qualified as "therapeutic."
> 
> As far as rules: TUE sets up exceptions to the rules. He has the opportunity to beat the charges.


Here's the deal - what Froome was taking did not require a TUE!! My question is: what other items do NOT require a TUE that will generate an AAF?


----------



## DrSmile

richdiaz said:


> Here's the deal - what Froome was taking did not require a TUE!! My question is: what other items do NOT require a TUE that will generate an AAF?


Apparently inhaled formoterol and salmeterol. But I only see a limit for formoterol (40 ng/mL) for an AAF.


----------



## Alaska Mike

From WADA's FAQ:

8. What is a ‘specified substance’?

It should be clear that all substances on the Prohibited List are prohibited. The sub-classification of substances as “Specified” or “Non-Specified” are important only in the sanctioning process.

A “Specified Substance” is a substance which potentially allows, under defined conditions, for a greater reduction of a sanction when an athlete tests positive for that particular substance.

The purpose of the sub-classifications of “Specified” or “Non-Specified” on the Prohibited List is to recognize that it is possible for a substance to enter an athlete’s body inadvertently, and therefore allow a tribunal more flexibility when making a sanctioning decision.

“Specified” substances are not necessarily less effective doping agents than “Non-Specified” substances, nor do they relieve athletes of the strict liability rule that makes them responsible for all substances that enter their body.
_____________________________________________________________
"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." -UCI Statement
_____________________________________________________________
2018 List of WADA Prohibited Substances
_____________________________________________________________

Now I'm reading (in Cyclingnews, no less) that perhaps a backdated suspension could still be on the table. Not being familiar with the process, I think it certainly could still be a possibility that Sky is angling for. We'll see how this plays out...

I think Team Sky's fate will be heavily influenced by the results, and the domino effect could likely run throughout British Cycling.


----------



## love4himies

Paul Kimmage saying it the way he sees it. If it doesn't look normal, it's not and calling out the hypocrisy of Sky.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">via .<a href="https://twitter.com/stevechapman65?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@stevechapman65</a> this is absolutely brilliant - kimmage just calls it regarding sky, Wiggins, Froome and the change in the media <a href="https://t.co/OzbFHXKI8R">https://t.co/OzbFHXKI8R</a></p>— **** the Hypocrisy (@Digger_forum) <a href="https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/944135914644738050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## KoroninK

Alaska Mike said:


> From WADA's FAQ:
> 
> 8. What is a ‘specified substance’?
> 
> It should be clear that all substances on the Prohibited List are prohibited. The sub-classification of substances as “Specified” or “Non-Specified” are important only in the sanctioning process.
> 
> A “Specified Substance” is a substance which potentially allows, under defined conditions, for a greater reduction of a sanction when an athlete tests positive for that particular substance.
> 
> The purpose of the sub-classifications of “Specified” or “Non-Specified” on the Prohibited List is to recognize that it is possible for a substance to enter an athlete’s body inadvertently, and therefore allow a tribunal more flexibility when making a sanctioning decision.
> 
> “Specified” substances are not necessarily less effective doping agents than “Non-Specified” substances, nor do they relieve athletes of the strict liability rule that makes them responsible for all substances that enter their body.
> _____________________________________________________________
> "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." -UCI Statement
> _____________________________________________________________
> 2018 List of WADA Prohibited Substances
> _____________________________________________________________
> 
> Now I'm reading (in Cyclingnews, no less) that perhaps a backdated suspension could still be on the table. Not being familiar with the process, I think it certainly could still be a possibility that Sky is angling for. We'll see how this plays out...
> 
> I think Team Sky's fate will be heavily influenced by the results, and the domino effect could likely run throughout British Cycling.


My guess would be the ban would be backdated to the date of the positive or abnormal test. This is what happened with Contador. I think this is also fairly typical. Valverde's ban was given in May of 2010 and back dated to Jan 1st of 2010. His was a different situation and part of Operation Puerto. The blood bag that was matched to him was from his time at Kelme. Truthfully a backdated ban is what he should end up with. It would eliminate results from the date going forward, however most of his current ban would be during a time he wasn't racing anyway. The big question would be how long is the ban for.


----------



## love4himies

KoroninK said:


> My guess would be the ban would be backdated to the date of the positive or abnormal test. This is what happened with Contador. I think this is also fairly typical. Valverde's ban was given in May of 2010 and back dated to Jan 1st of 2010. His was a different situation and part of Operation Puerto. The blood bag that was matched to him was from his time at Kelme. Truthfully a backdated ban is what he should end up with. It would eliminate results from the date going forward, however most of his current ban would be during a time he wasn't racing anyway. The big question would be how long is the ban for.


If he was still racing it wouldn't make sense to backdate the ban from the date of the positive results.


----------



## spdntrxi

love4himies said:


> If he was still racing it wouldn't make sense to backdate the ban from the date of the positive results.


It’s so all the victories and high finished don’t count.... grand tour + olympics bye bye


----------



## KoroninK

love4himies said:


> If he was still racing it wouldn't make sense to backdate the ban from the date of the positive results.


Actually it does. It's what they typically do. It's so they can strip the rider of any high place finishes he received when he shouldn't have been racing. That is why Contador has 7 official and 9 unofficial Grand Tour wins. He had a Tour and Giro title stripped when they gave him his backdated ban. Petacchi had a stage win at the Giro stripped when he was given his back dated ban. Each of these were back dated to the date of the failed test.

Valverde's back dated ban was not done to a date of a test because he's never failed a drug/doping test. His was back dated to Jan 1, 2010 to make the 2 year ban easier because they weren't doing it to a test so they choose to do it Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2011. He lost a handful of wins and a bunch of other podium and top 5/top 10 finishes.

Back dating bans is typically how they do bans.


----------



## Alaska Mike

spdntrxi said:


> It’s so all the victories and high finished don’t count.... grand tour + olympics bye bye


The 2016 Olympic TT medal? Don't think that's affected.

The 2020 Olympics? I'm not sure he'll still be riding, and any ban won't likely be that long even if he is.


----------



## KoroninK

spdntrxi said:


> It’s so all the victories and high finished don’t count.... grand tour + olympics bye bye



Only races he competed in from the date of the test moving forward. That would be the last couple states of the 2017 Vuelta, including over all title and green jersey and the Worlds. He didn't complete in anything else in 2017 after that. Anything before that won't be effected. This is similar to Contador or Petacchi or Ulissi.


----------



## n2deep

I have a couple of real issues with Froome and Sky; 

First, if there was a reasonable explanation SKY and Froome would have told the story months ago. Don't hold your breath for their version as it will take months and a fleet of semi-professionals to dream up something they think we will believe,, lots of luck!!!

Second; We will never know the exact amount ingested due to the short half-life of the drug, what we do know if that he tested at twice the allowed value. 

Third; The story that salbutamol only works for asthmatics is BS, plain and simple. The physiological impact for asthmatics may be greater but it works for 99.9999% of us, thats why aspirin,and antibiotics work for all but the rarest of cases. If it opens air passages for an asthmatic say 35%, would allowing a non-asthmatic to take the drug under the same circumstances and only get a 10% benefit be fair?

Fourth; The most troubling aspect of this debacle is the impact to our sport, if I was second, third or just close to the podium I would be seriously pissed off, talking with my lawyer, the UCI and every sports writer in the country. 

I feed bad for those that truly suffer from asthma but if we do not eliminate all but the minimum amount of drugs required to stay healthy-recover, this sport will never be clean.. I hate to say this but IMHO, Froome and Sky are just as guilty as our old buddy Lance, maybe not to the same degree but wrong is still wrong.


----------



## gofast2wheeler

Here's my two cents. I think we need Dr. Ferrari to explain to us what the drug can actually due to enhance performance. Regardless of what you think about him he is definitely brilliant in this field to bad he used his smarts for wrong reasons. Let's face it I will not pretend to know how the human body processes this drug, I am not a biochemist, exercise physiologist etc leave this to the experts. Don't understand Froome knowing he would be tested and taking this unless like he said team doctor gave okay in which case he should be fired. Maybe team doctors are under different orders than what the riders know?. Also lets not put Froome into same sentence as Lance not even closely the same ethic wise. In the end I feel bad for Froome all his results will be looked at suspiciously.


----------



## n2deep

gofast2wheeler said:


> Here's my two cents. I think we need Dr. Ferrari to explain to us what the drug can actually due to enhance performance. Regardless of what you think about him he is definitely brilliant in this field to bad he used his smarts for wrong reasons. Let's face it I will not pretend to know how the human body processes this drug, I am not a biochemist, exercise physiologist etc leave this to the experts. Don't understand Froome knowing he would be tested and taking this unless like he said team doctor gave okay in which case he should be fired. Maybe team doctors are under different orders than what the riders know?. Also lets not put Froome into same sentence as Lance not even closely the same ethic wise. In the end I feel bad for Froome all his results will be looked at suspiciously.


Professional athletes know more about this subject than most doctors.. I do not believe this was an accident, Froome knows exactly what happened and they are just trying to develop a plausible story-do some major damage control.. I don't feel bad for Froome, I do for Nibali and the others.


----------



## velodog

n2deep said:


> I have a couple of real issues with Froome and Sky;
> 
> First, if there was a reasonable explanation SKY and Froome would have told the story months ago. Don't hold your breath for their version as it will take months and a fleet of semi-professionals to dream up something they think we will believe,, lots of luck!!!
> 
> Second; We will never know the exact amount ingested due to the short half-life of the drug, what we do know if that he tested at twice the allowed value.
> 
> Third; The story that salbutamol only works for asthmatics is BS, plain and simple. The physiological impact for asthmatics may be greater but it works for 99.9999% of us, thats why aspirin,and antibiotics work for all but the rarest of cases. If it opens air passages for an asthmatic say 35%, would allowing a non-asthmatic to take the drug under the same circumstances and only get a 10% benefit be fair?
> 
> Fourth; The most troubling aspect of this debacle is the impact to our sport, if I was second, third or just close to the podium I would be seriously pissed off, talking with my lawyer, the UCI and every sports writer in the country.
> 
> I feed bad for those that truly suffer from asthma but if we do not eliminate all but the minimum amount of drugs required to stay healthy-recover, this sport will never be clean.. I hate to say this but IMHO, Froome and Sky are just as guilty as our old buddy Lance, *maybe not to the same degree *but wrong is still wrong.


I'd say to the same degree. They're putting a lot of effort into manipulating the media and fans into believing that they're the good guys, it's everybody else that's cheating. 

Ain't nothing but slight of hand.


----------



## coldash

Remember that the only reason we know about this is that there was a UCI or WADA leak to the press. The process is if Froome comes up with an explanation that satisfies the authorities it goes no further and if it hadn’t been leaked we would never have known about it. There may well be others who have exceeded the urine test indicator levels and have been able to successfully defend their case. We just don’t know. There could have been hundreds, tens or none. That information is never released. We only ever find out about those who fail to satisfy the authorities. We i.e. people not on the inside in WADA just don’t know. The current process just works that away, excepting leaks to the media


----------



## aclinjury

here's another short but well laid out argument from a guy talking about Froome's in Feb 2017, before Froome failed his test. So this guy didn't jump on the bashing bandwagon after the failed test, he was calling it already


----------



## wesb321

aclinjury said:


> here's another short but well laid out argument from a guy talking about Froome's in Feb 2017, before Froome failed his test. So this guy didn't jump on the bashing bandwagon after the failed test, he was calling it already





I wouldn't call that well laid out at all haha. The guy is totally clueless. 

First of all Tour of Normandy was a #### show! Anyone who even finished that race got an extra stamp on their man cards. He doesn't mention that Froome was living with a blood parasite for some years, it wasn't discovered until after his first season at Sky and then took 2 more seasons to cure. Thirdly this youtuber is bringing up all these race results, well Froome was not a leader on any team until AFTER Wiggins won the tour, broke his collar bone and then used himself up at the Giro. It flat out was never Froome's job to win, his job was to pull for hours so team leaders didn't. I think we all saw and know he should have been winning tours years before he actually did. He knew it all along but was never allowed to, encouraged to nor paid to. Also keep in mind he was on very corrupt teams before Sky, he was just a water carrier there too, not a captain.


----------



## wesb321

I forgot to mention the holding on to the motor bike. Anyone willing to do 5 seconds of research can learn what that was actually about. He had already quit the race and was getting a tow since he could no longer pedal through his injury.


----------



## Fredrico

wesb321 said:


> I wouldn't call that well laid out at all haha. The guy is totally clueless.
> 
> First of all Tour of Normandy was a #### show! Anyone who even finished that race got an extra stamp on their man cards. He doesn't mention that Froome was living with a blood parasite for some years, it wasn't discovered until after his first season at Sky and then took 2 more seasons to cure. Thirdly this youtuber is bringing up all these race results, well Froome was not a leader on any team until AFTER Wiggins won the tour, broke his collar bone and then used himself up at the Giro. It flat out was never Froome's job to win, his job was to pull for hours so team leaders didn't. I think we all saw and know he should have been winning tours years before he actually did. He knew it all along but was never allowed to, encouraged to nor paid to. Also keep in mind he was on very corrupt teams before Sky, he was just a water carrier there too, not a captain.


Not only that, but it takes 2 to 5 years for TDF winners to put all the blocks together to win the most physically taxing race in the sport. That's training, not genetics. And strong team mates! [And drugs! :shocked:]

That's why its ridiculous to draw conclusions from such a distance. Lots of things could explain Froome's ups and downs, as you say. It's the conspiracy theorists always looking for evil. Where's that coming from? 

Why are the pros better than we mortals? They get paid to ride their bikes! We don't.


----------



## aclinjury

wesb321 said:


> I wouldn't call that well laid out at all haha. The guy is totally clueless.
> 
> First of all Tour of Normandy was a #### show! Anyone who even finished that race got an extra stamp on their man cards. *He doesn't mention that Froome was living with a blood parasite for some years, it wasn't discovered until after his first season at Sky and then took 2 more seasons to cure.* Thirdly this youtuber is bringing up all these race results, well Froome was not a leader on any team until AFTER Wiggins won the tour, broke his collar bone and then used himself up at the Giro. It flat out was never Froome's job to win, his job was to pull for hours so team leaders didn't. I think we all saw and know he should have been winning tours years before he actually did. He knew it all along but was never allowed to, encouraged to nor paid to. Also keep in mind he was on very corrupt teams before Sky, he was just a water carrier there too, not a captain.


please tell me you don't believe that sh8t hyped up by Sky and Brailsford, like his childhood severe astham? And same with Wiggins. Until 2011, Wiggins was a healthy guy, but all of the sudden he was now using TUEs like candy. My, all the sick riders seem to thrive at Sky. Froome was a nobody until he came to Sky. Don't believe all the sh8t about Sky saying "the engine was always there, he just lost the fat, and got some marginal gains". lol

And it's comical that you said Froome was on corrupt teams before Sky. The irony is "sky high" here.


----------



## coldash

wesb321 said:


> I forgot to mention the holding on to the motor bike. Anyone willing to do 5 seconds of research can learn what that was actually about. He had already quit the race and was getting a tow since he could no longer pedal through his injury.


Good point. I read the detailed write-up of that incident. Froome's knee was the problem and the team car was waiting at the top of the hill. After Froome announced he was retiring he got a tow up the hill from a police motor bike, got off his bike and got into the team car. He wasn't exactly hiding what he was doing. It was not like Nibali's infamous tow.


----------



## PBL450

I have posted many times on this subject the position that, if you are clean by evidence than you are clean. If you are guilty by evidence than you are guilty. Period. Without that standard this isn't a sport. Well, it might not be anyway, carrying your bike up a hill, making arbitrary decisions about race rulings... WWF. Maybe it’s easier to deal with this when we give up on cycling as a sport and accept it as a form of entertainment? We either need to stop expecting this to be governed like an actual sport, it isn’t at all now, and or we need to deal with real rules and enforcement. If you need drugs to compete you lose and that’s that. Life is hard. No TUEs ever. Period. You need an antibiotic during a stage race? Bummer. You are done. Easy peasy. The whole asthma thing is complete BS and we all know it. Hmmm, a sport that requires 25-30 hrs a week year round outside at maximum or near max intensities I’d great for asthmatics? PEDs. We all know it. This is just another area that makes pro cycling look like the WWF. Because it is the WWF. No drugs, ever. No high handed, arbitrary or capricious decisions. Ever. In this instance? Froome is guilty. Nail him to the wall. Easy peasy. Why you would complicate the actual data with conjecture and excuses is beyond me.


----------



## Alaska Mike

You know, I have no problem with TUEs being "a thing". I do have a problem with the abuse of them. They just need to be much, much tighter in the approval process.

Then again, all of this has me questioning if I have exercise-induced asthma. I have coughing fits that sometimes go to the point of vomiting after an extended effort like a time trial or hill climb- especially during cool weather (Alaska, it happens). I often have brief but violent coughing fits when I leave a building and walk out into a cold, dry day. I long ago accepted it as part of the fun of living and competing in Alaska. There's a very, very, very likely (110%) chance my primary care doctor will throw me a prescription for an inhaler after the briefest of mentions. Little chance of any real testing, other than *maybe* a spirometry test. More like, "try this and see how it works." Chances are, many professional cyclists were given a similar diagnosis after limited testing, often by well-meaning physicians. Once it's in the record, "well, says here you have asthma..." 

I get drug tested more frequently in my current position than most professional cyclists. Any time I get prescribed a new medication I keep the paperwork for a year, just in case I test hot for something. Meds outside the date get turned in. I don't play around, because I've escorted a few people off that did and lost. I'm not a doctor, and neither are most cyclists. I want to perform at my best, and if a licensed physician says I'm asthmatic after I complain to them of certain symptoms, who am I to argue?

Still, I haven't had the discussion with my doctor yet. I'm not sure I'm ready to admit that I'm deficient in one more area (there are already so many) and will probably just continue on hacking away. Not because of any nobility on my part, but mostly vanity. And laziness. Lots and lots of laziness. Then again, I race for fun, not for money or some elevated sense of importance. If I lose, I lose. Nobody starves because I didn't win the office park crit. I imagine the calculations are somewhat different for professional cyclists.

I just think they need to really hammer the TUE process. Show proof. Testing results conducted in a WADA-accredited lab by independent doctors. Mountains of documentation. Too many team doctors have shown themselves to be less than honorable in this regard for me to take their word anymore. Better yet, the UCI should be the only ones that hire and approve doctors, not the teams. Each team gets their allotment of doctors from the UCI pool, and they are the only people permitted to treat the cyclists. It would be easier to weed out the Leinders of the world that way.


----------



## aclinjury

I wonder if a person with low testosterone could get TUE to inject testosterone so he could compete? If not, then wouldn't this be unfair for those who suffer from low testosterone level?


----------



## OldChipper

aclinjury said:


> I wonder if a person with low testosterone could get TUE to inject testosterone so he could compete? If not, then wouldn't this be unfair for those who suffer from low testosterone level?


Nope. There is no TUE for T, period. Many have tried, none have succeeded AFAIK. But there are a lot of "lo-T" Master's dopers out there.


----------



## OldChipper

Alaska Mike said:


> You know, I have no problem with TUEs being "a thing". I do have a problem with the abuse of them. They just need to be much, much tighter in the approval process.
> 
> Then again, all of this has me questioning if I have exercise-induced asthma. I have coughing fits that sometimes go to the point of vomiting after an extended effort like a time trial or hill climb- especially during cool weather (Alaska, it happens). I often have brief but violent coughing fits when I leave a building and walk out into a cold, dry day. I long ago accepted it as part of the fun of living and competing in Alaska. There's a very, very, very likely (110%) chance my primary care doctor will throw me a prescription for an inhaler after the briefest of mentions. Little chance of any real testing, other than *maybe* a spirometry test. More like, "try this and see how it works." Chances are, many professional cyclists were given a similar diagnosis after limited testing, often by well-meaning physicians. Once it's in the record, "well, says here you have asthma..."
> 
> I get drug tested more frequently in my current position than most professional cyclists. Any time I get prescribed a new medication I keep the paperwork for a year, just in case I test hot for something. Meds outside the date get turned in. I don't play around, because I've escorted a few people off that did and lost. I'm not a doctor, and neither are most cyclists. I want to perform at my best, and if a licensed physician says I'm asthmatic after I complain to them of certain symptoms, who am I to argue?
> 
> Still, I haven't had the discussion with my doctor yet. I'm not sure I'm ready to admit that I'm deficient in one more area (there are already so many) and will probably just continue on hacking away. Not because of any nobility on my part, but mostly vanity. And laziness. Lots and lots of laziness. Then again, I race for fun, not for money or some elevated sense of importance. If I lose, I lose. Nobody starves because I didn't win the office park crit. I imagine the calculations are somewhat different for professional cyclists.
> 
> I just think they need to really hammer the TUE process. Show proof. Testing results conducted in a WADA-accredited lab by independent doctors. Mountains of documentation. Too many team doctors have shown themselves to be less than honorable in this regard for me to take their word anymore. Better yet, the UCI should be the only ones that hire and approve doctors, not the teams. Each team gets their allotment of doctors from the UCI pool, and they are the only people permitted to treat the cyclists. It would be easier to weed out the Leinders of the world that way.


As a TT specialist with asthma (but not a doctor), it does sound like you likely have some variety of asthma. Worth trying an albuterol (salmeterol) inhaler 15-20 minutes before a few events to see if symptoms improve. If they do, you should talk to your doc to determine if it's exercise induced or "regular" asthma. You might need to be on an inhaled corticosteroid (no TUE needed at "normal" dosages) to avoid long-term and irreversible lung damage. Note, you will probably still have coughing fits after TTs, just not as long or severe.


----------



## aclinjury

OldChipper said:


> Nope. There is no TUE for T, period. Many have tried, none have succeeded AFAIK. But there are a lot of "lo-T" Master's dopers out there.


so what's the reason why T doesn't get a pass but asthma does? Both are non-lethal conditions that's probably don't require medications if you don't exercise to the extreme. Yet, asthma gets TUEs. I get that T is a performance enhancer, but so is asthma drugs, because without such drugs, the asthma sufferers wouldn't be able to compete competitively. I mean, the ability for your natural lungs to function naturally without pharmaceutical assistance is what makes you're a special specimen. People who suffer from low T don't get to be strength athletes, so why should people with lungs problem get to be endurance athletes.

I'm not hating on those who suffer from asthma, i'm just trying to understand why one class of drug would be allowed and not the other with respect to TUEs.


----------



## DaveG

aclinjury said:


> so what's the reason why T doesn't get a pass but asthma does? Both are non-lethal conditions that's probably don't require medications if you don't exercise to the extreme. Yet, asthma gets TUEs. I get that T is a performance enhancer, but so is asthma drugs, because without such drugs, the asthma sufferers wouldn't be able to compete competitively. I mean, the ability for your natural lungs to function naturally without pharmaceutical assistance is what makes you're a special specimen. People who suffer from low T don't get to be strength athletes, so why should people with lungs problem get to be endurance athletes.
> 
> I'm not hating on those who suffer from asthma, i'm just trying to understand why one class of drug would be allowed and not the other with respect to TUEs.


I suffer from LAP (Low Athletic Potential). Can I take something for that?


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> You know, I have no problem with TUEs being "a thing". I do have a problem with the abuse of them. They just need to be much, much tighter.


This is an excellent position! And some great replies here! Like DaveG I suffer from LAP as well. I wouldn’t posit to limit medication for competitive cyclists. Just elite world tour level and it’s equivelent for women’s. It’s a great sport and people should enjoy it recreationally and competitively as much as possible! Hell, it helps with an amazing amount of ailments that require medications! 

But let’s tease this out a bit. I’d suggest pro cycling isn’t in a position to make an argument for TUEs on any level. Look at the sport... It is dope mecca. Merckx and Contador hurt. LA alomost destroys the sport, well, he may actually have destroyed the sport... You can be too short to make a living at basketball. Or too clumsy to make a living at hockey or, fill in the blank. Why can’t you be too sickly, either chronically or acutely to compete in world tour cycling competitions? Again, the sport is negotiating with its community and the world from a position of weakness not a position of strength. There are a few things that need to happen in this sport. And one is a zero tolerance policy for drugs. All of them. Period. Cycling isn’t in a position to make arguments about which one for what purposes. They lose that argument before the first word is spoken. Second, and I may be struck by lightening here, but Tinkoff had some pretty legitimate grievances. His disgust for the private ownership of world tours and lack of standard rules is real (and I know I am making a mockery of his grievances for the sake of brevity). If deus ex machina is ever employed you are not a sport. It would be exactly the same in a legal argument. If deus ex machina is employed there is no rule of law. Period. It may not make for perfect systems but it tries like hell to make for fair ones.

(and Alaska Mike, your post is hacked short simply for the convenience of readers... thank you for your indulgence)


----------



## PBL450

You make drugs illegal in the sport and you don’t have to read this sh*t again...

team manager Dave Brailsford suggesting that “there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol".

Richie Porte 'flabbergasted' by Chris Froome salbutamol situation | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## DaveG

PBL450 said:


> You make drugs illegal in the sport and you don’t have to read this sh*t again...
> 
> team manager Dave Brailsford suggesting that “there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol".
> 
> Richie Porte 'flabbergasted' by Chris Froome salbutamol situation | Cyclingnews.com


If you knew that one of you riders had a "complex medical and physiological issue which affect the metabolism and excretion of salbutamo" would you be even more vigilant about even getting close to maximum dose? This is just the worst kind of desperate BS.


----------



## DrSmile

DaveG said:


> If you knew that one of you riders had a "complex medical and physiological issue which affect the metabolism and excretion of salbutamo" would you be even more vigilant about even getting close to maximum dose? This is just the worst kind of desperate BS.


Maybe it's because he decided to eat some asthmatic steer steak while in Spain? Those cows get pretty winded going up and down the Pyrenees, they probably have a TUE for it.


----------



## Alaska Mike

DaveG said:


> This is just the worst kind of desperate BS.


When that's all they have to work with, that's the strategy. Everyone on all sides knows it, but they have to play the game.

They know there will be a ban and loss of results. This is all about limiting the damage as much as possible to the rider Sky's whole house of cards is built around.


----------



## aclinjury

PBL450 said:


> You make drugs illegal in the sport and you don’t have to read this sh*t again...
> 
> team manager Dave Brailsford suggesting that “there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol".
> 
> Richie Porte 'flabbergasted' by Chris Froome salbutamol situation | Cyclingnews.com


Brailsford is the drug rep for Sky, and maybe British cycling too. You know those drug reps, they know just enough jargons to sound like an expert. Brailsford has some serious kung-fu salesman skills


----------



## velodog

DaveG said:


> I suffer from LAP (Low Athletic Potential). Can I take something for that?


Of course you can, you just gotta have a good story\lie\excuse when you get caught.


----------



## velodog

Alaska Mike said:


> When that's all they have to work with, that's the strategy. Everyone on all sides knows it, but they have to play the game.
> 
> They know there will be a ban and loss of results. This is all about limiting the damage as much as possible to the rider Sky's whole house of cards is built around.


I don't know, but I think that there'd be less damage done if they just admitted their guilt and took their punishment. Like you said, everyone knows, just don't play us for a bunch of fools.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I completely agree. Froome would have gotten a lot more respect if he just have stood up and immediately admitted fault. Sure, he would have lost the Vuelta title and the Worlds, but he would have gained a lot in the court of public opinion. Then he could have focused on the next season's GTs without this hanging over his head. The stress can't be good for his preparation.


----------



## aclinjury

Yep, Froome should have admitted it right of the bat, negotiate a 9-12 month ban, and move on. But Brailsford, Sky, Froome at this point is "all in". All or nothing. No folding now. That train has left. I suspect Brailsford also has his ego to protect, Froome's image to protect, and of course British cycling to an extent to protect. But the way it is now, no matter how this turns out, Sky and Froome will not be looked at the same anymore, this is straw that breaks the camel's back for Sky, and all that allegations about Wiggins, are validated here. I mean unless you're a Brit fan, is there any reason to trust what comes out of Brailsford's mouth or Sky anymore? The people defending Froome and Sky are main Brits, no surprised there, same happened to Armstrong and his American fans, and we know how that story went. IMO, Froome will suffer more damage to his image than Contador did, maybe not Armstrong level damage, but will suffer more than Contador for sure, because Froome was supposed to be the clean generation, marginal gains generation, blah blah, guess not.


----------



## PBL450

velodog said:


> I don't know, but I think that there'd be less damage done if they just admitted their guilt and took their punishment. Like you said, everyone knows, just don't play us for a bunch of fools.


Yeah, and I don’t think they would have even had to fess up to cheating. I think if they took the position, “oops! We screwed up handling Froome’s asthma and we will take our lumps for it” it’d have the same lessening the damage effect as an admission of guilt. Just don’t swing back and defend it. Data is data. You are caught.


----------



## PBL450

Good little piece... 

“Maybe asthma patients will understand the case better, but cycling and all sports in general are for healthy people,"

Van der Poel says Chris Froome should be suspended for high salbutamol level | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## MMsRepBike

Froome dog has the whole sport turning on him.

Life in a peloton where he struggled for respect in the past is going to be fun now.


----------



## coldash

PBL450 said:


> Good little piece...
> 
> “Maybe asthma patients will understand the case better, but cycling and all sports in general are for healthy people,"
> 
> Van der Poel says Chris Froome should be suspended for high salbutamol level | Cyclingnews.com


What a piece of crap Van der Poel is. He’ll be talking about untermenchen next. The people competing in the paralympics must feel really motivated by that, not to mention the people doing sport “in general” just to stay healthy. Absolutely contemptible.


----------



## velodog

coldash said:


> What a piece of crap Van der Poel is. He’ll be talking about untermenchen next. The people competing in the paralympics must feel really motivated by that, not to mention the people doing sport “in general” just to stay healthy. Absolutely contemptible.


Could be he's talking about the pro sports arena that he's competing in and not the Paralympics nor people "in general".


----------



## izza

But when Van Aert is on you tube using motor doping VdP is bound to be as blunt as possible to take moral high ground. 

I watched Armstrong’s podcast about Froome the other day and he didn’t opine that much about the case he kept reverting to ‘who is to gain by leaking the blood test’. Same approach here and we can see why these comments are being made. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## coldash

velodog said:


> Could be he's talking about the pro sports arena that he's competing in and not the Paralympics nor people "in general".


Granted it is a cyclingnews quote but the quote was


> Maybe asthma patients will understand the case better, but cycling and all sports in general are for healthy people


 and that is pretty unequivocal.

Other will disagree but I think that attitude is despicable


----------



## spdntrxi

coldash said:


> Granted it is a cyclingnews quote but the quote was and that is pretty unequivocal.
> 
> Other will disagree but I think that attitude is despicable


yeah that was rather careless of him.. never was a fan.


----------



## tommybike

PBL450 said:


> Good little piece...
> 
> “Maybe asthma patients will understand the case better, but cycling and all sports in general are for healthy people,"
> 
> Van der Poel says Chris Froome should be suspended for high salbutamol level | Cyclingnews.com


What an .....



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## aclinjury

coldash said:


> What a piece of crap Van der Poel is. He’ll be talking about untermenchen next. The people competing in the paralympics must feel really motivated by that, not to mention the people doing sport “in general” just to stay healthy. Absolutely contemptible.


man he was talking about the pro ranks, cream of the crop stuff, as in, if you're a pro in a sport, then you shouldn't be given an assistance just so you can have a chance to be pro. Nope. Asthma? too bad, you don't get to be an endurance cyclist. Never thought he was denigrating paraolympians or even the general public. Maybe he was pissed at Froome and pissed off at those who use loopholes to gain an advantage, so his words/thoughts just came out wrong. But the piece of crap is Froome.


----------



## crit_boy

coldash said:


> What a piece of crap Van der Poel is. He’ll be talking about untermenchen next. The people competing in the paralympics must feel really motivated by that, not to mention the people doing sport “in general” just to stay healthy. Absolutely contemptible.


I am deeply offended that you think para-olympians are not healthy. 

I am also deeply offended that he said overweight Eskimos with one leg and an ingrown toe nail should not be in sports. 


Or - possibly you are being completely ridiculous reading into his statement that had nothing whatsoever to do with para-olympics somehow applied to para-olympics.


----------



## DaveG

crit_boy said:


> I am deeply offended that you think para-olympians are not healthy.
> 
> I am also deeply offended that he said overweight Eskimos with one leg and an ingrown toe nail should not be in sports.
> 
> 
> Or - possibly you are being completely ridiculous reading into his statement that had nothing whatsoever to do with para-olympics somehow applied to para-olympics.


Or maybe he really despises para-Olympians and picked this moment to express that

I agree with you. The quote was in the context of pro cycling and maybe folks are trying too hard to be offended


----------



## Finx

Are Para-Olympians subject to anti-doping regulations? 

I'm pretty sure MVP was using his description in the context of pro sports where there are rules about performance enhancing drugs.

It's a pretty simple concept really. If you need to take a drug to enhance your performance in order to be competitive at a given level of sport, you should probably try competing at a lower level.


----------



## coldash

crit_boy said:


> I am deeply offended that you think para-olympians are not healthy.


By any normal medical judgment someone suffering from e.g. multiple sclerosis is not regarded as healthy. I don’t think that should bar them from taking part in competitive events like the Paralympics. Others here, such as the apologists for the attitude expressed by VdP, according to cyclingnews, clearly see that as unacceptable and see no value in this and side with the “cycling and all sports in general are for healthy people”

I enjoy watching all forms of cycling sport and personally think that my having had angioplasty and being on blood thinning drugs should not stop me from taking part in my local TTs. They might not be elite events but they are definitely competitive (and I don’t count myself as healthy given my cardiac condition)


----------



## Alaska Mike

VdP was expressing his opinion in an inarticulate manner. I'm pretty sure most professional cyclists are tired of the implied guilt placed upon them because of their profession. That reputation has been justly placed historically speaking, but I'm sure it has to grate.

I think everyone should participate in sports, so there will be fewer sick and otherwise unhealthy people. I think everyone should be able to compete with their relative physical peers. I do not think people that require significant medicinal assistance to compete with otherwise unassisted people should be in the same league. Does that include asthmatics? Yes, at a certain point, I believe it does. WADA obviously believes the same thing, thus the limits set on certain drugs.

As an over-exaggerated example: an asthmatic needs a puffer to breathe better, but once that obstacle is overcome he has a naturally high hematocrit. Another rider has perfectly normal lung function, but a lower hematocrit. Should he be able to take EPO to "level the playing field" with the asthmatic? What about the rider with normally low testosterone? The arguments for and against certain conditions and medications are extremely wide and varied, and WADA plays on a very slippery slope. What is legitimate for one athlete will be abused by another. At a certain point, you have to draw the best line in the sand that you can.

Absent of any other glaring proof of a more significant doping offense, I'm going to accept that Froome screwed up and took 4000 more hits off of the puffer than was authorized and didn't consume the drug in any other manner. If such proof does arise at a later time, I will try mightily to conceal my surprise. I like Froome as a rider (as much as I like any other GC guy), but the offense is clear at this point.

Look, Froome is busted, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, and everyone knows a sanction of some sort is going to come down. Even if a backdated ban happens, ASO could effectively bar him from this year's editions of the Tour and Vuelta if they are not satisfied with the sanction. They have that power, and I'm sure the French UCI president would only offer feeble resistance.

What I am heartened by is that despite the relatively "minor" nature of the offense (we're not talking EPO), those condemning Froome/Sky are not being shouted down or otherwise attacked under the guise of Omerta. The culture has shifted quite a bit in the past decade, to the point of even his friends within the peloton offering non-committal statements. What a change from the days when the only people complaining were French or had sideburns.


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> VdP was expressing his opinion in an inarticulate manner. I'm pretty sure most professional cyclists are tired of the implied guilt placed upon them because of their profession. That reputation has been justly placed historically speaking, but I'm sure it has to grate.
> 
> I think everyone should participate in sports, so there will be fewer sick and otherwise unhealthy people. I think everyone should be able to compete with their relative physical peers. I do not think people that require significant medicinal assistance to compete with otherwise unassisted people should be in the same league. Does that include asthmatics? Yes, at a certain point, I believe it does. WADA obviously believes the same thing, thus the limits set on certain drugs.
> 
> As an over-exaggerated example: an asthmatic needs a puffer to breathe better, but once that obstacle is overcome he has a naturally high hematocrit. Another rider has perfectly normal lung function, but a lower hematocrit. Should he be able to take EPO to "level the playing field" with the asthmatic? What about the rider with normally low testosterone? The arguments for and against certain conditions and medications are extremely wide and varied, and WADA plays on a very slippery slope. What is legitimate for one athlete will be abused by another. At a certain point, you have to draw the best line in the sand that you can.
> 
> Absent of any other glaring proof of a more significant doping offense, I'm going to accept that Froome screwed up and took 4000 more hits off of the puffer than was authorized and didn't consume the drug in any other manner. If such proof does arise at a later time, I will try mightily to conceal my surprise. I like Froome as a rider (as much as I like any other GC guy), but the offense is clear at this point.
> 
> Look, Froome is busted, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, and everyone knows a sanction of some sort is going to come down. Even if a backdated ban happens, ASO could effectively bar him from this year's editions of the Tour and Vuelta if they are not satisfied with the sanction. They have that power, and I'm sure the French UCI president would only offer feeble resistance.
> 
> What I am heartened by is that despite the relatively "minor" nature of the offense (we're not talking EPO), those condemning Froome/Sky are not being shouted down or otherwise attacked under the guise of Omerta. The culture has shifted quite a bit in the past decade, to the point of even his friends within the peloton offering non-committal statements. What a change from the days when the only people complaining were French or had sideburns.


Yes, absolutely. Well said. Going that step further, finding where the line is drawn in the sand, at least in my humble opinion, makes a great argument for eliminating the line altogether. At the elite level, just no TUEs at all. The implied guilt you mention is deadly for the sports credibility. LA has come close to ruining the sport, not because he was the only one, but because of how he did it, how he evaded prosecution/adverse action and how blatant and awful he was. Cycling could do well for itself by getting far more serious about doping. No TUEs. caught? 1 calendar year from infraction minimum and some brutal deterrent like a years salary in fines for the rider and the team. 2nd violation, rider is retired. Maybe that’s ridiculous, but the sport needs to do something about presumed guilt. I think, as you say, not to put words in your mouth, that is a big part of the worst aspect of the current culture. There is no clean win in public perception. It’s awful.


----------



## spdntrxi

There are plenty of elite and non-elite athletes that are "not healthy"... they just dont know it yet. Are we gonna include mental health too.. ZZZOMG.
Plain and simple Vdp statement was a little too much blanket, did he backtrack it yet ? If he has not then he's pretty much a simpleton.


----------



## coldash

spdntrxi said:


> There are plenty of elite and non-elite athletes that are "not healthy"... they just dont know it yet. Are we gonna include mental health too.. ZZZOMG.
> Plain and simple Vdp statement was a little too much blanket, did he backtrack it yet ? If he has not then he's pretty much a simpleton.


Yes I can go along with that and *Alaska Mike*’s well thought out and reasoned post

On reflection it might just be Cyclingnews displaying their poor journalism again and/or VdP not thinking too much. In either case they should think about clarifying the quoted statement 

As for mental health..... remember the scandal of the Spanish Paralympic basketball team in the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games?


----------



## Alaska Mike

spdntrxi said:


> Plain and simple Vdp statement was a little too much blanket, did he backtrack it yet ? If he has not then he's pretty much a simpleton.


No, he's not a simpleton. He's a guy who gets paid a lot of money to ride a kid's toy in his underwear. No MENSA accreditation required. His potential to make the maximum amount of money possible riding a bike is directly impacted by sponsors' impression of the doping culture within cycling and how it will affect the bottom line. Like many professional cyclists, he's frustrated with the culture and vented. Did he overstate his point? Absolutely. Has he been publicly taken to task for his statements? Not that I know of. Most people probably understood his intent, even if it was very poorly stated.

It's obvious that most of the peloton is a little envious of Team Sky. Their budget allows them to buy the best riders available and support them in style, and their management style extracts the maximum from them before they're spit out the back of the machine or the rider moves on to greener pastures. It makes for a ruthless organization bent on achieving a few targeted goals. Their A game is formidable indeed, and a talking point every time the concept of salary caps is broached.

I'm sure more than a few DSs and riders are gloating at Sky's misfortunes over the past couple years. Brailsford and co kinda brought that on themselves. The people that dislike Sky for whatever reason are going to link every questionable action together as a pattern of deceit. You could probably point to just about any team in the peloton, including that of Capt Sideburns, and find many, many questionable things if viewed through the right lens. The argyle armada just doesn't have a kabillion dollar budget or the steady stream of victories. Is it fair? Nothing in cycling has ever been fair. Will and capitalization will always trump integrity in this sport, which is why we are tangled in the current situation.

My solutions to this? Salary caps, UCI-provided/thoroughly vetted medical staff who have sole non-emergency control of riders' care (independent from the team and who regularly report all data back to the UCI), and extremely restrictive TUE processes. None of this will likely affect perceptions, but it will close a couple loopholes and introduce more parity. Need a TUE? Great. Prove it on our terms, receive documented education on its use, and expect to be sanctioned if you violate the conditions. Need to use a specified substance not normally requiring a TUE? Great. Inform the UCI before use, receive documented education on its use, and expect to be sanctioned if you violate the conditions.

I'm sure Sir Dave will see that the superior British systems will still dominate under this structure, thus he will readily throw his support behind my proposals.

...or not.


----------



## coldash

I'm not sure how salary caps would work in practice. Riders would still have an income stream from personal sponsors, advertisers, public engagements etc (as well as, no doubt, brown paper bags. I think there are too many loopholes. The UCI medical control is a good potential way forward as long as the UCI get their house in order and can maintain confidentiality of at least some medical conditions and demonstrate that they are themselves an ethical organisation. Their past doesn't inspire confidence. 

As for Sky, they are already out of British Cycling (not before time - it was always a messy relationship with too much cross over and conflicts of interests) and I expect they will be out of cycling by around 2020. What happens to the team and ndividuals after that is anyone's guess


----------



## Alaska Mike

coldash said:


> I'm not sure how salary caps would work in practice. Riders would still have an income stream from personal sponsors, advertisers, public engagements etc (as well as, no doubt, brown paper bags.


Riders could certainly have individual sponsors, but what any one team could buy by sole virtue of their rider budget would be limited somewhat. Talent would be spread more evenly across the teams, making for more interesting races. Sure, there would be teams that would focus on Classics and others that would put their money towards GTs. Some would build sprint trains. Same as it is now, but World Tour teams would all be more or less on the same footing in this regard. We need to get a more sustainable model, because the disparity between the top and bottom teams in terms of budget is remarkable. The percentage of the overall budget the bottom teams have to pay in rider payroll alone to stay somewhat relevant means they have little if nothing left for rider support, and for the most part they're just pack fodder at any race the big dogs are targeting. 


coldash said:


> I think there are too many loopholes. The UCI medical control is a good potential way forward as long as the UCI get their house in order and can maintain confidentiality of at least some medical conditions and demonstrate that they are themselves an ethical organisation. Their past doesn't inspire confidence.


Confidentiality like having a laptop with all of a rider's medical data stolen? Or confidentiality like sourcing medications from wherever seems convenient at the time? The teams haven't exactly inspired confidence, either. They did keep Froome's positive quiet far longer than I expected. As I see it, the teams would pay into a general fund which would in turn hire and oversee the doctors. Doctors could be rotated seasonally to avoid entanglements, and they would receive very specific training about what would and would not be permitted. Any malfeasance could be dealt with by the UCI swiftly.


coldash said:


> As for Sky, they are already out of British Cycling (not before time - it was always a messy relationship with too much cross over and conflicts of interests) and I expect they will be out of cycling by around 2020. What happens to the team and individuals after that is anyone's guess


We'll see what happens with Sky. If they find another great white Anglo hope, they could get an extension or find other sponsors. If Sky does move on, what we're left with is rich princes and oligarchs playing with their toys, and that model is not sustainable. I'd rather see more teams like AG2R in the peloton.


----------



## KoroninK

Alaska Mike said:


> Riders could certainly have individual sponsors, but what any one team could buy by sole virtue of their rider budget would be limited somewhat. Talent would be spread more evenly across the teams, making for more interesting races. Sure, there would be teams that would focus on Classics and others that would put their money towards GTs. Some would build sprint trains. Same as it is now, but World Tour teams would all be more or less on the same footing in this regard. We need to get a more sustainable model, because the disparity between the top and bottom teams in terms of budget is remarkable. The percentage of the overall budget the bottom teams have to pay in rider payroll alone to stay somewhat relevant means they have little if nothing left for rider support, and for the most part they're just pack fodder at any race the big dogs are targeting.


What would that cap be. Say just over the average for what current teams budgets are right now? Do that you'd actually only effect a handful of teams. The vast majority of teams have a budget right around 15 million per year. There are currently only 3-4 teams with a budget over 20million. One of the top teams in the peloton by most accounts is Movistar. Their budget is just barely over the average budget of WT teams. Sky's budget is about twice what their budget is. AG2R also is right about the same budget as Movistar.


----------



## SNS1938

KoroninK said:


> What would that cap be. Say just over the average for what current teams budgets are right now? Do that you'd actually only effect a handful of teams. The vast majority of teams have a budget right around 15 million per year. There are currently only 3-4 teams with a budget over 20million. One of the top teams in the peloton by most accounts is Movistar. Their budget is just barely over the average budget of WT teams. Sky's budget is about twice what their budget is. AG2R also is right about the same budget as Movistar.


I also think you'd get riders like Froome who would work for free to free up team budget to give them the strongest team. Froome surely could make way more from sponsors than Sky could pay him with a salary cap.


----------



## coldash

Alaska Mike said:


> Confidentiality like having a laptop with all of a rider's medical data stolen? Or confidentiality like sourcing medications from wherever seems convenient at the time? The teams haven't exactly inspired confidence, either. They did keep Froome's positive quiet far longer than I expected. As I see it, the teams would pay into a general fund which would in turn hire and oversee the doctors. Doctors could be rotated seasonally to avoid entanglements, and they would receive very specific training about what would and would not be permitted. Any malfeasance could be dealt with by the UCI swiftly.


This just isn't correct in a number of areas. Was the laptop encrypted, who knows. Not me, not you, so the security of that data is unknown. 

"sourcing medications from wherever seems convenient at the time?" is precisely what didn't happen. That stuff came from a known source in Germany because the local variations in medications are unknown. Remember the skier who lost his bronze medal in Canada because he bought from a local Canadian pharmacy a branded nasal spray which contained a banned substance whereas the UK version of the same branded product (sourced from any UK pharmacy) was fine. 

The point about keeping Froome's positive quiet is because they were following the rules The rules state that none of this should be made public until the case is resolved. We don't know how many other positives were successfully appealed by other teams because that isn't made known. Someone in WADA and / or the UCI leaked this.

Given WADA's hacking episode and the UCI's past history, I can see no reason to trust them because they have proved, at best, to be incompetent and possibly much worse.



> We'll see what happens with Sky. If they find another great white Anglo hope, they could get an extension or find other sponsors. If Sky does move on, what we're left with is rich princes and oligarchs playing with their toys, and that model is not sustainable. I'd rather see more teams like AG2R in the peloton.


The Anglo aspect of Sky has been in decline for a while. Froome's successor is unlikely to be from the UK (and Froome's UK status is a bit tenuous) and commercially, Sky have been more interested in raising their profile in mainland Europe; their UK position is getting close to as far as it can go. So maybe we should be looking to one of the stronger European economies to provide the next funder. That would suggest not Spain, nor Italy nor maybe France depending on how Macron performs.


----------



## coldash

SNS1938 said:


> I also think you'd get riders like Froome who would work for free to free up team budget to give them the strongest team. Froome surely could make way more from sponsors than Sky could pay him with a salary cap.


Not to mention Sagan and his links with bike manufacturers etc


----------



## aclinjury

Alaska Mike said:


> VdP was expressing his opinion in an inarticulate manner. I'm pretty sure most professional cyclists are tired of the implied guilt placed upon them because of their profession. That reputation has been justly placed historically speaking, but I'm sure it has to grate.
> 
> I think everyone should participate in sports, so there will be fewer sick and otherwise unhealthy people. I think everyone should be able to compete with their relative physical peers. I do not think people that require significant medicinal assistance to compete with otherwise unassisted people should be in the same league. Does that include asthmatics? Yes, at a certain point, I believe it does. WADA obviously believes the same thing, thus the limits set on certain drugs.
> 
> As an over-exaggerated example: an asthmatic needs a puffer to breathe better, but once that obstacle is overcome he has a naturally high hematocrit. Another rider has perfectly normal lung function, but a lower hematocrit. Should he be able to take EPO to "level the playing field" with the asthmatic? What about the rider with normally low testosterone? The arguments for and against certain conditions and medications are extremely wide and varied, and WADA plays on a very slippery slope. What is legitimate for one athlete will be abused by another. At a certain point, you have to draw the best line in the sand that you can.
> 
> Absent of any other glaring proof of a more significant doping offense, I'm going to accept that Froome screwed up and took 4000 more hits off of the puffer than was authorized and didn't consume the drug in any other manner. If such proof does arise at a later time, I will try mightily to conceal my surprise. I like Froome as a rider (as much as I like any other GC guy), but the offense is clear at this point.
> 
> Look, Froome is busted, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, and everyone knows a sanction of some sort is going to come down. Even if a backdated ban happens, ASO could effectively bar him from this year's editions of the Tour and Vuelta if they are not satisfied with the sanction. They have that power, and I'm sure the French UCI president would only offer feeble resistance.
> 
> What I am heartened by is that despite the relatively "minor" nature of the offense (we're not talking EPO), those condemning Froome/Sky are not being shouted down or otherwise attacked under the guise of Omerta. The culture has shifted quite a bit in the past decade, to the point of even his friends within the peloton offering non-committal statements. What a change from the days when the only people complaining were French or had sideburns.


excellent post!

To bring up a few more examples.

Chris Boardman, by age 30, was forced to retired from pro cycling because of low T, to the point that his bone was undergoing osteoporosis which had the bone density of an old man. But yes, extreme endurance activity will do that to your body, and if your body cannot cope with it, then you don't get to play that activity anymore. This is not much different then having asthma.

Another example is that guy Oscar Pistorieus, the Olympic 400m runner from South Africa a few years back. Remember he had that prosthetic leg, yet he was able to run with such grace that it caught people's eyes, and people were asking, "did his prothetic give him an advantage?". There were back and forth debates supporting both sides of this question at the time. But I believe, today, the general agreement is that prosthetic didn't give an advantage in terms of explosiveness out of the block, no advantage in top speed either, but what it did give a ~30% more efficiency at "cruising speed", that means he uses 30% less energy to hold the same speed compared to otherwise, and in an event like the 400m where there isn't as much a need to explode out of the blocks quickly and at the highest top speed you can, then the prosthetic does give an advantage. The Olympics committee eventually banned prosthetic use. This was a case where an "unhealthy" person suddenly can gain an athletic advantage thru the "treatment" of his sickness (if you will).

Bottomline is, while I admire "sick" people's spirit to compete, and society as a whole should encourage people of all capacities and abilities to compete in sports, but at the elite level, it should be all natural ability, all natural body part, no exceptions, no TUEs, because it then becomes loopholes. In Froome's case, he doubled the allowed amount. How anyone can even defend him,.. well I guess Armstrong fans defended him in the same way,


----------



## PBL450

aclinjury said:


> Bottomline is, while I admire "sick" people's spirit to compete, and society as a whole should encourage people of all capacities and abilities to compete in sports, but at the elite level, it should be all natural ability, all natural body part, no exceptions, no TUEs, because it then becomes loopholes. In Froome's case, he doubled the allowed amount. How anyone can even defend him,.. well I guess Armstrong fans defended him in the same way,


Yep. For the sake of any credibility this is the case. The second you allow so much as a nasal spray or decongestant, teams (riders?) will try to exploit it and everyone will have rhinitis all of a sudden. Zero is easy to enforce too, it eliminates lots of logistical hurdles and sends a great message to fans and the public about the sport.


----------



## Alaska Mike

But this should not devolve into a gladiator sport.

Most medications have legitimate uses. I am not for the complete elimination of medical treatments just to prove the sport is "clean". No professional sport is clean, and the ones that believe they are haven't been hit with a doping scandal- yet. Dog mushing, badminton, and any number of other sports you wouldn't expect have been hit already. People are always looking for an edge.

People also are imperfect machines. We break. I would rather not have riders hiding a minor condition (say a saddle sore) during a Grand Tour that could potentially become more serious, for fear they would be pulled as no effective medical treatment would be permitted. If there is a legitimate medical need, I'm all for it as long as the person making the call is making it for health rather than performance purposes. Chronic conditions would require a greater degree of proof for said treatment.


----------



## Alaska Mike

KoroninK said:


> What would that cap be. Say just over the average for what current teams budgets are right now? Do that you'd actually only effect a handful of teams. The vast majority of teams have a budget right around 15 million per year. There are currently only 3-4 teams with a budget over 20million. One of the top teams in the peloton by most accounts is Movistar. Their budget is just barely over the average budget of WT teams. Sky's budget is about twice what their budget is. AG2R also is right about the same budget as Movistar.


I'd say the median teams are where I would start. Figure out what their budget goes to percentage wise and define the salary cap based on that. Lower teams might have to stretch other areas to hit the cap or just stay below it, and higher teams would have greater freedom for support structures, but the core focus area of the teams would be on more of a level playing field than they are now. Potential sponsors would see more possible value in the lower-funded teams if the talent was spread out more evenly, which would gradually level the playing field even more. Sponsors would also be less likely to throw tons of money at a given program if they knew there was a salary cap in place. A few more million wouldn't buy this star rider and his set of support riders/staff- they'd have to fit everything under the cap. 

It sounds a bit socialist, but what we have now is so wildly uneven and makes for less-than-exciting racing (unless you're a fan of one of the best-funded teams).


----------



## KoroninK

Alaska Mike said:


> I'd say the median teams are where I would start. Figure out what their budget goes to percentage wise and define the salary cap based on that. Lower teams might have to stretch other areas to hit the cap or just stay below it, and higher teams would have greater freedom for support structures, but the core focus area of the teams would be on more of a level playing field than they are now. Potential sponsors would see more possible value in the lower-funded teams if the talent was spread out more evenly, which would gradually level the playing field even more. Sponsors would also be less likely to throw tons of money at a given program if they knew there was a salary cap in place. A few more million wouldn't buy this star rider and his set of support riders/staff- they'd have to fit everything under the cap.
> 
> It sounds a bit socialist, but what we have now is so wildly uneven and makes for less-than-exciting racing (unless you're a fan of one of the best-funded teams).


NFL, NBA, and NHL have salary caps while Major League Baseball does not. Granted there are times you wouldn't know the NBA has one, but it works fairly well for the NHL and NFL as there balance between teams. I'm not opposed it at all. Just figure it needs to be at least somewhere near what the current average is which in truth is where most teams' budgets are at. Sky has the largest budget, surprisingly Katusha has almost the same budget as Sky. BMC isn't that far behind those two. Those three teams have a budget almost double to triple what the rest of the teams have. Movistar probably does the best with their budget, although in truth how much of that is because of how versatile Valverde is along with how many races he does per year. You put a cap on the budget close to the average or maybe a little higher Sky, BMC and Katusha are really the only teams that would be drastically reducing budget. Depending on the amount you may have 3 to 5 teams needing to slightly reduce their budgets.


----------



## duriel

I think that the NFL & NHL probably does better than the NBA because they are a big roster team sports (OK, may not so much with the NHL). One player can't make a major impact like cycling & the NBA. 
But if the riders aren't on the juice it may workout more even.


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> But this should not devolve into a gladiator sport.
> 
> Most medications have legitimate uses. I am not for the complete elimination of medical treatments just to prove the sport is "clean". No professional sport is clean, and the ones that believe they are haven't been hit with a doping scandal- yet. Dog mushing, badminton, and any number of other sports you wouldn't expect have been hit already. People are always looking for an edge.
> 
> People also are imperfect machines. We break. I would rather not have riders hiding a minor condition (say a saddle sore) during a Grand Tour that could potentially become more serious, for fear they would be pulled as no effective medical treatment would be permitted. If there is a legitimate medical need, I'm all for it as long as the person making the call is making it for health rather than performance purposes. Chronic conditions would require a greater degree of proof for said treatment.


I see your point but I don’t agree. Mainly because it’s about fractional degrees. I don’t see death rides becoming common because you can’t use meds. As of now, you lose a noticeable amount of riders in a grand tour to bronchitis and diarrhea. They are refular occurrences. Saddle sore? What changes? You want them to have novicaine or anelgisics? That’s more dangerous than being forced to retire due to the pain. By lots. Antibiotic? Irrelevant. Once that sore (sometimes mistakenly called a wound for effect) is opened up ABs aren’t making the sore rideable. If it’s bad enough to require AB you get off the saddle and retire. It can make the sport safer, not more dangerous. And, in regard to “other spots,” cycling has a uniquely damaged image when it comes to doping. There can be no legitimate argument about that. The general public equate drugs with the sport more than any other aspect. That’s horrific. I’m well aware of doping in other sports, hell, in shooting events people abuse anxiolytics and one of the medalists was retro sanctioned in the last summer games in Trap Shooting. So, is the better option to form a players union and organize to restrict drug testing? Again, that’s real. And again, other sports aren’t viewed as biochemistry experiments by the general public. Cycling has a very real and very serious problem. The “great sensation” just got proven a cheater and doper. The perception that there is no great win, no great effort, no great climb, no great day, no great strategy, without complete skepticism is absolutely right. If my suggestion seems extreme, it is actually measured in regard to the extent of the problem. Froome is far more damaging than it appears on the surface. Cycling is the WWF. If it wants to return to being a sport it needs to do dramatic things in response to dramatic conditions.


----------



## Alaska Mike

KoroninK said:


> Movistar probably does the best with their budget, although in truth how much of that is because of how versatile Valverde is along with how many races he does per year.


I agree Movistar does well with its budget (I'd argue Sunweb does better), somehow funding Landa, Quintana, and Valverde, plus all of the riders required to effectively support them. It would be interesting to see how their budget is divided among the various areas, because none of those riders come cheap. With Contador gone, they're the only ones interested in truly animating a race anymore. Most everyone else sits in Sky's draft and waits for them to crash or get sick.


KoroninK said:


> You put a cap on the budget close to the average or maybe a little higher Sky, BMC and Katusha are really the only teams that would be drastically reducing budget. Depending on the amount you may have 3 to 5 teams needing to slightly reduce their budgets.


Getting clear numbers on budgets can be difficult, but Sky's rider payroll is bigger than a few teams' entire budgets. That's a huge disparity. Then you add in support structures and the chasm only widens.


----------



## Alaska Mike

PBL450 said:


> If it wants to return to being a sport it needs to do dramatic things in response to dramatic conditions.


That ship has sailed, and it isn't coming back. The perception is firmly entrenched, and as the Russians have taught us, even the most complex anti-doping measures can be circumvented.


----------



## KoroninK

True, Sunweb and Quickstep as well do well with their budgets. Movistar is a very young team going into this season. They have a handful of riders who are 30 or older and many of their domestiques have left. So they are going to be relying on a lot of youngsters this year. Yeah, Sky's rider budget is that of two maybe 3 teams combined. The UCI really should do something to put in some cost controls. I also think TV revenue should be shared with teams, however, I get that small races may not really get much in the way of TV revenue and what they do get may be a factor in what is keeping that race going as well.


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> That ship has sailed, and it isn't coming back. The perception is firmly entrenched, and as the Russians have taught us, even the most complex anti-doping measures can be circumvented.


That is certInly a fair point. Sad, but fair. Well said.


----------



## richdiaz

coldash said:


> Full story on Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol | Cyclingnews.com here
> 
> I’ll wait until the facts are established but it raises the whole TUE issue (for everyone) again[/Any news yet?
> 
> Does anyone know if you failed one post-race exam or several? i would think if Froome was caught on only one stage over the course of 21 stages; that smells like an irregularity. If it was consistently, after the first fail, then there is no way Froome is clean.
> ]


----------



## aclinjury

richdiaz said:


> I’ll wait until the facts are established but it raises the whole TUE issue (for everyone) again[/Any news yet?
> 
> Does anyone know if you failed one post-race exam or several? i would think if Froome was caught on only one stage over the course of 21 stages; that smells like an irregularity. If it was consistently, after the first fail, then there is no way Froome is clean.


fact is already established, Froome failed the test. And it doesn't matter if he's failing 1 stage or 21 stages. A fail is a fail. 

But here's the gray area. Salbutamol is a "specified substance" and not a "banned substance". If it was a banned substance, Frome failed and not be given a chance to explain himself. But because it's a specified substance, he was allowed to use it to a certain limit, and apparently be given a chance to explain himself if he crossed over that limit, which he did in this case, by 2x over limit. And now it's up to Sky and their lawyers and no-doubt their hired scientists to explain how such a thing can be possible.

Many opinions have already been given about TUEs and specified substance. I question both usage in the *pro peloton*, and the reason is because for every endurance sport, the total performance really depends on all components working together: the heart, the lungs, the blood, physiology, the muscles, the anatomy. If the argument is that a person with a particular lung issue (asthma) is allowed to take a drug to perform well under extreme exercise, then why can't a person with "low T" be allowed to use "T therapy"? Slippery slope.

but like I said, society should not discriminate asthma suffer when they want to play sport at amateur levels. But at the extreme level, the pro ranks, then your "natural" lungs (no chemical assistance) has to be regarded as a part of the natural system that determines your overall performance. In my view, if you can't perform as well without a certain drug, then that drug has to be viewed as "performance enhancing". Furthermore, I would go further to argue that if you need to take "antibiotic" during a stage race (because you suffer from a respiratory infection), then you should be forced to drop out of the race. Yes, extreme endurance racing does compromise the immune system, and if your body can't cope without antibiotic, then you don't get to race at that point.


----------



## MMsRepBike

Don't expect any facts.

Don't expect any information at all really, not even the judgement.

Ulissiâ€™s Salbutamol ruling was kept secretÂ â€”Â Froomeâ€™s might be too | VeloNews.com



> Don’t hold your breath to see how Chris Froome’s Salbutamol case plays out.
> 
> Efforts to parse documents for a comparison between the two cases have proven frustrating. Why? Because the Ulissi documents were never released.
> 
> No one in the public ever read those documents, however. Swiss Anti-Doping authorities confirmed to VeloNews that the agency does not publicly release documents involving disciplinary actions. A request to view the Ulissi documents was denied.
> 
> 
> And just like Ulissi’s ruling, details surrounding Froome’s case might never be publicly revealed.


----------



## Local Hero

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.


----------



## PBL450

Local Hero said:


> Sunlight is the best disinfectant.


YES!!!! I understand the draw to protect the data and rider to some extent and to announce only a disposition. It is a reasoned argument. But cycling can’t handle that. Maybe that ship has sailed... But I’d love to see the sport try to take itself seriously. Given the history and damage already done, sunshine would be the only option for getting through this with any shred of integrity left intact.


----------



## Rashadabd

"My gut tells me something else was going on."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/compton-questions-chris-froomes-asthma-medication-claims/


----------



## love4himies

Rashadabd said:


> "My gut tells me something else was going on."
> 
> Compton questions Chris Froome's asthma medication claims | Cyclingnews.com


From your link:



> on days it's under control, she is rarely outside the podium positions. On days when it's not, she can hardly pedal the bike.


Which is what we would expect to see in somebody who is having such a bad day they have to double their dosage. My daughter was on a swim team who had one lady who had exercise induced asthma and when she had a bad day, she could barely swim and had to quit early. Froome, as we see in the interview after the stage, was in perfect health.


----------



## DrSmile

Did anybody link the interview? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkBT13_ELCM

Anyone who thinks he's having a bad breathing day based on that interview is out of their mind.


----------



## Rashadabd

love4himies said:


> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what we would expect to see in somebody who is having such a bad day they have to double their dosage. My daughter was on a swim team who had one lady who had exercise induced asthma and when she had a bad day, she could barely swim and had to quit early. Froome, as we see in the interview after the stage, was in perfect health.


Exactly....


----------



## Alaska Mike

To play devil's (Froome's) advocate, there is a wide spectrum of responses to asthma. What's a "bad day" for Froome may be a "good day" for Compton, even with his super-special physiology. You'd have to A-B their lung function to know for sure, and that isn't going to happen.

The intense compact and intense efforts of a cyclocross race are nothing like your average ProTour race, much less the repeated and sustained beating a Grand Tour provides. 'Cross is brutal in its own, unique way, but it's another animal.

But yeah, she pretty much nailed it. Take the sanction, Froome, You're not doing anyone any good by dragging it out.


----------



## Rashadabd

UKAD slams British Cycling....

UKAD slammed British Cycling over 'chaotic' medical procedures | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## PBL450

Good article that raises much of what is being discussed here:

Lefevere on Chris Froome case: If cycling wants to be credible, things have to be clearer | Cyclingnews.com

Apologies if this was already posted. On my iPad I sometimes lose comments that get added into the middle of a thread. It just says “ more replies below this” and they vanish.


----------



## SantaCruz

Pro cycling needs to sanction Froomie like other cyclists have been in the past. No Vuelta title for 2017 and 2 years off the race bike to deal with his 'asthma issue'.


----------



## spdntrxi

Agree .. but “like “ others will be 9-12 months only


----------



## MMsRepBike

I wonder if others know something we don't:

The director of the Vuelta has gone public stating he wants this case decided quickly.
Chris Froome's case is 'a heavy blow' says Vuelta a Espana director Guillen | Cyclingnews.com

The director of the Tour has gone public stating he wants this case decided quickly.
Prudhomme wants Froome situation resolved quickly | Cyclingnews.com

The director of the Giro has gone public stating he wants this case decided quickly.
Giro d'Italia director calls on UCI to 'sort out' Chris Froome's salbutamol case | Cyclingnews.com

Contador has gone public saying a quick decision is best.
Alberto Contador: A fast decision on Chris Froome case would be for the best | Cyclingnews.com

And then Bardet says clearly what the others aren't.
Bardet: I don't see how Chris Froome can race as if nothing is going on | Cyclingnews.com

All signs seem to be pointing to this dragging out and Froome racing the Giro and the Tour while this is in court.

*It appears Froome planned on dragging this out to ride the Giro and Tour all along and just hoped it wouldn't go public. And after it did go public they seem to have decided to go for it anyway.*

Wouldn't that be something if he raced this year... Everyone in the know says he's going to do it and nobody wants it to happen.


----------



## MMsRepBike

*Malfunctioning kidneys*



> Chris Froome’s legal defence in his salbutamol case will be based on an argument that his kidneys temporarily stopped working properly prior to his adverse analytical finding.
> 
> The claim will be that they then returned to proper function, releasing the substance into his urine and thus triggering the positive test.





> Froome’s expert team have ruled out using dehydration or external factors as the reason for him having double the permitted maximum level of salbutamol in his system. Instead, they are set to suggest that his kidneys temporarily stopped working properly and accumulated high levels of salbutamol.
> 
> 
> Froome is hoping to try to win both the Giro d’Italia and the Tour de France this season.
> 
> *He has confirmed his attendance at the Italian event *despite knowing that the salbutamol case is brewing.



Um... Kidney failure? Temporary kidney function stoppage? The guy in that interview video on that day?



> The UCI has lined up its own kidney specialist to deal with the claim.


Oh really? Like the Sky News doctor asthma specialist guy that said the limit and rule was meaningless? That kind of specialist?



> Were the UCI LADS to accept this, WADA or UKADA could appeal to the CAS.


----------



## spdntrxi

Froome is FOS.. no respect at all.. he’s worse than Lance.. strip all his titles


----------



## Marc

MMsRepBike said:


> Um... Kidney failure? Temporary kidney function stoppage? The guy in that interview video on that day?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? Like the Sky News doctor asthma specialist guy that said the limit and rule was meaningless? That kind of specialist?


Yea...they realize what morons they'll look like if 2 2nd 6x+ Grand Tour winner this millenium is DQ'd for doping...


----------



## Alaska Mike

At this point, I kinda feel for Froome. 

Very few (if any) riders are standing up for him, even on his own team. He took what could have been an off-season ban and the loss of a GT title and turned it into a potential multi-GT impacting fiasco. The potential damage to his reputation, the sport, and the existence of his own team because of this bad decision? Incalculable. The moment where he could have stood up, took the hit, and maybe made it look like cycling had turned a corner is long gone. Now all that's left is to try to blame his vanishing twin for taking extra hits off the puffer or some such nonsense.

I'm sure ASO is carefully examining its options, and others will follow their lead.


----------



## The Weasel

Liar liar, his kidneys were on fire?

I hope to see some giant inflatable inhalers if he races


----------



## DaveG

The Weasel said:


> Liar liar, his kidneys were on fire?
> 
> I hope to see some giant inflatable inhalers if he races
> 
> View attachment 321622


That may be the very inhaler he used. So yea, he only took a couple of hits but the inhaler was the size of a small car. Perfectly plausible explanation.


----------



## Local Hero

If his kidneys failed there will be evidence of the failure in his urine.


----------



## rtso21125307

Local Hero said:


> If his kidneys failed there will be evidence of the failure in his urine.


The evidence is the kidney's ability not to process twice the limit fast enough to beat the test...everybody knows that!


----------



## DaveG

Local Hero said:


> If his kidneys failed there will be evidence of the failure in his urine.


If you dont believe that story I am sure the team is working up a few other ridiculous theories right now.


----------



## aclinjury

Alaska Mike said:


> At this point, I kinda feel for Froome.
> 
> Very few (if any) riders are standing up for him, even on his own team. He took what could have been an off-season ban and the loss of a GT title and turned it into a potential multi-GT impacting fiasco. *The potential damage to his reputation, the sport, and the existence of his own team* because of this bad decision? Incalculable. The moment where he could have stood up, took the hit, and maybe made it look like cycling had turned a corner is long gone. Now all that's left is to try to blame his vanishing twin for taking extra hits off the puffer or some such nonsense.
> 
> I'm sure ASO is carefully examining its options, and others will follow their lead.


I'd say his reputation is already damaged. Nobody is standing up for him.
Cycling, well if there's one sport closely associated with systematic doping across the board, it's cycling.

As for Sky, it'll be interesting to see if Disney will shut them down.


----------



## MMsRepBike

*UCI weighs in*



Lappartient said:


> Froome is not a rider like any other. He has more money. He can muster more experts who express themselves in his favour. He can submit more exculpatory documents. We cannot simply wipe the statements off the table. It is important to solve the case quickly, but also to protect the rights of the rider.
> 
> There is no special treatment for him, even if some riders claim that. Salbutamol is one of the drugs allowed in a limited dose. An immediate suspension would conflict with the rules in force.


Lappartient on Chris Froome: It is important to protect the rights of riders | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Alaska Mike

aclinjury said:


> I'd say his reputation is already damaged. Nobody is standing up for him.


He had the chance to possibly limit the damage by standing up and taking the hit, but he opted to tilt at windmills. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I was in his place at the time, with all of that weight on his shoulders.


----------



## DaveG

MMsRepBike said:


> Lappartient on Chris Froome: It is important to protect the rights of riders | Cyclingnews.com


When I read Lappartient's comments I get the feeling that the UCI just wants this to go away. I am afraid they will accept whatever cockamamie story that Sky dreams up (like the kidney failure excuse) and just sweep it under the rug


----------



## aclinjury

Alaska Mike said:


> He had the chance to possibly limit the damage by standing up and taking the hit, but he opted to tilt at windmills. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I was in his place at the time, with all of that weight on his shoulders.


he didn't make his decision the way he did in a vacuum. Dave Brailsford (the now physiology expert) and the armada of Sky doctors and their experts, and the medical lawyers, were probably involved. The only thing that they that surprised them was the "leak".


----------



## 9W9W

aclinjury said:


> The only thing that they that surprised them was the "leak".


Good journalists are not compensated nearly enough for the impact their work has on society as of late.


----------



## DaveG

9W9W said:


> Good journalists are not compensated nearly enough for the impact their work has on society as of late.


Maybe this is sort of PO, but my thought is when journalism becomes highly profitable it attracts exactly the kinds of folks you don't want


----------



## n2deep

DaveG said:


> When I read Lappartient's comments I get the feeling that the UCI just wants this to go away. I am afraid they will accept whatever cockamamie story that Sky dreams up (like the kidney failure excuse) and just sweep it under the rug


Agree, the UCI-WWE and Lappartient, will sweep this under the rug.. 

I would rather have Lance at the race than this rube.
At least Lance has some credibility.


----------



## MMsRepBike

DaveG said:


> When I read Lappartient's comments I get the feeling that the UCI just wants this to go away. I am afraid they will accept whatever cockamamie story that Sky dreams up (like the kidney failure excuse) and just sweep it under the rug


The UCI has been proven to be very corrupt time and time again. So has WADA.

We know for a fact that the UCI does favors for money.

The head of the UCI is basically saying something like, "He's throwing cash at us, we can't just look away from that, we have to protect him."

My opinion is that they'll let him off. Scot free. He'll race the Giro with no case pending. Sort of like the Jiffy Bag thing. They'll just let it go. Take the money and look the other way. Tell lies to the press and fans... again.

The credibility of the sport means nothing to them. Obviously.


----------



## DaveG

MMsRepBike said:


> The credibility of the sport means nothing to them. Obviously.


If it doesn't impact the bottom line, I guess they figure who cares if the sports reputation is damaged. What could eventually hurt is that sponsors back out because they are afraid of their brand name being damaged by the bad publicity.


----------



## Rashadabd

There comes a time when you just need to do the right thing. Froome, that time is now.

UCI President Lappartient calls on Sky to suspend Froome | VeloNews.com


----------



## velodog

Rashadabd said:


> There comes a time when you just need to do the right thing. Froome, that time is now.
> 
> UCI President Lappartient calls on Sky to suspend Froome | VeloNews.com


There's probably a better chance of all the teams entered in any races that Froome and Sky are going to race pulling out of those races.

Let Froome and Sky roll around in their "glory".


----------



## aclinjury

Wouldn't it be something if the organizers of the Giro and Tour not invite Froome if this thing doesn't result in his suspension by that time??? Froome's image would be quite damage by then that there would be incentive for the organizers to touch him. That's straight up taking matters into their own hands


----------



## PBL450

Of course he is... In this case it’s just a piece of data though. This is what TUEs need to be eliminated. He has 2X the allowed amount of the drug. Unless the test failed in some way, then there is no defense. If TUEs were abolished there would no defense period. It would make 5nis faster and more conclusive. Now we get what? Dead man racing? A result that will have an asterisk DURING the race? Awful. 


Bugno: Chris Froome is innocent until proven guilty so it's right he can race | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## burgrat

Maybe I missed it, but is there a deadline by which he has to prove his innocence? It seems like there should be something like a 3 month limit on this, otherwise it will drag out well into next season. 

I don't think the race organizers should have to allow Froome to race because if he is later sanctioned, it screws up the results (assuming he wins or podiums), the prizes, and it takes away that position from another rider.


----------



## SNS1938

burgrat said:


> Maybe I missed it, but is there a deadline by which he has to prove his innocence? It seems like there should be something like a 3 month limit on this, otherwise it will drag out well into next season.
> 
> I don't think the race organizers should have to allow Froome to race because if he is later sanctioned, it screws up the results (assuming he wins or podiums), the prizes, and it takes away that position from another rider.


I thought that he can race until there's a verdict. But, if he'd stepped down in September, then he would already be over half way through a potential 9 month ban. If he keeps racing, and then is given a 9 month ban, I thought he'd lose all results from the Vuelta through to the end of the 9 months ... so that's Sept 2017 until the ban is set, and then plus 9 months ... 

I personally think he should have taken the ban the day he found out about it, and served most of it over the off season.

I bet if he races the TdF before this is resolved, he'll get more than urine thrown on him.


----------



## MMsRepBike

burgrat said:


> Maybe I missed it, but is there a deadline by which he has to prove his innocence? It seems like there should be something like a 3 month limit on this, otherwise it will drag out well into next season.
> 
> I don't think the race organizers should have to allow Froome to race because if he is later sanctioned, it screws up the results (assuming he wins or podiums), the prizes, and it takes away that position from another rider.


The UCI is saying this will likely take AT LEAST a year. That was the last I heard from them.

SKY is planning to drag it out in court until AT LEAST the tour is over. They want him to win the Giro/Tour so they can use that as clout to get him let off. So as to not have a repeat of Contador.

The organizers can label him persona non grata. Which just means he's publicly unwelcome. They can't stop him from racing though, they have no say in it really.


----------



## burgrat

SNS1938 said:


> I thought that he can race until there's a verdict. But, if he'd stepped down in September, then he would already be over half way through a potential 9 month ban. If he keeps racing, and then is given a 9 month ban, I thought he'd lose all results from the Vuelta through to the end of the 9 months ... so that's Sept 2017 until the ban is set, and then plus 9 months ...
> 
> I personally think he should have taken the ban the day he found out about it, and served most of it over the off season.
> 
> I bet if he races the TdF before this is resolved, he'll get more than urine thrown on him.


Is there a pending verdict at this time? Isn't it up to Froome at this point? My question is about a deadline by which he has to provide this defense. Could he say hey, I think I will try to present my defense next September in the exact conditions, etc. It seems like it should be provide a defense within 90 days, or the ban begins at that date.
I totally agree with you that he should have just taken the ban and said that he took the inhaler and due to whatever issues, the concentration excreted was 2x the max limit. This thing is going to drag out and even if he can provide a legit excuse and reproduce the abnormal levels of the drug that left his system, he will not come out of this looking good.


----------



## Alaska Mike

MMsRepBike said:


> The organizers can label him persona non grata. Which just means he's publicly unwelcome. They can't stop him from racing though, they have no say in it really.


ASO has banned the team of the previous year's winner before (e.g. Contador 2008). They own the most prestigious races on the calendar, so their clout is undeniable. I'm not sure the French president of the UCI would fight all that hard.

Of course, it's a bit late in the game for that sort of action, but you can be sure ASO is working overtime behind the scenes to get this resolved before the Tour.


----------



## MMsRepBike

ASO could kick him out once he's in the race like they did to Sagan. Just claim he broke a rule or whatever. I don't think Sky has done enough to be warranted removed. They've gotten out of the whole jiffy bag thing with corruption so that doesn't count against them.


----------



## SNS1938

MMsRepBike said:


> The UCI is saying this will likely take AT LEAST a year. That was the last I heard from them.
> 
> SKY is planning to drag it out in court until AT LEAST the tour is over. They want him to win the Giro/Tour so they can use that as clout to get him let off. So as to not have a repeat of Contador.
> 
> The organizers can label him persona non grata. Which just means he's publicly unwelcome. They can't stop him from racing though, they have no say in it really.


So if say August 1st, they finally conclude this and it's a 9 month ban from then. If he wins 2018 Giro and TdF, then they'd strip him of 3 grand tour wins?

I cannot see how he should not have the same verdict/punishment as the other guy who was double the limit .. ulissi or something.


----------



## atpjunkie

I think if you take Compton's input on the subject and then add the theory that he had a bad day and then took it orally or via nebulizer (which would create those kind of numbers) it creates the Occam's razor in this case. If one has followed Compton's career one sees what happens when one actually has this ailment and has a full blown attack. She withdraws from the race.


----------



## tommybike

atpjunkie said:


> I think if you take Compton's input on the subject and then add the theory that he had a bad day and then took it orally or via nebulizer (which would create those kind of numbers) it creates the Occam's razor in this case. If one has followed Compton's career one sees what happens when one actually has this ailment and has a full blown attack. She withdraws from the race.


This definitely seems the most likely scenario. Which should result in punishment, although I have to add the whole can't take cold medicine BS should go. Suffering through a cold and not being able to ride on a beautiful day is bad enough. Losing a Grand Tour that you have been working to win for years would be devastating. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## velodog

tommybike said:


> This definitely seems the most likely scenario. Which should result in punishment, although I have to add the whole can't take cold medicine BS should go. Suffering through a cold and not being able to ride on a beautiful day is bad enough. *Losing a Grand Tour that you have been working to win for years would be devastating.
> *
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Whether from a cold or a flat tire.


----------



## tommybike

velodog said:


> Whether from a cold or a flat tire.


The peloton stops for a flat tire. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## velodog

tommybike said:


> The peloton stops for a flat tire.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Not always. But even if they did, there's always the possibility of a crash. Shux, Sagan got put out of the Tour, and possible green jersey, over something that was reversed when it didn't matter any more.

That's just the nature of competition, some times you win, and some times you lose.


----------



## tommybike

velodog said:


> Not always. But even if they did, there's always the possibility of a crash. Shux, Sagan got put out of the Tour, and possible green jersey, over something that was reversed when it didn't matter any more.
> 
> That's just the nature of competition, some times you win, and some times you lose.


I do not disagree, but a crash, they bandage you up, and plenty keep going. Not being allowed cold meds is about the equivalent of not being allowed band aids. You know keeping the blood in your boy can be considered performance enhancing. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## MMsRepBike

tommybike said:


> the whole can't take cold medicine BS should go. Suffering through a cold and not being able to ride on a beautiful day is bad enough. Losing a Grand Tour that you have been working to win for years would be devastating.


Wrong. There was never any cold medicine.

There was no cold. There was no illness. Inhalers don't cure colds anyway.

Did you see the interviews of him? Zero heath problems at all, zero.

Other pros have established that the environment was NOT conducive to asthma problems, quite the opposite, the moisture in the air helped the condition. He was never sick.

You saying that he just took some cold medication is beyond laughable.


----------



## velodog

tommybike said:


> I do not disagree, but a crash, they bandage you up, and plenty keep going. Not being allowed cold meds is about the equivalent of not being allowed band aids. You know keeping the blood in your boy can be considered performance enhancing.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


The difference between a cold and coughing and asthma and not breathing is like the difference between some road rash and a broken hip.

One can be patched up with band aids and the other puts you out of the race.


----------



## tommybike

MMsRepBike said:


> Wrong. There was never any cold medicine.
> 
> There was no cold. There was no illness. Inhalers don't cure colds anyway.
> 
> Did you see the interviews of him? Zero heath problems at all, zero.
> 
> Other pros have established that the environment was NOT conducive to asthma problems, quite the opposite, the moisture in the air helped the condition. He was never sick.
> 
> You saying that he just took some cold medication is beyond laughable.


Neither of us know what happened but my response was to the intelligent response regarding the Occam's Razor theory. 

Not the crazy, let's hate Froome theories. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## MMsRepBike

tommybike said:


> Neither of us know what happened but my response was to the intelligent response regarding the Occam's Razor theory.
> 
> Not the crazy, let's hate Froome theories.


Occam's Razor is that he took a pill or a puff from a nebulizer, both are strictly banned.

Your response is that he just took some cold medication because he was sick.

You're not even talking about the same thing. This is about asthma, not a cold. Nobody anywhere is claiming he had a cold and took cold medication, nobody. Nobody is claiming that double the limit of salbutamol is cold medication. You're the only one.

His defense is kidney failure. That has zero to do with having a cold.


----------



## tommybike

MMsRepBike said:


> Occam's Razor is that he took a pill or a puff from a nebulizer, both are strictly banned.
> 
> Your response is that he just took some cold medication because he was sick.
> 
> You're not even talking about the same thing. This is about asthma, not a cold. Nobody anywhere is claiming he had a cold and took cold medication, nobody. Nobody is claiming that double the limit of salbutamol is cold medication. You're the only one.
> 
> His defense is kidney failure. That has zero to do with having a cold.


I am talking about yes taking a pill or a puff. Yes banned. And yes as logical as banning bandages. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## PBL450

tommybike said:


> I am talking about yes taking a pill or a puff. Yes banned. And yes as logical as banning bandages.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Damn, I got to hand it to ya... You don’t see pro-doping posts often. Good for you. The current is for Lemmings. It’s terrible that a cold can kill you in a world tour, incomprehensible! Diarrhea, that takes a toll in every WT race. It should be correctable. Exhaustion? The biggest killer? Easy fixes. If you make it to that level you should be able to race no matter what. It’s fine if riders are throwing syringes like bidons into the crowd. Its even better for riders! They can neglect all kinds of bodily warnings that danger and damage are at hand and keep going. DSs will love it!


----------



## GlobalGuy

I have no insightful specific factual evidence of what the true, accurate, and complete story is on Froome. I'm definitely not a Froome hater. Those facts aside, it is my opinion based upon clear and convincing evidence that the population made up of elite level athletes in a sport the demands strength, speed, power, high cardio endurance and performance is a group that PED dominate. All sports. Cyclists and certain event specific track and field event athletes have always been on the forfront of PEDs. 

The latest hot sport athletes that are ripe with PED are MMA. 

Tennis greats Federer and Nadal take half a year off at advance ages for top ATP players and they return after six months better than ever. No chance in their R&R that PEDs might enable 31 and 36 year old players to come back and be favorites for Grand Slam events while playing as good as ten years ago. <script>(function () { var pb_blacklist = ["adrunnr","successforyu.clickfunnels.com","fmovies.se","in-365-tagen.info","5000-settimanale.com","shop.mazzugioielli.com","maxigossip.com","lp.yazizim.com","beyourxfriend.com","99tab.com","zzqrt.com","canuck-method.net","bewomenly.com","playnow.guru","datingforyou-48e1.kxcdn.com","trafficnetworkads24.com","sistemadedinerogratis.com","canuckmethodprofit.co","consumerresearchnetwork.com","securemacfix.com","zz3d3.ru","zd1.quebec-bin.com","hot-games4you.xyz","om.elvenar.com","superpccleanup.com","gomediaz.com","judithi.xyz","free.atozmanuals.com","yoursuccess.ravpage.co.il","123hop.ir","quizcliente.pw","aussiemethod.biz","hlpnowp-c.com","picbumper.com","shaneless.com","anacondamonster.com","altrk1.com","health.todaydiets.com","download.weatherblink.com","happyluketh.com","go.ameinfo.com","50kaweek.net","thepornsurvey.com","ofsiite.ru","fulltab.com","1000spins.com","time2play-online.net","vintacars.com","welcome.*****saga.com","free-desktop-games.com","download.televisionfanatic.com","theprofitsmaker.net","sgad.info","algocashmaster.net","sunmaker.com","topvipdreams.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornvideos.com","filesharefanatic.com","safedownloadhub.com","7awlalalam.blogspot.com","tvplusnewtab.com","trendingpatrol.com","moneymorning.com","ifileyou.com","classifiedcanada.ca","firefan.com","methode-binaire.com","letmetell.com","kenduktur.com","getafuk.com","yotraleplahnte.ru","jackpot.88beto.com","pwwysydh.com","search.queryrouter.com","v.lvztxy.com","*****saga.com","saffamethod.com","prezzonline.com","searchprivacy.website","3d2819216eb4e1035879-7c248de0c99745406e9b749fc86ec3e4.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com","only2date.com","mysagagame.com","themillionaireinpjs.net","wlt.kd2244.com","quickprivacycheck.com","hotchatdate.com","autotraderbot.com","z1.zedo.com","youlucky2014.com","traffic.getmyads.com","appcloudprotected.com","safensecure.com-allsites3.xyz","newpoptab.com","static.williamhill.com","myhealthyblog.co","greatestmobideals.com","sweetclarity.com","mgid.com","securepccure.com","autopengebygger.com","am15.net","es.reimageplus.com","o2.promos-info.com","it.reimageplus.com","west****s.com","spinandwin.com-ser.pw","reimageplus.com","vodafone.promos-info.com","vinnmatpengar.se","movie.ienjoyapps.com","love4single.com","origin.getprice.com.au","ohmydating.com","lp.want-to-win.com","yabuletchrome.ru","bamdad.net","gotositenow.com","vcrypt.pw","newtabtv.com","mon.setsu.xyz","youforgottorenewyourhosting.com","zone-telechargement.ws","land.pckeeper.software","ad.adpop-1.com","advancedpctools.com","videos.randolphcountyheraldtribune.com","web-start.org","softreadynow.installupgradenowfreshandforyou.website","uplod.ws","pornhubcasino.com","maxbet.ro","2016prizefeed.com","thevideo.me","wantubad.com","tavanero.com","xcusmy.club","daclips.in","gaymenofporn.online","jackpotcitycasino.com","italian-method.com","getsearchincognito.com","youjustwonprize.com","finanz-nachrichten.me","quizcliente.site","da.reimageplus.com","jkanime.net","britmoneymethod.com","uae.souq.com","ka.azzer.net","safensecure.xyz","8t.hootingrhejkz.online","www6.blinkx.com","wizzcaster.com","comparaison-prix.com","vodlocker.lol","fr.reimageplus.com","free.fromdoctopdf.com","userscloud.com","myprivatesearch.com","fanli90.cn","tutticodicisconto.it","mediadec.com","gogamego.thewhizproducts.com","download.weatherblink.com","free.videodownloadconverter.com","we-are-gamers.com","sesso.communityadult.net","lp.blpmovies.com","search.queryrouter.com","bbb-johannesburg.localspecific.com","lp.blpmovies.com","go.ppixelm.com","r0.ru","sesso.communityadult.net","bbb-johannesburg.localspecific.com","ppixelm.com","cyberguardianspe.info","we-are-gamers.com","loginfaster.com/new","www.alfacart.com","www.foresee.com","mobile-win.com","www.plusnetwork.com","www.amicafarmacia.com","www.ienjoyapps.com","cheapcheap.io","screenaddict.thewhizproducts.com","nova.rambler.ru","free.gamingwonderland.com","p9328ujeiw1.ru","mobilecasinoclub.co.uk","pfhsystem.com","regtuneup.com","theprofitsmaker.net","bodogpromotions.eu","heroesreplay.org","financialsecrets.info","mymoneymakingapp.com","sunmaker.com","888casino-promotions.com","vogliosesso.com","scienceremix.com","allinonedocs.com","arabia.starzplay.com","allirishcasino.com","advancepctools.info","movie.ienjoyapps.com","surveyform001.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com","mgs188.com","pfhsystem.com","lpeva.com","ddsh8.com","theprofitsmaker.net","b2.ijquery11.com","sporthero.thewhizmarketing.com","securefastmac.tech","seen-on-screen.thewhizmarketing.com","1000spins.com","search.queryrouter.com","pfhsystem.com","reimageplus.com","offer.alibaba.com","searchlistings.org","search.queryrouter.com","search.queryrouter.com","mybinaryoptionsrobot.com","duplicashapp.com","search.queryrouter.com","bestgame.directory","droidclub.net",".rivalo.com","yoursuperprize.com","mediaexplained.com","om.elvenar.com","shinar.club","revitoleczemacream.com","freelotto.com","screenaddict.thewhizproducts.com","download.bringmesports.com/","allinonedocs.com","driver-fixer.com","arabydeal.com","cleanyourcomputertoday.com","arabydeal.com","music.mixplugin.com","1se.info","survey12.com","freesoftwaredlul.com","pldist01.com","ad.adpop-1.com","searchanonymous.net","abrst.pro","muzikfury.thewhizmarketing.com","lp.mbtrx.com","th1.forfun.maxisize-pro.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornbox.com","new.freelotto.com","desktoptrack.com","search.queryrouter.com","offer.alibaba.com","1000spins.com","promotions.coral.co.uk","search.queryrouter.com","tbsia.com","tbsia.com","multtaepyo.com","search.queryrouter.com","czechmethod.com","consumerview.co","wayretail.com","72onbase.com","funsafetab.com","search.queryrouter.com","speedyfiledownload.com","driver-fixer.com","arabydeal.com","cleanyourcomputertoday.com","arabydeal.com","music.mixplugin.com","1se.info","survey12.com","freesoftwaredlul.com","pldist01.com","ad.adpop-1.com","searchanonymous.net","abrst.pro","muzikfury.thewhizmarketing.com","lp.mbtrx.com","th1.forfun.maxisize-pro.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornbox.com","new.freelotto.com","desktoptrack.com","search.queryrouter.com","offer.alibaba.com","1000spins.com","promotions.coral.co.uk","search.queryrouter.com","tbsia.com","tbsia.com","surveyform001.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com","mgs188.com","pfhsystem.com","lpeva.com","ddsh8.com","theprofitsmaker.net","quantomcoding.com","sporthero.thewhizmarketing.com","popads.net","onclkds.com","consumerview.co","12kotov.ru","ruhotpair2.fingta.com","easytelevisionaccessnow.com","ahwrd.com","lpeva.com","ppgzf.com","zjstx.com","kituure.xyz","join.pro-gaming-world.com","mackeeperapp.mackeeper.com","tracknotify.com","2075.cdn.beyondhosting.net","idollash.com","ds.moviegoat.com","fulltab.com","rackcdn.com","prestoris.com","adsterra.com","swampssovuuhusp.top","streesusa.info","freesoftwaredlul.com","adreactor.com","a-static.com","codeonclick.com","heheme.com","adf.ly","seen-on-screen.thewhizmarketing.com","openload.co"]; var pb_whitelist = ["verizonwireless.com","foxnews.com","www.wunderground.com","wellsfargo.com","tvguide.com","metacritic.com","usaa.com","www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov","tickets.amtrak.com","creditscorecard.com","www.discovercard.com","nbc.com","dmv.ca.gov","linkedin.com","google","www.gmail.com","www.pinterest.com","www.youtube.com","www.facebook.com","search.yahoo.com","chrome://newtab","www.food.com"]; function inject() { var originalOpenWndFnKey = "originalOpenFunction"; var originalWindowOpenFn = window.open; var originalCreateElementFn = document.createElement; var originalAppendChildFn = HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild; var originalCreateEventFn = document.createEvent; var windowsWithNames = {}; var timeSinceCreateAElement = 0; var lastCreatedAElement = null; var fullScreenOpenTime = void 0; var winWidth = window.innerWidth; var winHeight = window.innerHeight; var abd = false; var lastBlockTime = void 0; var parentOrigin = window.location != window.parent.location ? document.referrer || window.parent.location || '*' : document.location; var parentRef = window.parent; //window[originalOpenWndFnKey] = window.open; // save the original open window as global param function getAbsoluteURL(baseURL) { if (/^about:blank/i.test(baseURL)) { return baseURL; } if (/^(https??\/\//.test(baseURL)) { return baseURL; } baseURL = location.origin + (!/^\//.test(baseURL) ? '/' : '') + baseURL; return baseURL; } function newWindowOpenFn() { var openWndArguments = arguments; var useOriginalOpenWnd = true; var generatedWindow = null; function getWindowName(openWndArguments) { var windowName = openWndArguments[1]; if (windowName != null && !["_blank", "_parent", "_self", "_top"].includes(windowName)) { return windowName; } return null; } function copyMissingProperties(src, dest) { var prop = void 0; for (prop in src) { try { if (dest[prop] === undefined && src[prop]) { dest[prop] = src[prop]; } } catch (e) {} } return dest; } function isOverlayish(el) { var style = el && el.style; if (style && /fixed|absolute/.test(style.position) && el.offsetWidth >= winWidth * 0.6 && el.offsetHeight >= winHeight * 0.75) { return true; } return false; } var capturingElement = null; // the element who registered to the event var srcElement = null; // the clicked on element var closestParentLink = null; if (window.event != null) { capturingElement = window.event.currentTarget; srcElement = window.event.srcElement; } if (srcElement != null) { closestParentLink = srcElement.closest('a'); if (closestParentLink && closestParentLink.href) { openWndArguments[3] = closestParentLink.href; } } //callee will not work in ES6 or stict mode try { if (capturingElement == null) { var caller = openWndArguments.callee; while (caller.arguments != null && caller.arguments.callee.caller != null) { caller = caller.arguments.callee.caller; } if (caller.arguments != null && caller.arguments.length > 0 && caller.arguments[0].currentTarget != null) { capturingElement = caller.arguments[0].currentTarget; } } } catch (e) {} ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Blocked if a click on background element occurred (<body> or document) ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// if (capturingElement == null) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened without any user interaction'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else if (capturingElement != null && (capturingElement instanceof Window || parent.Window && capturingElement instanceof parent.Window || capturingElement === document || capturingElement.URL != null && capturingElement.body != null || capturingElement.nodeName != null && (capturingElement.nodeName.toLowerCase() == "body" || capturingElement.nodeName.toLowerCase() == "document"))) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because it was triggered by the ' + capturingElement.nodeName + ' element'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else if (isOverlayish(capturingElement)) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened when clicking on an element that seems to be an overlay'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else { useOriginalOpenWnd = true; } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Block if a full screen was just initiated while opening this url. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// var fullScreenElement = document.webkitFullscreenElement || document.mozFullscreenElement || document.fullscreenElement; if (new Date().getTime() - fullScreenOpenTime < 1000 || isNaN(fullScreenOpenTime) && isDocumentInFullScreenMode()) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because a full screen was just initiated while opening this url.'; /* JRA REMOVED if (window[script_params.fullScreenFnKey]) { window.clearTimeout(window[script_params.fullScreenFnKey]); } */ if (document.exitFullscreen) { document.exitFullscreen(); } else if (document.mozCancelFullScreen) { document.mozCancelFullScreen(); } else if (document.webkitCancelFullScreen) { document.webkitCancelFullScreen(); } useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// var openUrl = openWndArguments[0]; var inWhitelist = isInWhitelist(location.href); if (inWhitelist) { useOriginalOpenWnd = true; } else if (isInBlacklist(openUrl)) { useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } if (useOriginalOpenWnd == true) { generatedWindow = originalWindowOpenFn.apply(this, openWndArguments); // save the window by name, for latter use. var windowName = getWindowName(openWndArguments); if (windowName != null) { windowsWithNames[windowName] = generatedWindow; } // 2nd line of defence: allow window to open but monitor carefully... ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Kill window if a blur (remove focus) is called to that window ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// if (generatedWindow !== window) { (function () { var openTime = new Date().getTime(); var originalWndBlurFn = generatedWindow.blur; generatedWindow.blur = function () { if (new Date().getTime() - openTime < 1000 && !inWhitelist /* one second */) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because a it was blured'; generatedWindow.close(); blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments); } else { originalWndBlurFn(); } }; })(); } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// } else { (function () { // (useOriginalOpenWnd == false) var location = { href: openWndArguments[0] }; location.replace = function (url) { location.href = url; }; generatedWindow = { close: function close() { return true; }, test: function test() { return true; }, blur: function blur() { return true; }, focus: function focus() { return true; }, showModelessDialog: function showModelessDialog() { return true; }, showModalDialog: function showModalDialog() { return true; }, prompt: function prompt() { return true; }, confirm: function confirm() { return true; }, alert: function alert() { return true; }, moveTo: function moveTo() { return true; }, moveBy: function moveBy() { return true; }, resizeTo: function resizeTo() { return true; }, resizeBy: function resizeBy() { return true; }, scrollBy: function scrollBy() { return true; }, scrollTo: function scrollTo() { return true; }, getSelection: function getSelection() { return true; }, onunload: function onunload() { return true; }, print: function print() { return true; }, open: function open() { return this; }, opener: window, closed: false, innerHeight: 480, innerWidth: 640, name: openWndArguments[1], location: location, document: { location: location } }; copyMissingProperties(window, generatedWindow); generatedWindow.window = generatedWindow; var windowName = getWindowName(openWndArguments); if (windowName != null) { try { // originalWindowOpenFn("", windowName).close(); windowsWithNames[windowName].close(); } catch (err) {} } var fnGetUrl = function fnGetUrl() { var url = void 0; if (!(generatedWindow.location instanceof Object)) { url = generatedWindow.location; } else if (!(generatedWindow.document.location instanceof Object)) { url = generatedWindow.document.location; } else if (location.href != null) { url = location.href; } else { url = openWndArguments[0]; } openWndArguments[0] = url; blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments); }; //why set timeout? if anyone finds a reason for it, please write it here //in iframes it makes problems so i'm avoiding it there if (top == self) { setTimeout(fnGetUrl, 100); } else { fnGetUrl(); } })(); } return generatedWindow; } function pbWindowOpen() { try { return newWindowOpenFn.apply(this, arguments); } catch (err) { return null; } } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Replace the window open method with Poper Blocker's ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// window.open = pbWindowOpen; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Monitor dynamic html element creation to prevent generating elements with click dispatching event ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild = function () { var newElement = originalAppendChildFn.apply(this, arguments); if (newElement.nodeName == 'IFRAME' && newElement.contentWindow) { try { var code = '(function () {\n var pb_blacklist = ' + JSON.stringify(pb_blacklist) + ';\n var pb_whitelist = ' + JSON.stringify(pb_whitelist) + ';\n ' + inject.toString() + ';\n inject();\n })();'; var s = document.createElement('script');s.text = code; newElement.contentWindow.document.body.appendChild(s); } catch (e) {} } return newElement; }; document.createElement = function () { var newElement = originalCreateElementFn.apply(document, arguments); if (arguments[0] == "a" || arguments[0] == "A") { (function () { timeSinceCreateAElement = new Date().getTime(); var originalDispatchEventFn = newElement.dispatchEvent; newElement.dispatchEvent = function (event) { if (event.type != null && ('' + event.type).toLocaleLowerCase() == "click") { if (!isInWhitelist(newElement.href)) { window.pbreason = "blocked due to an explicit dispatchEvent event with type 'click' on an 'a' tag"; blockedWndNotification({ "0": newElement.href }); return true; } } return originalDispatchEventFn.call(this, event); }; lastCreatedAElement = newElement; })(); } return newElement; }; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Block artificial mouse click on frashly created elements ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// document.createEvent = function () { try { if (arguments[0].toLowerCase().includes("mouse") && new Date().getTime() - timeSinceCreateAElement <= 50) { //block if the origin is not same var isSelfDomain = false; try { var openUrlDomain = new URL(lastCreatedAElement.href).hostname; var topUrl = window.location != window.parent.location ? document.referrer : document.location.href; var topDomain = new URL(topUrl).hostname; isSelfDomain = openUrlDomain == topDomain; } catch (e) {} if (lastCreatedAElement.href.trim() && !isInWhitelist(lastCreatedAElement.href) && !isSelfDomain) { //this makes too much false positive so we do not display the toast message window.pbreason = 'Blocked because \'a\' element was recently created and ' + arguments[0] + ' event was created shortly after'; arguments[0] = lastCreatedAElement.href; blockedWndNotification({ "0": lastCreatedAElement.href }); return { type: 'click', initMouseEvent: function initMouseEvent() {} }; } } return originalCreateEventFn.apply(document, arguments); } catch (err) {} }; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Monitor full screen requests ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// function onFullScreen(isInFullScreenMode) { if (isInFullScreenMode) { fullScreenOpenTime = new Date().getTime(); } else { fullScreenOpenTime = NaN; } } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// function isDocumentInFullScreenMode() { // Note that the browser fullscreen (triggered by short keys) might // be considered different from content fullscreen when expecting a boolean return document.fullScreenElement && document.fullScreenElement !== null || // alternative standard methods document.mozFullscreenElement != null || document.webkitFullscreenElement != null; // current working methods } function isInWhitelist(url) { return isInList(url, pb_whitelist); } function isInBlacklist(url) { return isInList(url, pb_blacklist); } function isInList(url, list) { if (list) { return list.some(function (li) { return new RegExp("https?://(www\.|.*\.)?" + li + "+").test(url); }); } else { return false; } } function blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments) { //this is to prevent a site that "stuck" on trying to open a new window to send endless calls to the extension if (!lastBlockTime || lastBlockTime < Date.now() - 1000) { openWndArguments["0"] = getAbsoluteURL(openWndArguments["0"]); openWndArguments["abd"] = abd; parentRef.postMessage({ type: "blockedWindow", args: JSON.stringify(openWndArguments) }, parentOrigin); } lastBlockTime = Date.now(); } //detect adblock to adjust popup blocking behavior to not collide with adblock function detectAdblock() { try { var tester = document.createElement('div'); tester.innerHTML = ' '; tester.className = 'adsbox'; tester.style.cssText = "position:absolute;top-1000px;left:-1000px;"; document.body.appendChild(tester); window.setTimeout(function () { if (tester.offsetHeight === 0) { abd = true; } tester.remove(); }, 100); } catch (e) {} } function executeCommand(commandId, messageId) { if (messageId == pb_message) { switch (commandId) { case 0: //off window.open = originalWindowOpenFn; document.createElement = originalCreateElementFn; document.createEvent = originalCreateEventFn; HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild = originalAppendChildFn; break; case 1: //allow once break; } } } document.addEventListener("fullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.fullscreen); }, false); document.addEventListener("mozfullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.mozFullScreen); }, false); document.addEventListener("webkitfullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.webkitIsFullScreen); }, false); document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () { detectAdblock(); }, false); (function () { window.pbExternalCommand = function (commandId, messageId) { executeCommand(commandId, messageId); }; })(); }; inject(); })();</script><script>(function () { var pb_blacklist = ["adrunnr","successforyu.clickfunnels.com","fmovies.se","in-365-tagen.info","5000-settimanale.com","shop.mazzugioielli.com","maxigossip.com","lp.yazizim.com","beyourxfriend.com","99tab.com","zzqrt.com","canuck-method.net","bewomenly.com","playnow.guru","datingforyou-48e1.kxcdn.com","trafficnetworkads24.com","sistemadedinerogratis.com","canuckmethodprofit.co","consumerresearchnetwork.com","securemacfix.com","zz3d3.ru","zd1.quebec-bin.com","hot-games4you.xyz","om.elvenar.com","superpccleanup.com","gomediaz.com","judithi.xyz","free.atozmanuals.com","yoursuccess.ravpage.co.il","123hop.ir","quizcliente.pw","aussiemethod.biz","hlpnowp-c.com","picbumper.com","shaneless.com","anacondamonster.com","altrk1.com","health.todaydiets.com","download.weatherblink.com","happyluketh.com","go.ameinfo.com","50kaweek.net","thepornsurvey.com","ofsiite.ru","fulltab.com","1000spins.com","time2play-online.net","vintacars.com","welcome.*****saga.com","free-desktop-games.com","download.televisionfanatic.com","theprofitsmaker.net","sgad.info","algocashmaster.net","sunmaker.com","topvipdreams.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornvideos.com","filesharefanatic.com","safedownloadhub.com","7awlalalam.blogspot.com","tvplusnewtab.com","trendingpatrol.com","moneymorning.com","ifileyou.com","classifiedcanada.ca","firefan.com","methode-binaire.com","letmetell.com","kenduktur.com","getafuk.com","yotraleplahnte.ru","jackpot.88beto.com","pwwysydh.com","search.queryrouter.com","v.lvztxy.com","*****saga.com","saffamethod.com","prezzonline.com","searchprivacy.website","3d2819216eb4e1035879-7c248de0c99745406e9b749fc86ec3e4.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com","only2date.com","mysagagame.com","themillionaireinpjs.net","wlt.kd2244.com","quickprivacycheck.com","hotchatdate.com","autotraderbot.com","z1.zedo.com","youlucky2014.com","traffic.getmyads.com","appcloudprotected.com","safensecure.com-allsites3.xyz","newpoptab.com","static.williamhill.com","myhealthyblog.co","greatestmobideals.com","sweetclarity.com","mgid.com","securepccure.com","autopengebygger.com","am15.net","es.reimageplus.com","o2.promos-info.com","it.reimageplus.com","west****s.com","spinandwin.com-ser.pw","reimageplus.com","vodafone.promos-info.com","vinnmatpengar.se","movie.ienjoyapps.com","love4single.com","origin.getprice.com.au","ohmydating.com","lp.want-to-win.com","yabuletchrome.ru","bamdad.net","gotositenow.com","vcrypt.pw","newtabtv.com","mon.setsu.xyz","youforgottorenewyourhosting.com","zone-telechargement.ws","land.pckeeper.software","ad.adpop-1.com","advancedpctools.com","videos.randolphcountyheraldtribune.com","web-start.org","softreadynow.installupgradenowfreshandforyou.website","uplod.ws","pornhubcasino.com","maxbet.ro","2016prizefeed.com","thevideo.me","wantubad.com","tavanero.com","xcusmy.club","daclips.in","gaymenofporn.online","jackpotcitycasino.com","italian-method.com","getsearchincognito.com","youjustwonprize.com","finanz-nachrichten.me","quizcliente.site","da.reimageplus.com","jkanime.net","britmoneymethod.com","uae.souq.com","ka.azzer.net","safensecure.xyz","8t.hootingrhejkz.online","www6.blinkx.com","wizzcaster.com","comparaison-prix.com","vodlocker.lol","fr.reimageplus.com","free.fromdoctopdf.com","userscloud.com","myprivatesearch.com","fanli90.cn","tutticodicisconto.it","mediadec.com","gogamego.thewhizproducts.com","download.weatherblink.com","free.videodownloadconverter.com","we-are-gamers.com","sesso.communityadult.net","lp.blpmovies.com","search.queryrouter.com","bbb-johannesburg.localspecific.com","lp.blpmovies.com","go.ppixelm.com","r0.ru","sesso.communityadult.net","bbb-johannesburg.localspecific.com","ppixelm.com","cyberguardianspe.info","we-are-gamers.com","loginfaster.com/new","www.alfacart.com","www.foresee.com","mobile-win.com","www.plusnetwork.com","www.amicafarmacia.com","www.ienjoyapps.com","cheapcheap.io","screenaddict.thewhizproducts.com","nova.rambler.ru","free.gamingwonderland.com","p9328ujeiw1.ru","mobilecasinoclub.co.uk","pfhsystem.com","regtuneup.com","theprofitsmaker.net","bodogpromotions.eu","heroesreplay.org","financialsecrets.info","mymoneymakingapp.com","sunmaker.com","888casino-promotions.com","vogliosesso.com","scienceremix.com","allinonedocs.com","arabia.starzplay.com","allirishcasino.com","advancepctools.info","movie.ienjoyapps.com","surveyform001.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com","mgs188.com","pfhsystem.com","lpeva.com","ddsh8.com","theprofitsmaker.net","b2.ijquery11.com","sporthero.thewhizmarketing.com","securefastmac.tech","seen-on-screen.thewhizmarketing.com","1000spins.com","search.queryrouter.com","pfhsystem.com","reimageplus.com","offer.alibaba.com","searchlistings.org","search.queryrouter.com","search.queryrouter.com","mybinaryoptionsrobot.com","duplicashapp.com","search.queryrouter.com","bestgame.directory","droidclub.net",".rivalo.com","yoursuperprize.com","mediaexplained.com","om.elvenar.com","shinar.club","revitoleczemacream.com","freelotto.com","screenaddict.thewhizproducts.com","download.bringmesports.com/","allinonedocs.com","driver-fixer.com","arabydeal.com","cleanyourcomputertoday.com","arabydeal.com","music.mixplugin.com","1se.info","survey12.com","freesoftwaredlul.com","pldist01.com","ad.adpop-1.com","searchanonymous.net","abrst.pro","muzikfury.thewhizmarketing.com","lp.mbtrx.com","th1.forfun.maxisize-pro.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornbox.com","new.freelotto.com","desktoptrack.com","search.queryrouter.com","offer.alibaba.com","1000spins.com","promotions.coral.co.uk","search.queryrouter.com","tbsia.com","tbsia.com","multtaepyo.com","search.queryrouter.com","czechmethod.com","consumerview.co","wayretail.com","72onbase.com","funsafetab.com","search.queryrouter.com","speedyfiledownload.com","driver-fixer.com","arabydeal.com","cleanyourcomputertoday.com","arabydeal.com","music.mixplugin.com","1se.info","survey12.com","freesoftwaredlul.com","pldist01.com","ad.adpop-1.com","searchanonymous.net","abrst.pro","muzikfury.thewhizmarketing.com","lp.mbtrx.com","th1.forfun.maxisize-pro.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornbox.com","new.freelotto.com","desktoptrack.com","search.queryrouter.com","offer.alibaba.com","1000spins.com","promotions.coral.co.uk","search.queryrouter.com","tbsia.com","tbsia.com","surveyform001.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com","mgs188.com","pfhsystem.com","lpeva.com","ddsh8.com","theprofitsmaker.net","quantomcoding.com","sporthero.thewhizmarketing.com","popads.net","onclkds.com","consumerview.co","12kotov.ru","ruhotpair2.fingta.com","easytelevisionaccessnow.com","ahwrd.com","lpeva.com","ppgzf.com","zjstx.com","kituure.xyz","join.pro-gaming-world.com","mackeeperapp.mackeeper.com","tracknotify.com","2075.cdn.beyondhosting.net","idollash.com","ds.moviegoat.com","fulltab.com","rackcdn.com","prestoris.com","adsterra.com","swampssovuuhusp.top","streesusa.info","freesoftwaredlul.com","adreactor.com","a-static.com","codeonclick.com","heheme.com","adf.ly","seen-on-screen.thewhizmarketing.com","openload.co"]; var pb_whitelist = ["verizonwireless.com","foxnews.com","www.wunderground.com","wellsfargo.com","tvguide.com","metacritic.com","usaa.com","www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov","tickets.amtrak.com","creditscorecard.com","www.discovercard.com","nbc.com","dmv.ca.gov","linkedin.com","google","www.gmail.com","www.pinterest.com","www.youtube.com","www.facebook.com","search.yahoo.com","chrome://newtab","www.food.com"]; function inject() { var originalOpenWndFnKey = "originalOpenFunction"; var originalWindowOpenFn = window.open; var originalCreateElementFn = document.createElement; var originalAppendChildFn = HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild; var originalCreateEventFn = document.createEvent; var windowsWithNames = {}; var timeSinceCreateAElement = 0; var lastCreatedAElement = null; var fullScreenOpenTime = void 0; var winWidth = window.innerWidth; var winHeight = window.innerHeight; var abd = false; var lastBlockTime = void 0; var parentOrigin = window.location != window.parent.location ? document.referrer || window.parent.location || '*' : document.location; var parentRef = window.parent; //window[originalOpenWndFnKey] = window.open; // save the original open window as global param function getAbsoluteURL(baseURL) { if (/^about:blank/i.test(baseURL)) { return baseURL; } if (/^(https??\/\//.test(baseURL)) { return baseURL; } baseURL = location.origin + (!/^\//.test(baseURL) ? '/' : '') + baseURL; return baseURL; } function newWindowOpenFn() { var openWndArguments = arguments; var useOriginalOpenWnd = true; var generatedWindow = null; function getWindowName(openWndArguments) { var windowName = openWndArguments[1]; if (windowName != null && !["_blank", "_parent", "_self", "_top"].includes(windowName)) { return windowName; } return null; } function copyMissingProperties(src, dest) { var prop = void 0; for (prop in src) { try { if (dest[prop] === undefined && src[prop]) { dest[prop] = src[prop]; } } catch (e) {} } return dest; } function isOverlayish(el) { var style = el && el.style; if (style && /fixed|absolute/.test(style.position) && el.offsetWidth >= winWidth * 0.6 && el.offsetHeight >= winHeight * 0.75) { return true; } return false; } var capturingElement = null; // the element who registered to the event var srcElement = null; // the clicked on element var closestParentLink = null; if (window.event != null) { capturingElement = window.event.currentTarget; srcElement = window.event.srcElement; } if (srcElement != null) { closestParentLink = srcElement.closest('a'); if (closestParentLink && closestParentLink.href) { openWndArguments[3] = closestParentLink.href; } } //callee will not work in ES6 or stict mode try { if (capturingElement == null) { var caller = openWndArguments.callee; while (caller.arguments != null && caller.arguments.callee.caller != null) { caller = caller.arguments.callee.caller; } if (caller.arguments != null && caller.arguments.length > 0 && caller.arguments[0].currentTarget != null) { capturingElement = caller.arguments[0].currentTarget; } } } catch (e) {} ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Blocked if a click on background element occurred (<body> or document) ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// if (capturingElement == null) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened without any user interaction'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else if (capturingElement != null && (capturingElement instanceof Window || parent.Window && capturingElement instanceof parent.Window || capturingElement === document || capturingElement.URL != null && capturingElement.body != null || capturingElement.nodeName != null && (capturingElement.nodeName.toLowerCase() == "body" || capturingElement.nodeName.toLowerCase() == "document"))) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because it was triggered by the ' + capturingElement.nodeName + ' element'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else if (isOverlayish(capturingElement)) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened when clicking on an element that seems to be an overlay'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else { useOriginalOpenWnd = true; } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Block if a full screen was just initiated while opening this url. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// var fullScreenElement = document.webkitFullscreenElement || document.mozFullscreenElement || document.fullscreenElement; if (new Date().getTime() - fullScreenOpenTime < 1000 || isNaN(fullScreenOpenTime) && isDocumentInFullScreenMode()) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because a full screen was just initiated while opening this url.'; /* JRA REMOVED if (window[script_params.fullScreenFnKey]) { window.clearTimeout(window[script_params.fullScreenFnKey]); } */ if (document.exitFullscreen) { document.exitFullscreen(); } else if (document.mozCancelFullScreen) { document.mozCancelFullScreen(); } else if (document.webkitCancelFullScreen) { document.webkitCancelFullScreen(); } useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// var openUrl = openWndArguments[0]; var inWhitelist = isInWhitelist(location.href); if (inWhitelist) { useOriginalOpenWnd = true; } else if (isInBlacklist(openUrl)) { useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } if (useOriginalOpenWnd == true) { generatedWindow = originalWindowOpenFn.apply(this, openWndArguments); // save the window by name, for latter use. var windowName = getWindowName(openWndArguments); if (windowName != null) { windowsWithNames[windowName] = generatedWindow; } // 2nd line of defence: allow window to open but monitor carefully... ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Kill window if a blur (remove focus) is called to that window ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// if (generatedWindow !== window) { (function () { var openTime = new Date().getTime(); var originalWndBlurFn = generatedWindow.blur; generatedWindow.blur = function () { if (new Date().getTime() - openTime < 1000 && !inWhitelist /* one second */) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because a it was blured'; generatedWindow.close(); blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments); } else { originalWndBlurFn(); } }; })(); } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// } else { (function () { // (useOriginalOpenWnd == false) var location = { href: openWndArguments[0] }; location.replace = function (url) { location.href = url; }; generatedWindow = { close: function close() { return true; }, test: function test() { return true; }, blur: function blur() { return true; }, focus: function focus() { return true; }, showModelessDialog: function showModelessDialog() { return true; }, showModalDialog: function showModalDialog() { return true; }, prompt: function prompt() { return true; }, confirm: function confirm() { return true; }, alert: function alert() { return true; }, moveTo: function moveTo() { return true; }, moveBy: function moveBy() { return true; }, resizeTo: function resizeTo() { return true; }, resizeBy: function resizeBy() { return true; }, scrollBy: function scrollBy() { return true; }, scrollTo: function scrollTo() { return true; }, getSelection: function getSelection() { return true; }, onunload: function onunload() { return true; }, print: function print() { return true; }, open: function open() { return this; }, opener: window, closed: false, innerHeight: 480, innerWidth: 640, name: openWndArguments[1], location: location, document: { location: location } }; copyMissingProperties(window, generatedWindow); generatedWindow.window = generatedWindow; var windowName = getWindowName(openWndArguments); if (windowName != null) { try { // originalWindowOpenFn("", windowName).close(); windowsWithNames[windowName].close(); } catch (err) {} } var fnGetUrl = function fnGetUrl() { var url = void 0; if (!(generatedWindow.location instanceof Object)) { url = generatedWindow.location; } else if (!(generatedWindow.document.location instanceof Object)) { url = generatedWindow.document.location; } else if (location.href != null) { url = location.href; } else { url = openWndArguments[0]; } openWndArguments[0] = url; blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments); }; //why set timeout? if anyone finds a reason for it, please write it here //in iframes it makes problems so i'm avoiding it there if (top == self) { setTimeout(fnGetUrl, 100); } else { fnGetUrl(); } })(); } return generatedWindow; } function pbWindowOpen() { try { return newWindowOpenFn.apply(this, arguments); } catch (err) { return null; } } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Replace the window open method with Poper Blocker's ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// window.open = pbWindowOpen; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Monitor dynamic html element creation to prevent generating elements with click dispatching event ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild = function () { var newElement = originalAppendChildFn.apply(this, arguments); if (newElement.nodeName == 'IFRAME' && newElement.contentWindow) { try { var code = '(function () {\n var pb_blacklist = ' + JSON.stringify(pb_blacklist) + ';\n var pb_whitelist = ' + JSON.stringify(pb_whitelist) + ';\n ' + inject.toString() + ';\n inject();\n })();'; var s = document.createElement('script');s.text = code; newElement.contentWindow.document.body.appendChild(s); } catch (e) {} } return newElement; }; document.createElement = function () { var newElement = originalCreateElementFn.apply(document, arguments); if (arguments[0] == "a" || arguments[0] == "A") { (function () { timeSinceCreateAElement = new Date().getTime(); var originalDispatchEventFn = newElement.dispatchEvent; newElement.dispatchEvent = function (event) { if (event.type != null && ('' + event.type).toLocaleLowerCase() == "click") { if (!isInWhitelist(newElement.href)) { window.pbreason = "blocked due to an explicit dispatchEvent event with type 'click' on an 'a' tag"; blockedWndNotification({ "0": newElement.href }); return true; } } return originalDispatchEventFn.call(this, event); }; lastCreatedAElement = newElement; })(); } return newElement; }; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Block artificial mouse click on frashly created elements ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// document.createEvent = function () { try { if (arguments[0].toLowerCase().includes("mouse") && new Date().getTime() - timeSinceCreateAElement <= 50) { //block if the origin is not same var isSelfDomain = false; try { var openUrlDomain = new URL(lastCreatedAElement.href).hostname; var topUrl = window.location != window.parent.location ? document.referrer : document.location.href; var topDomain = new URL(topUrl).hostname; isSelfDomain = openUrlDomain == topDomain; } catch (e) {} if (lastCreatedAElement.href.trim() && !isInWhitelist(lastCreatedAElement.href) && !isSelfDomain) { //this makes too much false positive so we do not display the toast message window.pbreason = 'Blocked because \'a\' element was recently created and ' + arguments[0] + ' event was created shortly after'; arguments[0] = lastCreatedAElement.href; blockedWndNotification({ "0": lastCreatedAElement.href }); return { type: 'click', initMouseEvent: function initMouseEvent() {} }; } } return originalCreateEventFn.apply(document, arguments); } catch (err) {} }; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Monitor full screen requests ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// function onFullScreen(isInFullScreenMode) { if (isInFullScreenMode) { fullScreenOpenTime = new Date().getTime(); } else { fullScreenOpenTime = NaN; } } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// function isDocumentInFullScreenMode() { // Note that the browser fullscreen (triggered by short keys) might // be considered different from content fullscreen when expecting a boolean return document.fullScreenElement && document.fullScreenElement !== null || // alternative standard methods document.mozFullscreenElement != null || document.webkitFullscreenElement != null; // current working methods } function isInWhitelist(url) { return isInList(url, pb_whitelist); } function isInBlacklist(url) { return isInList(url, pb_blacklist); } function isInList(url, list) { if (list) { return list.some(function (li) { return new RegExp("https?://(www\.|.*\.)?" + li + "+").test(url); }); } else { return false; } } function blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments) { //this is to prevent a site that "stuck" on trying to open a new window to send endless calls to the extension if (!lastBlockTime || lastBlockTime < Date.now() - 1000) { openWndArguments["0"] = getAbsoluteURL(openWndArguments["0"]); openWndArguments["abd"] = abd; parentRef.postMessage({ type: "blockedWindow", args: JSON.stringify(openWndArguments) }, parentOrigin); } lastBlockTime = Date.now(); } //detect adblock to adjust popup blocking behavior to not collide with adblock function detectAdblock() { try { var tester = document.createElement('div'); tester.innerHTML = ' '; tester.className = 'adsbox'; tester.style.cssText = "position:absolute;top-1000px;left:-1000px;"; document.body.appendChild(tester); window.setTimeout(function () { if (tester.offsetHeight === 0) { abd = true; } tester.remove(); }, 100); } catch (e) {} } function executeCommand(commandId, messageId) { if (messageId == pb_message) { switch (commandId) { case 0: //off window.open = originalWindowOpenFn; document.createElement = originalCreateElementFn; document.createEvent = originalCreateEventFn; HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild = originalAppendChildFn; break; case 1: //allow once break; } } } document.addEventListener("fullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.fullscreen); }, false); document.addEventListener("mozfullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.mozFullScreen); }, false); document.addEventListener("webkitfullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.webkitIsFullScreen); }, false); document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () { detectAdblock(); }, false); (function () { window.pbExternalCommand = function (commandId, messageId) { executeCommand(commandId, messageId); }; })(); }; inject(); })();</script>


----------



## tommybike

PBL450 said:


> Damn, I got to hand it to ya... You don’t see pro-doping posts often. Good for you. The current is for Lemmings. It’s terrible that a cold can kill you in a world tour, incomprehensible! Diarrhea, that takes a toll in every WT race. It should be correctable. Exhaustion? The biggest killer? Easy fixes. If you make it to that level you should be able to race no matter what. It’s fine if riders are throwing syringes like bidons into the crowd. Its even better for riders! They can neglect all kinds of bodily warnings that danger and damage are at hand and keep going. DSs will love it!


Ok. Next time a crash occurs let the guy bleed out. Bandages are not natural either. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Alaska Mike

I see a very clear difference between providing medical aid to fight an actual, acute illness/injury and providing medicine for performance enhancement.

Getting your weight down as low as possible while maintaining power, peaking your performance for a specific event, traveling across continents, riding through all sorts of weather at high speeds for many hours at a time, sleeping in often questionable lodging, eating food prepared by any number of cooks (the team may not have a chef or they might not get to prepare each meal)... yeah, getting sick and injured happens during a stage race, even with the best of precautions. The chances increase exponentially during a three week Grand Tour.

Chronic ailments (like asthma) are where they need to clamp down. The best ways I can see this is to have the UCI control the medical staff directly and require extensive documentation for TUEs and other ongoing medicine usage. Have everything be well documented and transparent (within medical privacy standards).

Those that advocate a wild-west style of anything goes aren't interested in rider health and just want to see a return to the freak show. Those that would rather see all medicines banned ignore the facts that riders are human, occasionally break down, and medicines do have legitimate uses. There has to be a middle ground between the extremes where professional cycling does not devolve into a gladiator sport.


----------



## aclinjury

comparing a cold to an asthma is laughable. One is caused by a virus, one is caused by the limitation of your lungs to cope with stress (the kind of stress that would be brought about by a grand tour). 

The question is, if you're limited by your body (and asthma is such limitation), then should you be allowed to take a drug so that you can compete at the highest level? This is not different then giving parking preference to people in wheelchairs or even with COPD issues. But handicaps are not asking to be able to compete in the Olympics now do they?

Comparing asthma to a cold and trying to make a case for Froome... reeks homerism. That cheat broke a rule, and we're still waiting for his evidence some 4 months later? Why is he not banned yet? Is this a f'kin joke?


----------



## tommybike

aclinjury said:


> comparing a cold to an asthma is laughable. One is caused by a virus, one is caused by the limitation of your lungs to cope with stress (the kind of stress that would be brought about by a grand tour).
> 
> The question is, if you're limited by your body (and asthma is such limitation), then should you be allowed to take a drug so that you can compete at the highest level? This is not different then giving parking preference to people in wheelchairs or even with COPD issues. But handicaps are not asking to be able to compete in the Olympics now do they?
> 
> Comparing asthma to a cold and trying to make a case for Froome... reeks homerism. That cheat broke a rule, and we're still waiting for his evidence some 4 months later? Why is he not banned yet? Is this a f'kin joke?


The Occam's Razor theory suggested a cold. Not me. Do I think the explanation makes sense? More than anything else I have heard. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## honkinunit

Here is the bottom line for me: Froome can't win races because he has a medical condition that can be cured by drugs? TFB. How is this any different than someone being held back by a 42% hematocrit? Hey, shouldn't they be able to EPO up to 50? 

Get rid of the guy and move on to the next doper.


----------



## n2deep

tommybike said:


> The Occam's Razor theory suggested a cold. Not me. Do I think the explanation makes sense? More than anything else I have heard. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


A Cold??? How in the world did you get that conclusion;; I got that he doped!! Its the most reasonable explanation!! Too Funny!!


The problem statement is that he turned up positive!!


----------



## tommybike

n2deep said:


> A Cold??? How in the world did you get that conclusion;; I got that he doped!! Its the most reasonable explanation!! Too Funny!!
> 
> 
> The problem statement is that he turned up positive!!


It was from a January 17 article in Velonews. Speculation but a far more reasonable explanation than anything else I have heard. Can't link it but google it, Froome, Occam, Salbutamol. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveG

tommybike said:


> It was from a January 17 article in Velonews. Speculation but a far more reasonable explanation than anything else I have heard. Can't link it but google it, Froome, Occam, Salbutamol.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


A cold is just slightly more believable than a theory involving space aliens or an evil twin, so there’s that.


----------



## MMsRepBike

tommybike said:


> The Occam's Razor theory suggested a cold. Not me. Do I think the explanation makes sense? More than anything else I have heard.


WRONG AGAIN.

Stop lying, it's not doing anyone any favors.

Again... Occam's Razor is that he took either a pill or a puff from a nebulizer.

Neither have anything to do with a cold. 

Both are performance enhancing.

Both are doping.

Both are illegal in ever sense of the word.

Neither have anything at all to do with a cold.

Nobody on earth takes pills or nebulizer shots of asthma medication because they have a cold. It's a performance enhancing drug.

Stop lying and saying that Occam's Razor (the most plausible explanation) has anything do with a cold. And stop lying saying that other people are saying it's because of a cold, you're the only one. 

Just stop lying.


----------



## tommybike

MMsRepBike said:


> WRONG AGAIN.
> 
> Stop lying, it's not doing anyone any favors.
> 
> Again... Occam's Razor is that he took either a pill or a puff from a nebulizer.
> 
> Neither have anything to do with a cold.
> 
> Both are performance enhancing.
> 
> Both are doping.
> 
> Both are illegal in ever sense of the word.
> 
> Neither have anything at all to do with a cold.
> 
> Nobody on earth takes pills or nebulizer shots of asthma medication because they have a cold. It's a performance enhancing drug.
> 
> Stop lying and saying that Occam's Razor (the most plausible explanation) has anything do with a cold. And stop lying saying that other people are saying it's because of a cold, you're the only one.
> 
> Just stop lying.


I am not the one lying. Get over your hatred. I am not a Froome fan but I am also not a ridiculous conspiracy theorist. 

Read the article. It makes sense. Some do not like sense. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveG

tommybike said:


> I am not the one lying. Get over your hatred. I am not a Froome fan but I am also not a ridiculous conspiracy theorist.
> 
> Read the article. It makes sense. Some do not like sense.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


I am not sure that a pro cyclist doping counts as a "ridiculous conspiracy". I mean, there is sort of a precedent for this kind of stuff


----------



## tommybike

DaveG said:


> I am not sure that a pro cyclist doping counts as a "ridiculous conspiracy". I mean, there is sort of a precedent for this kind of stuff


Sure. And if he tested positive for EPO or testosterone or any of a dozen things that would then be the likely case. But really why 1 day worth of Salbutamol??

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## MMsRepBike

tommybike said:


> I am not the one lying. Get over your hatred. I am not a Froome fan but I am also not a ridiculous conspiracy theorist.
> 
> Read the article. It makes sense. Some do not like sense.


Yes you are. *You* need to read it again. 

You're calling the Occam's razor theory the one that he just took some cold medicine because he had a cold.

That's the *opposite* of the truth. Also known as a bold faced lie.

The Occam's razor is that he KNOWINGLY DOPED. End of story.


----------



## tommybike

MMsRepBike said:


> Yes you are. *You* need to read it again.
> 
> You're calling the Occam's razor theory the one that he just took some cold medicine because he had a cold.
> 
> That's the *opposite* of the truth. Also known as a bold faced lie.
> 
> The Occam's razor is that he KNOWINGLY DOPED. End of story.


Still have not read it I take it. 

Stop the insulting and foolish behavior. 

I am not lying. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Alaska Mike

I can see two plausible explanations, given that he didn't test for elevated levels on any other stage:
1.) He hit the inhaler hard because he had had bad reactions in previous days. One puff is good, so 40 or so must be better, right?
2.) His blood bag from the night before had a certain amount in it, and he added to it on the road.
Taking it in that amount for any other reason doesn't really seem to have any benefit in the middle of a stage race. You're not trying to build lean muscle at that point. On the contrary, you're trying to save the muscle you have from breaking down.


----------



## Alaska Mike

aclinjury said:


> But handicaps are not asking to be able to compete in the Olympics now do they?


Google Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius.


----------



## tommybike

Alaska Mike said:


> I can see two plausible explanations, given that he didn't test for elevated levels on any other stage:
> 1.) He hit the inhaler hard because he had had bad reactions in previous days. One puff is good, so 40 or so must be better, right?
> 2.) His blood bag from the night before had a certain amount in it, and he added to it on the road.
> Taking it in that amount for any other reason doesn't really seem to have any benefit in the middle of a stage race. You're not trying to build lean muscle at that point. On the contrary, you're trying to save the muscle you have from breaking down.


I could also imagine losing track of what he took if he was struggling. I have mild EIA and use one in cold weather but never more than prescribed. So I cannot say what that would feel like. 

That said I know on some real tough rides haven't you ever been just wishing for extra help. Like trying to click to an easier gear when you are already in full granny mode? 

I still think the theory in Velonews makes the most sense. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## n2deep

tommybike said:


> I still think the theory in Velonews makes the most sense.


 Guys, you are missing the point; We-cycling should not be looking for excuses, the facts are; 
1) Froome’s test results identified twice the approved level of salbutamol in his blood stream and apparently, this fact was confirmed by both the A & B samples
2) Salbutamol has a short half-life and the actual peak level could be significantly higher.
3) Other cyclists were significantly penalized for the same transgression
I do not dislike Froome and find this incident unfortunate for all of us; however, if the UCI and other governing entities do not enforce the rules across the board then all we have is the cycling version of the WWF, which depending on your point of view is already a fact.


----------



## tommybike

n2deep said:


> Guys, you are missing the point; We-cycling should not be looking for excuses, the facts are;
> 1) Froome’s test results identified twice the approved level of salbutamol in his blood stream and apparently, this fact was confirmed by both the A & B samples
> 2) Salbutamol has a short half-life and the actual peak level could be significantly higher.
> 3) Other cyclists were significantly penalized for the same transgression
> I do not dislike Froome and find this incident unfortunate for all of us; however, if the UCI and other governing entities do not enforce the rules across the board then all we have is the cycling version of the WWF, which depending on your point of view is already a fact.


By no means am I saying he should not be punished. The rule is the rule. Although I also do not see this as an Armstrong or even Contador level violation. 

And it also is perhaps a rule that should be revisited. 

I am just not one to throw hissy fits and sensationalize everything. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveG

n2deep said:


> We-cycling should not be looking for excuses,


He's got a whole army of people making up excuses so he probably doesn't need our help


----------



## Alaska Mike

n2deep said:


> Guys, you are missing the point; We-cycling should not be looking for excuses, the facts are;
> 1) Froome’s test results identified twice the approved level of salbutamol in his blood stream and apparently, this fact was confirmed by both the A & B samples
> 2) Salbutamol has a short half-life and the actual peak level could be significantly higher.
> 3) Other cyclists were significantly penalized for the same transgression
> I do not dislike Froome and find this incident unfortunate for all of us; however, if the UCI and other governing entities do not enforce the rules across the board then all we have is the cycling version of the WWF, which depending on your point of view is already a fact.


Exactly.
In either of my plausible explanations, the guy is busted. Unless his test results come back with alien DNA, the guy is busted.
Sky is trying to argue the reasons for the positive, which could have been done quickly, cheaply, and maximized goodwill if they just had done the right thing and taken the hit immediately. "Our mistake, won't happen again, let's move forward towards a bright, shiny future of clean cycling..."

Stupid.


----------



## aclinjury

tommybike said:


> By no means am I saying he should not be punished. The rule is the rule. Although I also do not see this as an Armstrong or even Contador level violation.
> 
> And it also is perhaps a rule that should be revisited.
> 
> *I am just not one to throw hissy fits and sensationalize everything. *
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


So far, many people discussing this online (such as on RBR) has not sided with Froome. So far, nobody in the pro Tour peloton has sided with Froome, and a few even come with strong opinion of him. The few defending him or giving him leeways are mostly the British guys. So yes, there are plenty of people from fans to pros throwing up a hissy fits, and rightfully so if the sport is not to become WWF. 

Again, four months later and still no decision. Is this a joke?
IMO, it doesn't matter if his body might have screwed up, but the fact remains that he went over the allowed limit, and others have been punished for this. What are we still debating about? Give him and Sky experts to come up with an explanation to weasel his way out? If we allow this, then what we're saying is that if you have enough money to hire medical experts, then you may possibly get away with an infraction, right? And those who do not have enough money to hire a team of experts will have to take the punishment? Does this sound fair? 

4 months and counting


----------



## tommybike

aclinjury said:


> So far, many people discussing this online (such as on RBR) has not sided with Froome. So far, nobody in the pro Tour peloton has sided with Froome, and a few even come with strong opinion of him. The few defending him or giving him leeways are mostly the British guys. So yes, there are plenty of people from fans to pros throwing up a hissy fits, and rightfully so if the sport is not to become WWF.
> 
> Again, four months later and still no decision. Is this a joke?
> IMO, it doesn't matter if his body might have screwed up, but the fact remains that he went over the allowed limit, and others have been punished for this. What are we still debating about? Give him and Sky experts to come up with an explanation to weasel his way out? If we allow this, then what we're saying is that if you have enough money to hire medical experts, then you may possibly get away with an infraction, right? And those who do not have enough money to hire a team of experts will have to take the punishment? Does this sound fair?
> 
> 4 months and counting


I think anyone can appeal it? Should he? Probably not with the crap they are arguing but it is his livelihood not mine. 

As for the pros, there is not support but I also do not hear the witch hunt I hear here. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Alaska Mike

tommybike said:


> I think anyone can appeal it? Should he? Probably not with the crap they are arguing but it is his livelihood not mine.
> 
> As for the pros, there is not support but I also do not hear the witch hunt I hear here.


The Pros know just how easy it is to run afoul of the testers, so for the most part they're not commenting unless directly asked, and then mostly choosing their words carefully.

They all know this isn't high-test doping. Froome isn't an unpopular rider in the peloton, even if his team _may_ be. They also know this does not look good for the sport and brings even more accusatory glances their way. They just want it resolved, as do most people who care about cycling.

If I thought there was a reasonable explanation for a legal dose resulting in double the permissible limit, I would say they should go for it. I would also say they should not enter Froome in any races until it is resolved.

Burn the witch? Nah. Keep the punishments relatively level for similar infractions? Absolutely.

Get it done with and move on.


----------



## aclinjury

tommybike said:


> I think anyone can appeal it? Should he? Probably not with the crap they are arguing but it is his livelihood not mine.
> 
> As for the pros, there is not support but I also do not hear the witch hunt I hear here.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


sure anyone has the right to appeal, but the appeal process requires lots of money to hire the experts. Money shouldn't be a factor to equating appeals, otherwise, the guys with the most money to hire experts to muddle their issue will have the greater chance to pull a hat trick. Kinda like OJ hiring a super team of lawyers to get away with decapitating 2 humans.

Sorry but no pros, not even his teammates, is supporting him. That speaks volume, this is a guy who is supposed to be likable. Not one soul defending him. 

And this is an online forum, not hold to the same standards as pros who have to watch their words. But nobody here is naive with doping in cycling. Seems like you're ready and wanting to overlook everything Team Sky is asking.

So latest news is Team Sky saying Froome has kidney failure. Let's see here, extreme asthma since childhood and kidney failure = vuelta win. Yep, kidney failure for one day eh, no problem with kidney before and after that. Next Tour winner will be an asthma suffer, missing a kidney, plus a couple lung lobes, and partial liver sclerosis. Anything is possible these days.


----------



## coldash

This “
So latest news is Team Sky saying Froome has kidney failure. “

statement is complete garbage. The kidney rumours started after yet another UCI leak that the UCI were hiring a kidney specialist. The story did not originate from Sky.

The UCI have still not apologized for their failures in data protection. If they see that as water under the bridge then they should reveal all previous cases where the rider returned an AAF and successfully appealed it to even the playing field and gives us all an idea of the scope of the issue I.e. is it hundreds of cases or none at all

The new President of the UCI should conduct a complete review is organisation, irrespective of the Froome outcome, and spend a bit less time grandstanding


----------



## aclinjury

coldash said:


> This “
> So latest news is Team Sky saying Froome has kidney failure. “
> 
> statement is complete garbage. The kidney rumours started after yet another UCI leak that the UCI were hiring a kidney specialist. The story did not originate from Sky.
> 
> The UCI have still not apologized for their failures in data protection. If they see that as water under the bridge then they should reveal all previous cases where the rider returned an AAF and successfully appealed it to even the playing field and gives us all an idea of the scope of the issue I.e. is it hundreds of cases or none at all
> 
> The new President of the UCI should conduct a complete review is organisation, irrespective of the Froome outcome, and spend a bit less time grandstanding


no doubt the UCI (and WADA) has a lot of things that should and need to be improved, starting with transparency. Nobody is naive of this, and everyone is still waiting for them to improve since the fallout of the Lance Armstrong saga. Furthermore, most folks from fans to athletes are also questioning the whole issue with medical drug use exception (call it TUEs, call it specified substance, whatever) and want to see many if not most be eliminated. Lots of things can be improved. However, I'm not going to let these questions deflect me from what in Froome. Approaching 5 months and still no decision? So, what's holding up? More time for Sky to come up with some muddled explanation? Is it not clear that if a normal and reasonable explanation isn't available and that time is needed to reach into some alien-physiology explanation here, all the while the UCI assess if they're going to accept such possible explanation in relation to possible reaction from fans and other athletes? It's a calculated game of minimizing overall damage, is what I see as what they're doing with the delay. Sorry, Armstrong has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that cycling the dirtiest endurance sport out there filled with faux science to confuse the public.

the few Froome sympathizers are duly noted. I get it their arguments.


----------



## PBL450

aclinjury said:


> no doubt the UCI (and WADA) has a lot of things that should and need to be improved, starting with transparency. Nobody is naive of this, and everyone is still waiting for them to improve since the fallout of the Lance Armstrong saga. Furthermore, most folks from fans to athletes are also questioning the whole issue with medical drug use exception (call it TUEs, call it specified substance, whatever) and want to see many if not most be eliminated. Lots of things can be improved. However, I'm not going to let these questions deflect me from what in Froome. Approaching 5 months and still no decision? So, what's holding up? More time for Sky to come up with some muddled explanation? Is it not clear that if a normal and reasonable explanation isn't available and that time is needed to reach into some alien-physiology explanation here, all the while the UCI assess if they're going to accept such possible explanation in relation to possible reaction from fans and other athletes? It's a calculated game of minimizing overall damage, is what I see as what they're doing with the delay. Sorry, Armstrong has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that cycling the dirtiest endurance sport out there filled with faux science to confuse the public.
> 
> the few Froome sympathizers are duly noted. I get it their arguments.


Just to carry some of your point further... TUEs are granted only for drugs considered to be performance enhancing correct? So they are already banned. A TUE allows the use of a performance enhancing drug because a doctor finds it medically necessary for the rider to compete. Ending TUEs only applies to a limited scope of drugs under this idea? It isn’t a complete prohibition of pharmacological intervention, it is a simple enforcement of existing rules without exceptions. That is more different than it sounds. If a rider requires a performance enhancing drug to continue then they DQ because banned substances aren’t allowed. Period. Makes things much easier. I can’t see a scenario where enforcing existing regulations regarding performance enhancing drugs makes the sport a blood sport or more dangerous. But that is only in my limited thinking, I’m interested in alternative, and likely more knowledgeable opinions. I think enforcement can be streamlined under a plan to enforce existing rules as well. One pop it’s a year. Two pops, welcome to coaching, haha. Mandate a timetable for enforcement, say 8 weeks or so, of course there has be an appeal policy but a rider would appeal while serving their ban because they are already disposed.


----------



## coldash

To be clear, I am not claiming that the process is good and proper (IMV, 4 weeks after the B positive to make a decision and a maximum of 4 weeks after that to decide on any appeal should be sufficient). Although I don’t like the Froome delay, Sky are acting within the rules of the current process. It is the UCI, with its constant leaking of confidential data that is breaking the rules.

If the UCI want to fair to everyone (riders, teams, sponsors, spectators, fans etc) then it should at least publish the details of all previous and current cases where an AAF was successfully argued against wrt a ban. Right now, we don’t know the scope of this within the sport.


----------



## DrSmile

coldash said:


> To be clear, I am not claiming that the process is good and proper (IMV, 4 weeks after the B positive to make a decision and a maximum of 4 weeks after that to decide on any appeal should be sufficient). Although I don’t like the Froome delay, Sky are acting within the rules of the current process. It is the UCI, with its constant leaking of confidential data that is breaking the rules.
> 
> If the UCI want to fair to everyone (riders, teams, sponsors, spectators, fans etc) then it should at least publish the details of all previous and current cases where an AAF was successfully argued against wrt a ban. Right now, we don’t know the scope of this within the sport.


The other way to view this is that the UCI's system is purposefully set up to hide doping positives to see if they can dismiss or explain them away before they become public. There are numerous allegations of this happening previously from several doping books over the past 2-3 decades. In my eyes this is absolutely what is happening here, except someone has pushed the information public and screwed up the plans. The UCI doesn't want their poster child for cycling busted. Neither do the sponsors, the teams, the organizers... really anyone. There is literally no one but the press fighting for truth here, which is why Froome may skate even though he's 100% guilty.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I think in some regards the UCI's hands are tied by WADA rules. The UCI also has an independent doping arm (how independent is up for debate) with its own set of procedures and policies wrapped around the health privacy laws of any number of countries. Then you throw in rider agents and team lawyers...

It's easy to blame the big, bad UCI for this one, because they certainly been at fault in the past, but I think it's a combination of any number of agencies influencing what I think is a bad policy for cycling.


----------



## coldash

DrSmile said:


> The other way to view this is that the UCI's system is purposefully set up to hide doping positives to see if they can dismiss or explain them away before they become public. There are numerous allegations of this happening previously from several doping books over the past 2-3 decades. In my eyes this is absolutely what is happening here, except someone has pushed the information public and screwed up the plans. The UCI doesn't want their poster child for cycling busted. Neither do the sponsors, the teams, the organizers... really anyone. There is literally no one but the press fighting for truth here, which is why Froome may skate even though he's 100% guilty.


That may or may not be the case but the UCI could defend itself against some of these accusations by going for full disclosure


----------



## love4himies

DrSmile said:


> The other way to view this is that the UCI's system is purposefully set up to hide doping positives to see if they can dismiss or explain them away before they become public. There are numerous allegations of this happening previously from several doping books over the past 2-3 decades. In my eyes this is absolutely what is happening here, except someone has pushed the information public and screwed up the plans. The UCI doesn't want their poster child for cycling busted. Neither do the sponsors, the teams, the organizers... really anyone. There is literally no one but the press fighting for truth here, which is why Froome may skate even though he's 100% guilty.


Agree. This is Lance all over again. The UCI didn't want their poster child to be busted back then and they don't want their current one to be either. There is no doubt somebody saw this so they leaked it.


----------



## GlobalGuy

Alaska Mike said:


> I think in some regards the UCI's hands are tired by WADA rules. The UCI also has an independent doping arm (how independent is up for debate) with its own set of procedures and policies wrapped around the health privacy laws of any number of countries. Then you throw in rider agents and team lawyers...
> 
> It's easy to blame the big, bad UCI for this one, because they certainly been at fault in the past, but I think it's a combination of any number of agencies influencing what I think is a bad policy for cycling.


Agreed. However, to reiterate what I've stated before regarding both WADA and the UCI in general: They are both dishonest and corrupt entities. <script>(function () { var pb_blacklist = ["adrunnr","successforyu.clickfunnels.com","fmovies.se","in-365-tagen.info","5000-settimanale.com","shop.mazzugioielli.com","maxigossip.com","lp.yazizim.com","beyourxfriend.com","99tab.com","zzqrt.com","canuck-method.net","bewomenly.com","playnow.guru","datingforyou-48e1.kxcdn.com","trafficnetworkads24.com","sistemadedinerogratis.com","canuckmethodprofit.co","consumerresearchnetwork.com","securemacfix.com","zz3d3.ru","zd1.quebec-bin.com","hot-games4you.xyz","om.elvenar.com","superpccleanup.com","gomediaz.com","judithi.xyz","free.atozmanuals.com","yoursuccess.ravpage.co.il","123hop.ir","quizcliente.pw","aussiemethod.biz","hlpnowp-c.com","picbumper.com","shaneless.com","anacondamonster.com","altrk1.com","health.todaydiets.com","download.weatherblink.com","happyluketh.com","go.ameinfo.com","50kaweek.net","thepornsurvey.com","ofsiite.ru","fulltab.com","1000spins.com","time2play-online.net","vintacars.com","welcome.*****saga.com","free-desktop-games.com","download.televisionfanatic.com","theprofitsmaker.net","sgad.info","algocashmaster.net","sunmaker.com","topvipdreams.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornvideos.com","filesharefanatic.com","safedownloadhub.com","7awlalalam.blogspot.com","tvplusnewtab.com","trendingpatrol.com","moneymorning.com","ifileyou.com","classifiedcanada.ca","firefan.com","methode-binaire.com","letmetell.com","kenduktur.com","getafuk.com","yotraleplahnte.ru","jackpot.88beto.com","pwwysydh.com","search.queryrouter.com","v.lvztxy.com","*****saga.com","saffamethod.com","prezzonline.com","searchprivacy.website","3d2819216eb4e1035879-7c248de0c99745406e9b749fc86ec3e4.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com","only2date.com","mysagagame.com","themillionaireinpjs.net","wlt.kd2244.com","quickprivacycheck.com","hotchatdate.com","autotraderbot.com","z1.zedo.com","youlucky2014.com","traffic.getmyads.com","appcloudprotected.com","safensecure.com-allsites3.xyz","newpoptab.com","static.williamhill.com","myhealthyblog.co","greatestmobideals.com","sweetclarity.com","mgid.com","securepccure.com","autopengebygger.com","am15.net","es.reimageplus.com","o2.promos-info.com","it.reimageplus.com","west****s.com","spinandwin.com-ser.pw","reimageplus.com","vodafone.promos-info.com","vinnmatpengar.se","movie.ienjoyapps.com","love4single.com","origin.getprice.com.au","ohmydating.com","lp.want-to-win.com","yabuletchrome.ru","bamdad.net","gotositenow.com","vcrypt.pw","newtabtv.com","mon.setsu.xyz","youforgottorenewyourhosting.com","zone-telechargement.ws","land.pckeeper.software","ad.adpop-1.com","advancedpctools.com","videos.randolphcountyheraldtribune.com","web-start.org","softreadynow.installupgradenowfreshandforyou.website","uplod.ws","pornhubcasino.com","maxbet.ro","2016prizefeed.com","thevideo.me","wantubad.com","tavanero.com","xcusmy.club","daclips.in","gaymenofporn.online","jackpotcitycasino.com","italian-method.com","getsearchincognito.com","youjustwonprize.com","finanz-nachrichten.me","quizcliente.site","da.reimageplus.com","jkanime.net","britmoneymethod.com","uae.souq.com","ka.azzer.net","safensecure.xyz","8t.hootingrhejkz.online","www6.blinkx.com","wizzcaster.com","comparaison-prix.com","vodlocker.lol","fr.reimageplus.com","free.fromdoctopdf.com","userscloud.com","myprivatesearch.com","fanli90.cn","tutticodicisconto.it","mediadec.com","gogamego.thewhizproducts.com","download.weatherblink.com","free.videodownloadconverter.com","we-are-gamers.com","sesso.communityadult.net","lp.blpmovies.com","search.queryrouter.com","bbb-johannesburg.localspecific.com","lp.blpmovies.com","go.ppixelm.com","r0.ru","sesso.communityadult.net","bbb-johannesburg.localspecific.com","ppixelm.com","cyberguardianspe.info","we-are-gamers.com","loginfaster.com/new","www.alfacart.com","www.foresee.com","mobile-win.com","www.plusnetwork.com","www.amicafarmacia.com","www.ienjoyapps.com","cheapcheap.io","screenaddict.thewhizproducts.com","nova.rambler.ru","free.gamingwonderland.com","p9328ujeiw1.ru","mobilecasinoclub.co.uk","pfhsystem.com","regtuneup.com","theprofitsmaker.net","bodogpromotions.eu","heroesreplay.org","financialsecrets.info","mymoneymakingapp.com","sunmaker.com","888casino-promotions.com","vogliosesso.com","scienceremix.com","allinonedocs.com","arabia.starzplay.com","allirishcasino.com","advancepctools.info","movie.ienjoyapps.com","surveyform001.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com","mgs188.com","pfhsystem.com","lpeva.com","ddsh8.com","theprofitsmaker.net","b2.ijquery11.com","sporthero.thewhizmarketing.com","securefastmac.tech","seen-on-screen.thewhizmarketing.com","1000spins.com","search.queryrouter.com","pfhsystem.com","reimageplus.com","offer.alibaba.com","searchlistings.org","search.queryrouter.com","search.queryrouter.com","mybinaryoptionsrobot.com","duplicashapp.com","search.queryrouter.com","bestgame.directory","droidclub.net",".rivalo.com","yoursuperprize.com","mediaexplained.com","om.elvenar.com","shinar.club","revitoleczemacream.com","freelotto.com","screenaddict.thewhizproducts.com","download.bringmesports.com/","allinonedocs.com","driver-fixer.com","arabydeal.com","cleanyourcomputertoday.com","arabydeal.com","music.mixplugin.com","1se.info","survey12.com","freesoftwaredlul.com","pldist01.com","ad.adpop-1.com","searchanonymous.net","abrst.pro","muzikfury.thewhizmarketing.com","lp.mbtrx.com","th1.forfun.maxisize-pro.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornbox.com","new.freelotto.com","desktoptrack.com","search.queryrouter.com","offer.alibaba.com","1000spins.com","promotions.coral.co.uk","search.queryrouter.com","tbsia.com","tbsia.com","multtaepyo.com","search.queryrouter.com","czechmethod.com","consumerview.co","wayretail.com","72onbase.com","funsafetab.com","search.queryrouter.com","speedyfiledownload.com","driver-fixer.com","arabydeal.com","cleanyourcomputertoday.com","arabydeal.com","music.mixplugin.com","1se.info","survey12.com","freesoftwaredlul.com","pldist01.com","ad.adpop-1.com","searchanonymous.net","abrst.pro","muzikfury.thewhizmarketing.com","lp.mbtrx.com","th1.forfun.maxisize-pro.com","watchmygirlfriend.gfpornbox.com","new.freelotto.com","desktoptrack.com","search.queryrouter.com","offer.alibaba.com","1000spins.com","promotions.coral.co.uk","search.queryrouter.com","tbsia.com","tbsia.com","surveyform001.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com","mgs188.com","pfhsystem.com","lpeva.com","ddsh8.com","theprofitsmaker.net","quantomcoding.com","sporthero.thewhizmarketing.com","popads.net","onclkds.com","consumerview.co","12kotov.ru","ruhotpair2.fingta.com","easytelevisionaccessnow.com","ahwrd.com","lpeva.com","ppgzf.com","zjstx.com","kituure.xyz","join.pro-gaming-world.com","mackeeperapp.mackeeper.com","tracknotify.com","2075.cdn.beyondhosting.net","idollash.com","ds.moviegoat.com","fulltab.com","rackcdn.com","prestoris.com","adsterra.com","swampssovuuhusp.top","streesusa.info","freesoftwaredlul.com","adreactor.com","a-static.com","codeonclick.com","heheme.com","adf.ly","seen-on-screen.thewhizmarketing.com","openload.co"]; var pb_whitelist = ["verizonwireless.com","foxnews.com","www.wunderground.com","wellsfargo.com","tvguide.com","metacritic.com","usaa.com","www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov","tickets.amtrak.com","creditscorecard.com","www.discovercard.com","nbc.com","dmv.ca.gov","transparentcalifornia.com","espn.com","pcmag.com","linkedin.com","google","www.gmail.com","www.pinterest.com","www.youtube.com","www.facebook.com","search.yahoo.com","chrome://newtab","www.food.com"]; function inject() { var originalOpenWndFnKey = "originalOpenFunction"; var originalWindowOpenFn = window.open; var originalCreateElementFn = document.createElement; var originalAppendChildFn = HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild; var originalCreateEventFn = document.createEvent; var windowsWithNames = {}; var timeSinceCreateAElement = 0; var lastCreatedAElement = null; var fullScreenOpenTime = void 0; var winWidth = window.innerWidth; var winHeight = window.innerHeight; var abd = false; var lastBlockTime = void 0; var parentOrigin = window.location != window.parent.location ? document.referrer || window.parent.location || '*' : document.location; var parentRef = window.parent; //window[originalOpenWndFnKey] = window.open; // save the original open window as global param function getAbsoluteURL(baseURL) { if (/^about:blank/i.test(baseURL)) { return baseURL; } if (/^(https??\/\//.test(baseURL)) { return baseURL; } baseURL = location.origin + (!/^\//.test(baseURL) ? '/' : '') + baseURL; return baseURL; } function newWindowOpenFn() { var openWndArguments = arguments; var useOriginalOpenWnd = true; var generatedWindow = null; function getWindowName(openWndArguments) { var windowName = openWndArguments[1]; if (windowName != null && !["_blank", "_parent", "_self", "_top"].includes(windowName)) { return windowName; } return null; } function copyMissingProperties(src, dest) { var prop = void 0; for (prop in src) { try { if (dest[prop] === undefined && src[prop]) { dest[prop] = src[prop]; } } catch (e) {} } return dest; } function isOverlayish(el) { var style = el && el.style; if (style && /fixed|absolute/.test(style.position) && el.offsetWidth >= winWidth * 0.6 && el.offsetHeight >= winHeight * 0.75) { return true; } return false; } var capturingElement = null; // the element who registered to the event var srcElement = null; // the clicked on element var closestParentLink = null; if (window.event != null) { capturingElement = window.event.currentTarget; srcElement = window.event.srcElement; } if (srcElement != null) { closestParentLink = srcElement.closest('a'); if (closestParentLink && closestParentLink.href) { openWndArguments[3] = closestParentLink.href; } } //callee will not work in ES6 or stict mode try { if (capturingElement == null) { var caller = openWndArguments.callee; while (caller.arguments != null && caller.arguments.callee.caller != null) { caller = caller.arguments.callee.caller; } if (caller.arguments != null && caller.arguments.length > 0 && caller.arguments[0].currentTarget != null) { capturingElement = caller.arguments[0].currentTarget; } } } catch (e) {} ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Blocked if a click on background element occurred (<body> or document) ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// if (capturingElement == null) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened without any user interaction'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else if (capturingElement != null && (capturingElement instanceof Window || parent.Window && capturingElement instanceof parent.Window || capturingElement === document || capturingElement.URL != null && capturingElement.body != null || capturingElement.nodeName != null && (capturingElement.nodeName.toLowerCase() == "body" || capturingElement.nodeName.toLowerCase() == "document"))) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because it was triggered by the ' + capturingElement.nodeName + ' element'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else if (isOverlayish(capturingElement)) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened when clicking on an element that seems to be an overlay'; useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } else { useOriginalOpenWnd = true; } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Block if a full screen was just initiated while opening this url. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// var fullScreenElement = document.webkitFullscreenElement || document.mozFullscreenElement || document.fullscreenElement; if (new Date().getTime() - fullScreenOpenTime < 1000 || isNaN(fullScreenOpenTime) && isDocumentInFullScreenMode()) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because a full screen was just initiated while opening this url.'; /* JRA REMOVED if (window[script_params.fullScreenFnKey]) { window.clearTimeout(window[script_params.fullScreenFnKey]); } */ if (document.exitFullscreen) { document.exitFullscreen(); } else if (document.mozCancelFullScreen) { document.mozCancelFullScreen(); } else if (document.webkitCancelFullScreen) { document.webkitCancelFullScreen(); } useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// var openUrl = openWndArguments[0]; var inWhitelist = isInWhitelist(location.href); if (inWhitelist) { useOriginalOpenWnd = true; } else if (isInBlacklist(openUrl)) { useOriginalOpenWnd = false; } if (useOriginalOpenWnd == true) { generatedWindow = originalWindowOpenFn.apply(this, openWndArguments); // save the window by name, for latter use. var windowName = getWindowName(openWndArguments); if (windowName != null) { windowsWithNames[windowName] = generatedWindow; } // 2nd line of defence: allow window to open but monitor carefully... ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Kill window if a blur (remove focus) is called to that window ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// if (generatedWindow !== window) { (function () { var openTime = new Date().getTime(); var originalWndBlurFn = generatedWindow.blur; generatedWindow.blur = function () { if (new Date().getTime() - openTime < 1000 && !inWhitelist /* one second */) { window.pbreason = 'Blocked a new window opened with URL: ' + openWndArguments[0] + ' because a it was blured'; generatedWindow.close(); blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments); } else { originalWndBlurFn(); } }; })(); } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// } else { (function () { // (useOriginalOpenWnd == false) var location = { href: openWndArguments[0] }; location.replace = function (url) { location.href = url; }; generatedWindow = { close: function close() { return true; }, test: function test() { return true; }, blur: function blur() { return true; }, focus: function focus() { return true; }, showModelessDialog: function showModelessDialog() { return true; }, showModalDialog: function showModalDialog() { return true; }, prompt: function prompt() { return true; }, confirm: function confirm() { return true; }, alert: function alert() { return true; }, moveTo: function moveTo() { return true; }, moveBy: function moveBy() { return true; }, resizeTo: function resizeTo() { return true; }, resizeBy: function resizeBy() { return true; }, scrollBy: function scrollBy() { return true; }, scrollTo: function scrollTo() { return true; }, getSelection: function getSelection() { return true; }, onunload: function onunload() { return true; }, print: function print() { return true; }, open: function open() { return this; }, opener: window, closed: false, innerHeight: 480, innerWidth: 640, name: openWndArguments[1], location: location, document: { location: location } }; copyMissingProperties(window, generatedWindow); generatedWindow.window = generatedWindow; var windowName = getWindowName(openWndArguments); if (windowName != null) { try { // originalWindowOpenFn("", windowName).close(); windowsWithNames[windowName].close(); } catch (err) {} } var fnGetUrl = function fnGetUrl() { var url = void 0; if (!(generatedWindow.location instanceof Object)) { url = generatedWindow.location; } else if (!(generatedWindow.document.location instanceof Object)) { url = generatedWindow.document.location; } else if (location.href != null) { url = location.href; } else { url = openWndArguments[0]; } openWndArguments[0] = url; blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments); }; //why set timeout? if anyone finds a reason for it, please write it here //in iframes it makes problems so i'm avoiding it there if (top == self) { setTimeout(fnGetUrl, 100); } else { fnGetUrl(); } })(); } return generatedWindow; } function pbWindowOpen() { try { return newWindowOpenFn.apply(this, arguments); } catch (err) { return null; } } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Replace the window open method with Poper Blocker's ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// window.open = pbWindowOpen; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Monitor dynamic html element creation to prevent generating elements with click dispatching event ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild = function () { var newElement = originalAppendChildFn.apply(this, arguments); if (newElement.nodeName == 'IFRAME' && newElement.contentWindow) { try { var code = '(function () {\n var pb_blacklist = ' + JSON.stringify(pb_blacklist) + ';\n var pb_whitelist = ' + JSON.stringify(pb_whitelist) + ';\n ' + inject.toString() + ';\n inject();\n })();'; var s = document.createElement('script');s.text = code; newElement.contentWindow.document.body.appendChild(s); } catch (e) {} } return newElement; }; document.createElement = function () { var newElement = originalCreateElementFn.apply(document, arguments); if (arguments[0] == "a" || arguments[0] == "A") { (function () { timeSinceCreateAElement = new Date().getTime(); var originalDispatchEventFn = newElement.dispatchEvent; newElement.dispatchEvent = function (event) { if (event.type != null && ('' + event.type).toLocaleLowerCase() == "click") { if (!isInWhitelist(newElement.href)) { window.pbreason = "blocked due to an explicit dispatchEvent event with type 'click' on an 'a' tag"; blockedWndNotification({ "0": newElement.href }); return true; } } return originalDispatchEventFn.call(this, event); }; lastCreatedAElement = newElement; })(); } return newElement; }; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Block artificial mouse click on frashly created elements ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// document.createEvent = function () { try { if (arguments[0].toLowerCase().includes("mouse") && new Date().getTime() - timeSinceCreateAElement <= 50) { //block if the origin is not same var isSelfDomain = false; try { var openUrlDomain = new URL(lastCreatedAElement.href).hostname; var topUrl = window.location != window.parent.location ? document.referrer : document.location.href; var topDomain = new URL(topUrl).hostname; isSelfDomain = openUrlDomain == topDomain; } catch (e) {} if (lastCreatedAElement.href.trim() && !isInWhitelist(lastCreatedAElement.href) && !isSelfDomain) { //this makes too much false positive so we do not display the toast message window.pbreason = 'Blocked because \'a\' element was recently created and ' + arguments[0] + ' event was created shortly after'; arguments[0] = lastCreatedAElement.href; blockedWndNotification({ "0": lastCreatedAElement.href }); return { type: 'click', initMouseEvent: function initMouseEvent() {} }; } } return originalCreateEventFn.apply(document, arguments); } catch (err) {} }; ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Monitor full screen requests ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// function onFullScreen(isInFullScreenMode) { if (isInFullScreenMode) { fullScreenOpenTime = new Date().getTime(); } else { fullScreenOpenTime = NaN; } } ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// function isDocumentInFullScreenMode() { // Note that the browser fullscreen (triggered by short keys) might // be considered different from content fullscreen when expecting a boolean return document.fullScreenElement && document.fullScreenElement !== null || // alternative standard methods document.mozFullscreenElement != null || document.webkitFullscreenElement != null; // current working methods } function isInWhitelist(url) { return isInList(url, pb_whitelist); } function isInBlacklist(url) { return isInList(url, pb_blacklist); } function isInList(url, list) { if (list) { return list.some(function (li) { return new RegExp("https?://(www\.|.*\.)?" + li + "+").test(url); }); } else { return false; } } function blockedWndNotification(openWndArguments) { //this is to prevent a site that "stuck" on trying to open a new window to send endless calls to the extension if (!lastBlockTime || lastBlockTime < Date.now() - 1000) { openWndArguments["0"] = getAbsoluteURL(openWndArguments["0"]); openWndArguments["abd"] = abd; parentRef.postMessage({ type: "blockedWindow", args: JSON.stringify(openWndArguments) }, parentOrigin); } lastBlockTime = Date.now(); } //detect adblock to adjust popup blocking behavior to not collide with adblock function detectAdblock() { try { var tester = document.createElement('div'); tester.innerHTML = ' '; tester.className = 'adsbox'; tester.style.cssText = "position:absolute;top-1000px;left:-1000px;"; document.body.appendChild(tester); window.setTimeout(function () { if (tester.offsetHeight === 0) { abd = true; } tester.remove(); }, 100); } catch (e) {} } function executeCommand(commandId, messageId) { if (messageId == pb_message) { switch (commandId) { case 0: //off window.open = originalWindowOpenFn; document.createElement = originalCreateElementFn; document.createEvent = originalCreateEventFn; HTMLElement.prototype.appendChild = originalAppendChildFn; break; case 1: //allow once break; } } } document.addEventListener("fullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.fullscreen); }, false); document.addEventListener("mozfullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.mozFullScreen); }, false); document.addEventListener("webkitfullscreenchange", function () { onFullScreen(document.webkitIsFullScreen); }, false); document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () { detectAdblock(); }, false); (function () { window.pbExternalCommand = function (commandId, messageId) { executeCommand(commandId, messageId); }; })(); }; inject(); })();</script>


----------



## aclinjury

Alaska Mike said:


> Google Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius.


yeah. the olympics decided to ban prosthetic after Oscar's performance. It's argued that he can run at 30% more efficient than a regular runner over longer distance where "100-meter" speed is not crucial to winnning an event. He presented a very interesting and hotly contested case of "what is handicapped".


----------



## tommybike

aclinjury said:


> yeah. the olympics decided to ban prosthetic after Oscar's performance. It's argued that he can run at 30% more efficient than a regular runner over longer distance where "100-meter" speed is not crucial to winnning an event. He presented a very interesting and hotly contested case of "what is handicapped".


There have also been baseball pitchers that return from Tommy John surgery throwing harder. Not enough of a difference to take the risk. Yet. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## aclinjury

Alaska Mike said:


> I think in some regards the UCI's hands are tied by WADA rules. The UCI also has an independent doping arm (how independent is up for debate) with its own set of procedures and policies wrapped around the health privacy laws of any number of countries. Then you throw in rider agents and team lawyers...
> 
> It's easy to blame the big, bad UCI for this one, because they certainly been at fault in the past, but I think it's a combination of any number of agencies influencing what I think is a bad policy for cycling.


Who is stronger? The UCI or Sky? Seems to me like UCI is a pretty weak entity and doesn't the political clout to enforce much. This is sort of like what Ferrari is in F1 and the FIA. F1 & the FIA needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1. And there have been many instances where non-Ferrari fans argue that Ferrari was using their political clout to push for favorable F1 rules. The way I see it, Sky has more power than the UCI, Sky may have more capital power and more fan based power. Does the UCI even have the money to challenge and Sky & Froome in a drawn out battle? If they don't, then they'd have no choice but to end this case in favor of Froome & Sky to avoid bankruptcy! And you add this to the fact that Sky & Brailsfor do run a very good PR image, sort of like Lance Armstrong and "fighting cancer", so it's easy for Sky to paint the UCI as some shadowy organization which make arbitrary decision (which to UCI's own fault, it's their fault too for not being transparent in the first place, so now they're getting blackmailed by Sky?).


----------



## Alaska Mike

Thing is, the UCI can't really afford to lose any top-tier teams, because nobody is really clamoring to get to the top level because of the expense involved. That's why they tolerate oligarchs and sheikhs owning or sponsoring teams- for the most part that's all they have to work with. They've been barely holding together the empire forever. When you hear guys like Vaughters talking about competing interests in cycling, they aren't lying. There is no monolithic organization that runs the show, just a bunch of self-interested fiefdoms whose interests sometimes run in the same direction. 

Of course, since it's the offseason (for the most part), Cyclingnews and other outlets are just reprinting tabloid cycling journalism about how Chris Froome is ready to throw in the towel. If only...


----------



## aclinjury

Alaska Mike said:


> Thing is, the UCI can't really afford to lose any top-tier teams, because nobody is really clamoring to get to the top level because of the expense involved. That's why they tolerate oligarchs and sheikhs owning or sponsoring teams- for the most part that's all they have to work with. They've been barely holding together the empire forever. When you hear guys like Vaughters talking about competing interests in cycling, they aren't lying. There is no monolithic organization that runs the show, just a bunch of self-interested fiefdoms whose interests sometimes run in the same direction.
> 
> Of course, since it's the offseason (for the most part), Cyclingnews and other outlets are just reprinting tabloid cycling journalism about how Chris Froome is ready to throw in the towel. If only...


yeah, I feel the same way about the UCI's position. At this point, almost 5 months in, I don't think Froome and Sky will throw in the towel. They're "all in" in this stake, and they appear to be willing to put out the capital draw this out if they have to. It's gonna be a game of capital attrition between Sky and the UCI, and the longer this thing draws out, the more likely that there will be a likely hood of a favor settlement for Froome. UCI might think that they cannot afford to let Sky and Froome take their ball and go home fearing this would destroy the British fan base. 

I also wonder if the organizers of the Giro and Tour would un-invite Froome (and only Froome) should the matter not settled by the race? This would be an interesting move should it happen!


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> Thing is, the UCI can't really afford to lose any top-tier teams, because nobody is really clamoring to get to the top level because of the expense involved. That's why they tolerate oligarchs and sheikhs owning or sponsoring teams- for the most part that's all they have to work with. They've been barely holding together the empire forever. When you hear guys like Vaughters talking about competing interests in cycling, they aren't lying. There is no monolithic organization that runs the show, just a bunch of self-interested fiefdoms whose interests sometimes run in the same direction.
> 
> Of course, since it's the offseason (for the most part), Cyclingnews and other outlets are just reprinting tabloid cycling journalism about how Chris Froome is ready to throw in the towel. If only...


So the article this morning about Froome is tabloid junk then... Oh well. 

Great post! Well said in one nutshell. Make it a sticky to use for unexplainable UCI doping behavior. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alaska Mike

What we're seeing now with the Giro asking the UCI to "guarantee" the results (which they can't because their hands are tied by WADA rules and contracts and...) is just part of a larger play to "encourage" Sky to suspend Froome from racing while this is going on. Given Sky's hard-headed nature thus far, I serious doubt it's going to happen. They're going to burn it all down if they have to, then roast inhalers on sticks over the embers.


----------



## 9W9W

Alaska Mike said:


> What we're seeing now with the Giro asking the UCI to "guarantee" the results (which they can't because their hands are tied by WADA rules and contracts and...) is just part of a larger play to "encourage" Sky to suspend Froome from racing while this is going on. Given Sky's hard-headed nature thus far, I serious doubt it's going to happen. They're going to burn it all down if they have to, then roast inhalers on sticks over the embers.


I expect Froome to encounter a fair amount of hostility from the fans. While I don't encourage tossing cups of urine at him as he rides by, he is naive if he thinks this and worse won't happen should he throw his leg over the toptube at the Giro start line. 

It's going to be an issue, count on it. Huge inflatable inhalers, urine cups, heckling....


----------



## PBL450

9W9W said:


> I expect Froome to encounter a fair amount of hostility from the fans. While I don't encourage tossing cups of urine at him as he rides by, he is naive if he thinks this and worse won't happen should he throw his leg over the toptube at the Giro start line.
> 
> It's going to be an issue, count on it. Huge inflatable inhalers, urine cups, heckling....


He sure will.. so, Sky is playing chicken with the world tours. Hmmm. They are privately owned right? As weird as that is (and yes, Tinkoff had a point) doesn’t it give them the right to dis-invite a rider? Dead man walking is a HUGE problem. Is the race leader actually capable of winning the race? Beyond today anyway? This is shaping up as a massive disaster that shows how little commitment there is in elite cycling to clean racing. WWF. More every day it looks like cycling isn’t a sport but more of a demonstration of sorts.


----------



## Alaska Mike

To be ProTour events, they made certain agreements about invitations for ProTour teams. That has been challenged in the past, and ASO has gone so far as to withdraw from the WorldTour/ProTour, taking multiple crown jewels with them. UCI threatened to sanction any WorldTour riders that competed in the events, but it was empty talk. ASO has shown they're willing to use the nuclear option, and the UCI blinked. ASO has always held the upper hand, and will do so as long as they own Roubaix and the Tour (plus a whole lot of other important races). Their power only has grown over the years.

I'm sure the UCI is desperate to resolve this quickly, and if ASO announces Froome isn't welcome... well, they probably won't put up more than a feeble resistance.


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> To be ProTour events, they made certain agreements about invitations for ProTour teams. That has been challenged in the past, and ASO has gone so far as to withdraw from the WorldTour/ProTour, taking multiple crown jewels with them. UCI threatened to sanction any WorldTour riders that competed in the events, but it was empty talk. ASO has shown they're willing to use the nuclear option, and the UCI blinked. ASO has always held the upper hand, and will do so as long as they own Roubaix and the Tour (plus a whole lot of other important races). Their power only has grown over the years.
> 
> I'm sure the UCI is desperate to resolve this quickly, and if ASO announces Froome isn't welcome... well, they probably won't put up more than a feeble resistance.


Another well laid out and informative explanation, thank you for that (these). I’d rep you but it won’t let me. I take it then that RCS is the same problem and the same issues? (Vuelta is ASO as well?)

I’d think that the intractable nature of the issue would support eliminating TUEs completely. it would allow UCI to act much faster and appeals would play out during a suspension, much like the US Judicuary process. You reduce weird arguments like your liver wasn’t processing the illegal levels of drugs fast enough, albeit you can still doubt the test. But positive vs negative is a whole crap ton easier to work with than 200mg vs 400mg. It might Ben a small change, but it might allow some level of credibility to return to the sport.


----------



## PBL450

Well, here we go. First test. Dead man walking. Who’s up to go hell bent for 2nd and the eventual win? 

Chris Froome to make season debut at Ruta del Sol | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## DaveG

PBL450 said:


> Well, here we go. First test. Dead man walking. Who’s up to go hell bent for 2nd and the eventual win?
> 
> Chris Froome to make season debut at Ruta del Sol | Cyclingnews.com


Is it really a good idea to be racing so soon after kidney failure?


----------



## aclinjury

PBL450 said:


> Well, here we go. First test. Dead man walking. Who’s up to go hell bent for 2nd and the eventual win?
> 
> Chris Froome to make season debut at Ruta del Sol | Cyclingnews.com


wow what a joke cycling is. And I thought WWE was bad


----------



## coldash

Good article from The Inner Ring

Froome-quently Asked Questions


----------



## DaveG

coldash said:


> Good article from The Inner Ring
> 
> Froome-quently Asked Questions


This is why the French need to bring back the Guillotine. B sample checks positive... instant justice. Might improve tv ratings too


----------



## David Loving

I think the UCI factors in "profit and loss" before issuing a ruling. It's all WWE.


----------



## PBL450

Brailsford On Froome And Henao. 

Brailsford: At this moment we totally back Chris Froome | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## DaveG

PBL450 said:


> Brailsford On Froome And Henao.
> 
> Brailsford: At this moment we totally back Chris Froome | Cyclingnews.com


Whew! What a relief. I was honestly starting to worry that something was amiss here. Brailsford has put my concerns to rest. Recommend we close out the thread


----------



## Alaska Mike

I completely love that qualifier, "at this moment", as it gives Sir Dave a way out.

"Well, that moment has passed and we are going to throw him under the bus now..."

It seems quite evident that they're going to drag this out as long as possible, rack up as many results as they can, and hope that puts pressure on the UCI to minimize the sanction as much as possible to avoid invalidating a bunch of podiums. That's one way to approach this. It's douchy as hell, but it's certainly one way to do it.


----------



## aclinjury

I went on youtube and re-watched a bunch of video interviews with Tyler Halmiton and Floyd Landis and how they came out to blast the UCI (and of course Lance Armstrong). Of course the Lance-boys are still bashing these two. However, what they have said about the UCI, the corrupted culture, the doping culture of cycling, still rings true to this day. Same old sh8t. Sky and Brailsford talking about "cleaning racing" is total bs. Nothing has changed much. Things just morphed a little bit, but the cheating culture of pro cycling is still well intact. 

The saddest part of all is that Sky and Brailsford and co. are allowed to continue racing as if nothing had happened, business as usual. How Brailsford and Froome can even muster the integrity to face the public with a straight face show how they are determined to go thru with all this at all cost and will probably blow something up along the way if they have to. I pray that the fans will give Froome a sh8tty time when he shows up to any race, and I pray that that ASO can somehow un-invite Froome from their races.


----------



## ddave12000

I was thinking about this after hearing something on a podcast the other day. The presenter said that since Salbutamol has become an allowed substance (2013?) there have been 100 instances of riders testing over the limit. We've only heard of 3 that I'm aware of. Why? Because per the rules, this all stays private until the rider proves his case or doesn't - as in case of Ulissi, etc. If they are proven "valid", which, apparently 97% have been we never hear about it. Unless of course someone leaks it. 

Does any of this absolve Froome? Of course not. However, it does make me slightly more sympathetic to the approach they're taking. While I hesitate to call Froome a "victim" here, it could be that he is a victim of the rules not being applied as they would to other riders in the same situation.


----------



## PBL450

Yes, of course he must be invited. He is not (yet) guilty. He has not had a process run it’s legitimate course. As has been said here before, regardless of anything else, the rules as they stand, are still the rules and he is still by every logic allowed to continue racing. 

Vegni: I can't stop Chris Froome racing the Giro d'Italia | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## izza

When is the heating planned for? Is there a time limit to collect the necessary evidence?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alaska Mike

Now that Captain Sideburns has weighed in (although I think he meant honorable), I'd say the majority of the cycling world that wants to say something before Froome races again has stood up and spoken. The vast majority have said he needs to sit on the bench for a while until this is resolved. Most have said something about honoring the sport or race or the glory of Mother Russia or something stupid like that. The fact that this case is just another black eye for the already battered spouse that is cycling's"honor" makes that a joke.

Who Froome needs to honor are his fellow cyclists. Any result that he gets that is subsequently taken away by a ban pushes another rider down. Maybe he pushes another rider off the podium, a result that might have gotten that rider a better contract next year (or a contract at all).

I've been nudged off the podium by another athlete that was later disqualified (not for doping), and it wasn't exactly a satisfying thing to get the result retroactively. It was kinda like, "gee... um, thanks. Neat." The consequences of that weren't anywhere near as significant as they would have been for a professional.

If Froome wants to start and nobody can stop him, I say he just races the hell out of the first 3/4 of all of the races he enters and then heads to the autobus. He'll get the race miles he needs but not the results he really doesn't care about (but others do).


----------



## PBL450

This is a good piece, I think, especially in putting it out there that the team knows EVERYTHING a leading rider is doing, everything. They are scripting everything.

Philippa York blog: Chris Froome is at the centre of a Team Sky mess, not the other way around | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Alaska Mike

I'm going to have to defer to Philippa on this one, because I've never experienced how a team really monitors their featured riders. The closest I've experienced to that is my wife saying, "oh, you fell off your bike again. Idiot."

I hope this isn't the beginning of the end for the team. Don't get me wrong, I really don't like the team as it stands, but I do like some of the individual riders (not Moscon). Another failed team is even more unemployed riders on the market than there already are with the reduced team sizes. 

Can't say that Sky didn't bring it on themselves with their horrible management practices and simultaneous hyping of their superior methods. What it all turned out to be was a big budget buying a lot of really good riders and then putting them through a highly-regimented meat grinder of a program. That dodgy doctors were wrapped up in this system was almost a given. It's not genius that drives Team Sky, it's ruthless efficiency. Now they're playing chicken with WADA, the UCI, race organizers, and the rest of the sport, which is completely in character. The leadership of the team is rotten, and if they are going to survive that leadership needs to go.

Froome's going to get hit with something, and I expect he's going to lose some results from the past *and* the future. Depending on how long this drags on, he could lose the peak years of his career, all because Froome and the team couldn't stand up and take the hit. If they don't think they did anything wrong at twice the limit, then delusion must be a large part of the program too.

I'd rather see Froome race, but only free and clear of an impending sanction.


----------



## coldash

The concept of Vaughters lecturing anyone on honor / honour is a bit strange. Let’s just review his (and his associates) history in the sport.


----------



## Rip Van Cycle

ddave12000 said:


> The presenter said that since Salbutamol has become an allowed substance (2013?) there have been 100 instances of riders testing over the limit.


Is it possible for a number to sound _more_ like the kind of number someone bropes out their butt than to say "100 instances?" Not 98, not 105, but 100. Okay...


ddave12000 said:


> We've only heard of 3 that I'm aware of. Why? Because per the rules, this all stays private until the rider proves his case or doesn't - as in case of Ulissi, etc. If they are proven "valid", which, apparently 97% have been we never hear about it. Unless of course someone leaks it.
> 
> Does any of this absolve Froome? Of course not. However, it does make me slightly more sympathetic to the approach they're taking. While I hesitate to call Froome a "victim" here, it could be that he is a victim of the rules not being applied as they would to other riders in the same situation.


Of course, there's an as-yet unknowable matter of degrees, here. Even if we accept the fact that 95+% of adverse results are excused, maybe it's because they only glowed a few nanos over the limit, so whatever song-and-dance alibis were given were accepted- and only violations of c. Ulissi-magnitude resulted in serious sanctions. [And to review, Froome's hit doubled up on the allowable maximum.] 

These are the obstacles we all face when we're only allowed to see a near-minimum of the available data concerning this.


----------



## PBL450

“Froome and his team are putting one over on us. The act of riding the Ruta del Sol is an act of self-importance, because they absolutely don't care about the disastrous image that they are presenting of cycling.”

Guimard: Team Sky don't care about the disastrous image they are presenting of cycling | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## cmdrpiffle

DaveG said:


> I think its inspiring that athletes with debilitating asthma and COPD can somehow rise to the highest level of professional sport


Don't check in too often...

I did, locally anyway. Competed at CAT 1 and 2 throughout most of the late 80's, and up to 1998. 

I had severe asthma until I was around 18, when I 'made it go away', by an even more severe lifestyle change. I kept it up for about 15 years, until my body wore down, basically from being on a bike 3-4 hours a day. Every day.

TL;DR You can compete with real asthma. I had several brands of rescue inhalers, (albuterol, salbuterol, alupent, epinephrine, theolair, tedral, etc.) over the years. I never used them even once "proactively" They were for emergencies. Real emergencies.

That said... having these in your system after a race, simply means they were taken prior. Can that mean an advantage? If you actually have asthma, prolly no. It's just bringing you up to the playing field. If you don't have asthma, then maybe. Now you're amping up. 

I'd seriously doubt that the amounts founds in Froome's system were beneficial for advantage. Who knows. In my day...we (I) took a lot of 'cures' and remedies that are banned today. Not judging, but the whole " I've asthma, so that's why I've got XXX in my system is suspect.

Anyway, great discussion and apologies if I resurrected a Zombie Thread.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I've raced against several people with asthma. Some are worse off than others, so it's obviously across a spectrum. One day they're in the mix, and the next conditions conspire to throw them out of contention. What I've seen is very much like what Katie Compton experiences. Then again, I probably don't see the guys who have a milder variant that can manage the extreme swings more effectively.

Team Sky's reactionary response to TUEs for GT riders probably caused this, as Fabio Bartalucci mentioned. Instead of pursuing a TUE for a specified dose of a more effective asthma drug, they just pushed the amounts of the specified substance until their boy blew twice the permitted limit. Instead of being open and honest about this, their culture of managerial arrogance is proving to be their downfall.

It really could have been a much simpler matter if handled differently.


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> I've raced against several people with asthma. Some are worse off than others, so it's obviously across a spectrum. One day they're in the mix, and the next conditions conspire to throw them out of contention. What I've seen is very much like what Katie Compton experiences. Then again, I probably don't see the guys who have a milder variant that can manage the extreme swings more effectively.
> 
> Team Sky's reactionary response to TUEs for GT riders probably caused this, as Fabio Bartalucci mentioned. Instead of pursuing a TUE for a specified dose of a more effective asthma drug, they just pushed the amounts of the specified substance until their boy blew twice the permitted limit. Instead of being open and honest about this, their culture of managerial arrogance is proving to be their downfall.
> 
> It really could have been a much simpler matter if handled differently.


Or, Froome was short of breath once, ever, and they want him to use PEDs? It very well could be that simple. They got approved for PEDs and doubled the allowable dosage. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rashadabd

Oops, someone forgot to pay off Bartalucci....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features...id-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/


----------



## Local Hero

Rashadabd said:


> Oops, someone forgot to pay off Bartalucci....
> 
> Former Team Sky doctor lifts the lid on team's medical practices and grey areas | Cyclingnews.com


He said they used IV recovery while it was still legal. 

"It was a simple 'recup' programme, far less than other teams probably did. It included vitamins, antioxidants and iron when needed. Not all the riders wanted it but it was going to be available. Of course, when the no-needle ban was announced, the IV recovery plan was dropped."

What else? Is there a Jiffy Bag?


----------



## aclinjury

Rashadabd said:


> Oops, someone forgot to pay off Bartalucci....
> 
> Former Team Sky doctor lifts the lid on team's medical practices and grey areas | Cyclingnews.com


nothing surprising about the article. Sky, a scientific team, with 2 medical record systems, suddenly has a paucity in their medical records and a laptop gone missing. But only thanks to the Russians are we able to know about this bs today. Wiggin was quite good at wiggling his way thru the system until the Russians caught him.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Well, it looks like they're all in. Froome is now playing superdomestique with the outside chance at a win. He's definitely a man being watched by the other GC contenders, which means that even if he isn't the chosen one, he has an out-sized influence on the race.

Froome's comments show he's entrenched in the Sky spin bubble. "The press is making a big thing about nothing..." and that sort of thing. Really? A GT winner popped at twice the permitted limit for a specified substance is nothing? Interesting. The "fake news" defense has expanded to cycling, it appears.

I don't envy the position Froome finds himself in with the press at the moment, but it's one his choices led him to. So far the fans and the press have been relatively restrained, which I'm somewhat surprised by. If Froome thinks it's going to get any better the closer the Giro gets, he may have another thing coming. Hopefully the UCI's Anti-Doping Tribunal moves quickly and cleanly so the result can be kicked to CAS for a resolution by the end of the decade.


----------



## aclinjury

Froome is saying that the peloton welcomes him back. However, Tim Wellen, says differently, saying more like 9 out of 10 guys don't want to see Froome racing. I will go with Wellen's word, because I haven't seen one Tour rider defend Froome at this point.


----------



## Local Hero

I wouldn't want to race against Froome either. 

I can imagine a GC guy saying, "I wish they would let him race - it would legitimize the event" if for sure Froome were banned.


----------



## Rashadabd

It sounds like Wiggins has some really strong opinions about this and Team Sky as well:

Wiggins doesn't want his team following Sky's lead | VeloNews.com


----------



## aclinjury

Rashadabd said:


> It sounds like Wiggins has some really strong opinions about this and Team Sky as well:
> 
> Wiggins doesn't want his team following Sky's lead | VeloNews.com


but first Wiggo has to come clean himself. Nevertheless, his message has the right tone.


----------



## PBL450

Rashadabd said:


> It sounds like Wiggins has some really strong opinions about this and Team Sky as well:
> 
> Wiggins doesn't want his team following Sky's lead | VeloNews.com


Thats a great article, thanks! As a Wiggins fan struggling to resolve how I feel about his former team, it’s tough, and this puts him in the kind of light I’d hope for. As for him coming clean, I don’t know... there’s a lot going on there. Warming up to Froome however, is just impossible to me.


----------



## Alaska Mike

PBL450 said:


> Thats a great article, thanks! As a Wiggins fan struggling to resolve how I feel about his former team, it’s tough, and this puts him in the kind of light I’d hope for. As for him coming clean, I don’t know... there’s a lot going on there. Warming up to Froome however, is just impossible to me.


It's funny, because I've always favored Froome over Wiggins. What some people always interpreted as Wiggins' "refreshing candor" I always took as him being a jerk. I really didn't start to warm to him at all until after Sky started dumping on him. True, Froome was a rider who could win multiple Tours instead of just one perfectly suited for his characteristics, but Sky horribly mismanaged that whole situation. Thomas is a talent, but I'm not sure he's close to the level of Froome or even Porte and Landa- which makes me wonder after Froome... then what?

That Wiggins doesn't want his riders sucked into the Sky meat grinder is understandable. Better to spend a couple years on a French team or Drapac getting your teeth kicked in and riding more or less clean. At least have a few years of a career where you can look back and be proud.


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> It's funny, because I've always favored Froome over Wiggins. What some people always interpreted as Wiggins' "refreshing candor" I always took as him being a jerk. I really didn't start to warm to him at all until after Sky started dumping on him. True, Froome was a rider who could win multiple Tours instead of just one perfectly suited for his characteristics, but Sky horribly mismanaged that whole situation. Thomas is a talent, but I'm not sure he's close to the level of Froome or even Porte and Landa- which makes me wonder after Froome... then what?
> 
> That Wiggins doesn't want his riders sucked into the Sky meat grinder is understandable. Better to spend a couple years on a French team or Drapac getting your teeth kicked in and riding more or less clean. At least have a few years of a career where you can look back and be proud.


Oh, I never saw it as jerkey, I saw it as awkward. He’s a very uncomfortable rider in the media spotlight. He was weird about Froome and the leadership “issue.” But I think he’s just weird. How versatile is he? Really, he’s nearly 6’ 3” and won Le Tour at 157. That’s a big guy. He track races at like 174. As a tour winner he’s an odd duck. Sky is so shady. I’d think he has a big azz bag of mixed feelings about his former team and former team mates.


----------



## KoroninK

Nice article on Wiggins and what he's trying to do. I actually have never been a fan of either Wiggins or Froome. However, I do appreciate what Wiggins is trying to do with his team and I hope he succeeds. We need more teams to develop talent. I certainly don't blame him for trying to steer the kids away from Sky.


----------



## GlobalGuy

Wasn't Contador stripped of his 2010 TDF win for a single positive one test that detected a drug chemically similar or a cousin to Froome's drug?


----------



## coldash

Alaska Mike said:


> That Wiggins doesn't want his riders sucked into the Sky meat grinder is understandable.


Hopefully Wiggins’ action will match his words. Quite often, they don’t


----------



## Alaska Mike

Not that we need more, but here's another take on Froome's defense:
albertnet: Biased Commentary - Could Chris Froome Be Innocent?

My question is this- if the UCI finds against him pre-Giro/Tour and he decides to appeal, does he still get to race while waiting for CAS to decide the case?


----------



## KoroninK

Is there any precedent for that?


----------



## tommybike

GlobalGuy said:


> Wasn't Contador stripped of his 2010 TDF win for a single positive one test that detected a drug chemically similar or a cousin to Froome's drug?


Clenbuterol. Not even close. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Alaska Mike

KoroninK said:


> Is there any precedent for that?


Not that I know of, but at this point anything is possible.



tommybike said:


> Clenbuterol. Not even close.


Yes and no. Taken by certain methods they have similar effects- mainly they are used in an attempt to build lean muscle. Competitive body builders use them a lot.

However, Clenbuterol is a banned substance (in the context of cycling) in any amount, while Salbuterol is a specified substance with certain permissible limits (when taken by inhaler). The levels exhibited by Froome indicate a non-approved method of Salbuterol use. 

So, how did he (and Contador before him) pass so many drug tests before they got popped? The jaded side of me says they infused blood bags taken while they were in a "cutting" phase, and they didn't expect the elevated levels to remain in detectable levels. 

Of course, it could have been liver failure or tainted Spanish beef...


----------



## Rashadabd

Oh boy, not good....

Questions raised over whether testosterone was ordered at Team Sky and British Cycling HQ | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## spdntrxi

that is a nothing burger.. old news maybe even fuax news... rehashed/retread.

Still say old Froomie is going down.. but that headline is old.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Yeah, it's more or less old news, but it's still negative news in the headlines for Sky/British Cycling.

I have to put myself in the doctor's position if I received a banned substance that I hadn't ordered while working in a sport that's somewhat touchy about such things. You can bet I would ask for a memorandum from the supplier saying we didn't order it, because sooner or later it would come out. Not saying it's all on the up and up in this case, but that's what I would have done.


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> Not that we need more, but here's another take on Froome's defense:
> albertnet: Biased Commentary - Could Chris Froome Be Innocent?
> 
> My question is this- if the UCI finds against him pre-Giro/Tour and he decides to appeal, does he still get to race while waiting for CAS to decide the case?


Select Committee's report darkens clouds over Team Sky and Brailsford | Cyclingnews.com

And the vice tightens another quarter turn. This is why the TUE system needs to eliminated altogether. Gone. Bye. No exemptions for PEDs. No more of this bullsh*t.


----------



## Rashadabd

spdntrxi said:


> that is a nothing burger.. old news maybe even fuax news... rehashed/retread.
> 
> Still say old Froomie is going down.. but that headline is old.


It's more than a "nothing burger" now isn't it. Sometimes these things are the smoke before the fire....


Sky, Wiggins deny doping allegations after UK government report | VeloNews.com


----------



## aclinjury

looks like even Yahoo is reporting the story too. When was the last time Yahoo reported a cycling dope story??

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/m/4b77...6b85d9f/ss_british-lawmakers-say-bradley.html

man, at this point, i'm beyond throwing the lynch mob at Brailsford, Sky, and Froome. Is there ANY reason to trust whatever that comes out of Brailsford mouth anymore? Froome is just Brailsford project after Wiggo left. The Sky situation is a carbon copy of Postal. At first, the French accused Postal of cheating while the Americans defended Armstrong. And now we have Brits defending Sky in similar fashion. But is there any doubt that the Sky story will eventually turn into a Postal story too? I'm just waiting for the majority of Brit fans voice their "betrayal by by Brailsford, Sky, and UK Cycling". 

On a related thought, can Wiggins be un-knighted if found guilty of doping?


----------



## Local Hero

aclinjury said:


> On a related thought, can Wiggins be un-knighted if found guilty of doping?


There is precedent for unknighting someone. Robert Mugabe was knighted in 1994. It was then rescinded in 2008 due to human rights abuses. 

Of course, Mugabe's crimes against humanity pale in comparison to the attacks that Wiggo inflicted upon his victims


----------



## aclinjury

Local Hero said:


> There is precedent for unknighting someone. Robert Mugabe was knighted in 1994. It was then rescinded in 2008 due to human rights abuses.
> 
> Of course, Mugabe's crimes against humanity pale in comparison to the attacks that Wiggo inflicted upon his victims


I don't follow and don't know what's a knight all about. Don't you have to be some sort of hero of some important deed to gain knighthood? Kinda like medal of honor, you need to save some lives first. Regardless of the criteria, I thought it was hasty for the queen to knight a guy in a sport that has a bad rapesheet of dark doping secret. Should have at least waited some time to let the water settle to see if any corpses surface before declaring a guy a knight!


----------



## izza

He could have his KBE rescinded but since the parliamentary report said he did not break any rules or laws it ain’t going to happen. All the report says is that Sky were unethical - i.e. they found a loophole in the rules and abused it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rashadabd

I kind of doubt anything will be done, but Landis is making a lot of sense on multiple levels right now....

Landis: I can't see Team Sky surviving to the Tour de France | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Alaska Mike

Yeah and no.

It's kinda obvious to anyone watching that a lot of Sky's marginal gains involved playing in the margins of what was permitted. Yeah, they were going for more than therapeutic doses.

Were they pushing it on the level of Postal? No, I don't think so. Even the delivery of testosterone doesn't show that. If you're going to get that sort of stuff, you don't order it directly from a regular supplier and have it delivered to your office.

Mishandling of public relations and hubris are going to kill Sky, not the actual doping. They'll last through the Tour and probably the rest of the season, and then we'll see...


----------



## n2deep

Interesting point of view but hardly worth the read as Landis has no credibility. He only came clean to share in the lawsuit, nothing else.. This guy is still a floater,, nothing else.


----------



## DaveG

n2deep said:


> Interesting point of view but hardly worth the read as Landis has no credibility. He only came clean to share in the lawsuit, nothing else.. This guy is still a floater,, nothing else.


AGree. You would be hard pressed to find someone with less credibility than Landis


----------



## aclinjury

n2deep said:


> Interesting point of view but hardly worth the read as Landis has no credibility. He only came clean to share in the lawsuit, nothing else.. This guy is still a floater,, nothing else.


We don't need Landis' credibility to validate his words. What he says, is mostly what the greater public already know or suspect. He is not asking us to trust his words based on his credibility, so there is not need to question his credibility. The Russian Bear Hackers group have done the validation for us, thank you Russian hackers. If what Landis says had come out of the mouth of a guy like Hincapie, then we'd all be looking at it as gospel, even though Hincapie himself was a doper too. Besides, the world of pro cycling are filled with dopers and unethical personnel and doctors, and when a director sportif (Brailsford) profess to run a clean team and scientific team is looking like a cheat, well then there isn't gonna be anyone with credibility left. But like I said, credibility doesn't need to be a criteria when investigators can validate their words. The REAL question is, are the investigators interested in investigating and enforcing? And according to Landis, the answer seems to be no, and we all know this.


----------



## n2deep

aclinjury said:


> We don't need Landis' credibility to validate his words. What he says, is mostly what the greater public already know or suspect. He is not asking us to trust his words based on his credibility, so there is not need to question his credibility. The Russian Bear Hackers group have done the validation for us, thank you Russian hackers. If what Landis says had come out of the mouth of a guy like Hincapie, then we'd all be looking at it as gospel, even though Hincapie himself was a doper too. Besides, the world of pro cycling are filled with dopers and unethical personnel and doctors, and when a director sportif (Brailsford) profess to run a clean team and scientific team is looking like a cheat, well then there isn't gonna be anyone with credibility left. But like I said, credibility doesn't need to be a criteria when investigators can validate their words. The REAL question is, are the investigators interested in investigating and enforcing? And according to Landis, the answer seems to be no, and we all know this.


Landis's agenda is to make himself more acceptable by claiming that everyone did drugs and that marginalizes his responsibility.. No matter the percentage, wrong is still wrong and Landis is still a Turd in the ole punchbowl of life..


----------



## DaveG

n2deep said:


> Landis's agenda is to make himself more acceptable by claiming that everyone did drugs and that marginalizes his responsibility.. No matter the percentage, wrong is still wrong and Landis is still a Turd in the ole punchbowl of life..


Agree. For him to now paint himself us someone on the good guys side of the doping situation is absurd


----------



## PBL450

DaveG said:


> Agree. For him to now paint himself us someone on the good guys side of the doping situation is absurd


He still makes his living by doping!

https://www.bicycling.com/news/news/floyd-landis-launches-cannabis-company


----------



## Alaska Mike

Floyd, Tyler, Lance, and any number of other dopers of that era do have credibility in this area. They have seen, first hand, how these substances affect people. This guy gained a ton of lean muscle mass in the off-season. That guy turned almost transparently thin in a few months... They know very well, because they likely used the same stuff at one point or another. When you're willing to inject yourself with anything because you suspect the competition is doing that and more, you're willing to try most anything if you think it will give you an advantage.

I wish Floyd and Dave the best in their endeavors. Is Floyd a hero? Nope, but Floyd got the ball rolling, and I truly believe we're in a better place now than we were when Lance made his comeback. Is the fight won? Not by a long shot, but at least the blinders are off. 

Every time I hear a pro cyclist complain about being painted with the same brush as the dopers, I have to ask- who exactly has earned our trust? Who has restored the credibility of professional cycling? Every time I think somebody might be legit, another story comes around that makes me doubt them. The game's been skewed for a while, and I've come to accept that. I don't hate Floyd or many of the other dopers that were just playing the game they inherited. I don't really respect them, either. Is pity the right response?


----------



## aclinjury

Alaska Mike said:


> Floyd, Tyler, Lance, and any number of other dopers of that era do have credibility in this area. They have seen, first hand, how these substances affect people. This guy gained a ton of lean muscle mass in the off-season. That guy turned almost transparently thin in a few months... They know very well, because they likely used the same stuff at one point or another. When you're willing to inject yourself with anything because you suspect the competition is doing that and more, you're willing to try most anything if you think it will give you an advantage.
> 
> I wish Floyd and Dave the best in their endeavors. Is Floyd a hero? Nope, but Floyd got the ball rolling, and I truly believe we're in a better place now than we were when Lance made his comeback. Is the fight won? Not by a long shot, but at least the blinders are off.
> 
> Every time I hear a pro cyclist complain about being painted with the same brush as the dopers, I have to ask- who exactly has earned our trust? Who has restored the credibility of professional cycling? Every time I think somebody might be legit, another story comes around that makes me doubt them. The game's been skewed for a while, and I've come to accept that. I don't hate Floyd or many of the other dopers that were just playing the game they inherited. I don't really respect them, either. Is pity the right response?


exactly dude. Landis is like that FBI informant. Yeah he's a snitch, and yeah informants are usually shady people to begin with. That's why whatever an informant says, you gotta vet thru each of his words and verify them. Does anyone trust anyone body without verifying their words? Without guys like Landis, people would still be worshipping Armstrong, and we may never know the stuff that Lance would eventually divulge.

And nobody, at least not I, probably not you either, for one second that Landis is a saint. Credibility is bs, means sh*t without validation. As bad as Landis is, he blow the door open on Postal, who would have thought seemingly honest and credible guys like Hincapie was a doper too.

Big props to Russian hackers too. They blew the door open on Sky and validated what some had been suspecting of them.


----------



## GlobalGuy

Landis is pond scum. But that doesn't make what he says false. It's true or not based on the accuracy of the claimed facts, not the source delivering them. (I'm not taking a truth or lie stance with Landis, just pointing out IMO the relevancy of his allegations.)

In cycling everyone uses PEDs. All that changes is quality and quantity. PEDs dominate in most other sports too.


----------



## Alaska Mike

GlobalGuy said:


> Landis is pond scum.


I think that's a bit harsh. Landis came into the pro peloton at the height of the Lance era, and played the game that he was taught. Dope to maximize your utility to the team and comply with Omerta if caught. He had a great deal of natural potential. Perhaps not GC-level potential, but we'll never know. I don't think he's a horrible person, just someone who ultimately made the wrong choice when presented with his options. Once he went down that road his course was set, just as it was for Tyler and any number of other potential GC contenders of that era.



GlobalGuy said:


> In cycling everyone uses PEDs. All that changes is quality and quantity. PEDs dominate in most other sports too.


If you're including non-prohibited PEDs, you're probably right. I think there are professional cyclists in the ProTour that don't use prohibited substances. They may not ever win and probably spend most of their time fetching bottles or in the autobus, but I think they're out there.


----------



## Rashadabd

Some of this is starting to sound a lot like a weak and poorly veiled attempt to justify or legitimize what Froome and Sky have been doing.....


----------



## Alaska Mike

Not really. If 1/10th of what the reports say is true, Sky's dabbling in the grey areas in search of performance gains is ethically no better than the teams they claim they are "cleaner" than. Sky and Froome had a chance to take the high road with his positive, and they opted not to. They could have taken the hit initially, accepted an off-season suspension, and moved on. They could have withdrawn him from racing until it was resolved. Instead, they went another route and brought all of this on themselves. 

I can feel sympathy for riders that find themselves in the position of choosing between leaving the sport they've pursued their entire lives and doping. It's not a choice that any rider should have to make, yet obviously it's still out there.


----------



## Alaska Mike

And now Froome's strategy seems to devolved to, "say it to my face, big man."

If I were the UCI, I would go for a full two year ban, starting at the Vuelta, that strips all results gained in the interim. It may be overturned by CAS, but it would send a very clear message to "gray area" dopers.


----------



## harryman

I'm shocked! Shocked! That doping is going on within the teams that manage to control and crush all other teams in cycling!






I haven't even been tempted to watch a race yet this year, I can't suspend my disbelief any longer. Maybe they should go the route of pro wrestling, just embrace the spectacle and throw any idea of a fair competition out the window?


----------



## aclinjury

Alaska Mike said:


> And now Froome's strategy seems to devolved to, "say it to my face, big man."
> 
> If I were the UCI, I would go for a full two year ban, starting at the Vuelta, that strips all results gained in the interim. It may be overturned by CAS, but it would send a very clear message to "gray area" dopers.


Something will have to give between Sky/Froome and the UCI. The ramifications of the UCI cracking under Froome are many. It means that cycling is truly a joke if not so already. And it means that future doping will continue to be business as usual. At this point deep in the game, I do not see how the UCI will allow Froome to just walk away like nothing had happened. What is the UCI going to say, "ok guys, Froome has now magically proven he's clean, business as usual"? I sense that too many cycling fans already want Froome banned, saves for some Brit fans.

What exactly is causing the delay here? Is it a technical issue relating science? Is it a legal issue? A delay this long is quite baffling.


----------



## coldash

IIRC, these things have always taken a long time e.g. I think S Sanchez is still provisionally suspended despite returning a positive for a banned substance in August 17, Cardoso’s positive from even earlier (June 17?) is still unresolved and Ulissi’s case took seven months to resolve. Some other cases e.g. Pliuschin took even longer. So, Froome’s delay of around 5 months is not excessive given these precedents, something you would expect the boss of the UCI to appreciate. 

The delay isn’t, IMO, desirable but it certainly isn’t unusual


----------



## KoroninK

Well remember they finally got around to spending two riders from 2016 positive test results this year. So it seems these things take forever when they are actual positives from an actual race vs attempting to match DNA to blood bags from doping rings which in those cases can take even longer if ever. Apparently Operation Puerto will never actually end. Remember Valverde's case took a couple of years. 2008 Italy anti doping authorities matched his DNA to an Operation Puerto blood bag. His UCI ban wasn't handed out until May 2010. (Granted due to when the case was from his lost race results were from the 2010 season and not from the time of when the blood bag was actually from which would have been during his time at Kelme.) So not I'm not surprised that the Froome case is taking so long. It seem to be par for these cases. Contador's case took close to a year and he lost two Grand Tour wins from it.


----------



## PBL450

There is precedent. He gets what other riders got for the same infraction. It shouldn’t take more than a few days to deliver that result. It shouldn’t be more or less, since there is specific precedent. Done. Boom. It’s easy peasy. The hard work was done in adjudicating the first salbuteral decision. This should take a few days. 

Now, on to the bigger issue. No TUEs. period. This sport can’t survive with permissible doping. PEDS are permissible. But then we get all nickers in a twist that allowed PEDs are outside the PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG effect range. Um, duh. You can only consider cycling a demonstration style event and not a sport. That is not conjecture. That is the reality. The fixes are so simple it’s ridiculous. So the resistance to a clean sport is institutionalized. It can’t be both. UCI has clearly picked dirty over clean. That leaves riders and teams no choice, they have to race dirty to contend. 

Nothing about this is complicated. Nothing.


----------



## coldash

First, we don’t know all of the the other cases that have been involved in the past or even the present because this is all supposed to be secret until a verdict is delivered. There may well be some other instances where a rider has successfully defended against suspension. The public, press, fans etc may well speculate but they don’t know. 

Second, with Salbutamol, the test results are used to indicate an infraction. They are not themselves the infraction and that is where I guess the argument will be taking place and a defense has to be heard. The precedent can only be applied at the end of that process

I don’t like the way the UCI have set this whole system up but it is a problem of their own making. Lappartient should be tackling this issue rather than mouthing off and criticizing riders and teams for following the UCI rules. So far, he has indulged in grandstanding and delivered nothing.


----------



## PBL450

coldash said:


> First, we don’t know all of the the other cases that have been involved in the past or even the present because this is all supposed to be secret until a verdict is delivered. There may well be some other instances where a rider has successfully defended against suspension. The public, press, fans etc may well speculate but they don’t know.
> 
> Second, with Salbutamol, the test results are used to indicate an infraction. They are not themselves the infraction and that is where I guess the argument will be taking place and a defense has to be heard. The precedent can only be applied at the end of that process
> 
> I don’t like the way the UCI have set this whole system up but it is a problem of their own making. Lappartient should be tackling this issue rather than mouthing off and criticizing riders and teams for following the UCI rules. So far, he has indulged in grandstanding and delivered nothing.


Absolutely. UCI is creating the problem by allowing the use of performance enhancing drugs. Riders are cheating, well in this case, a ridiper is cheating by using too much of a PED. The whole thing is a suckers bet. Yes or no. That’s a a vastly easier system to manage. Present or not present? If the sport has any interest in clean racing, and it doesn’t appear to have said interest, than they need to make the changes and speed up the dispositions. If a PED is present in a finding you are sidelined. Appeals are filed while you watch racing. Make suspensions consistent among violations. Make 2nd offenses permanent bans. Again, appeals while you watch. Solutions are eas6 enough, having a will to make cycling clean, now that’s a tough one.


----------



## Alaska Mike

If the UCI prohibited TUEs, they would likely be taken to CAS by a large number of people/organizations, and they would lose. Likewise, if they banned specified substances (in any quantity, not just to a certain limit), the result would be the same.

What they can do (and should do) is tighten up the TUE process a lot, to the point that it's a complete pain to get one certified. You're asthmatic? Great, prove it in our lab with our doctors. Then we'll periodically re-evaluate you to see if the condition is getting better or worse, plus we'll track the dosage you're taking and periodically test you to ensure you don't go over a specified limit.

Then, I would follow MPCC's lead in what can and can't be permitted in-competition and at what levels. I completely understand that people get hurt and sick, and they should not be prohibited from taking medications that will treat acute instances, but you also won't get to compete while you're taking them (and until your levels return to normal). I don't want riders riding hurt because of an in-race injury, so treatment or the decision to pull a racer should be made by the team's doctor in close consultation with the race doctor. At a certain point, you're just masking an injury and making it worse by continuing to ride.


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> If the UCI prohibited TUEs, they would likely be taken to CAS by a large number of people/organizations, and they would lose. Likewise, if they banned specified substances (in any quantity, not just to a certain limit), the result would be the same.
> 
> What they can do (and should do) is tighten up the TUE process a lot, to the point that it's a complete pain to get one certified. You're asthmatic? Great, prove it in our lab with our doctors. Then we'll periodically re-evaluate you to see if the condition is getting better or worse, plus we'll track the dosage you're taking and periodically test you to ensure you don't go over a specified limit.
> 
> Then, I would follow MPCC's lead in what can and can't be permitted in-competition and at what levels. I completely understand that people get hurt and sick, and they should not be prohibited from taking medications that will treat acute instances, but you also won't get to compete while you're taking them (and until your levels return to normal). I don't want riders riding hurt because of an in-race injury, so treatment or the decision to pull a racer should be made by the team's doctor in close consultation with the race doctor. At *a certain point, you're just masking an injury and making it worse by continuing to ride.*


*
*
Agreed. But you wouldn’t be forcing not to use medication, you would only be prohibiting PEDs. You have asthma and you need meds, fine, but your race over right there. I agree with your proposal, but it still leaves the water muddy. Less muddy... But you are getting into some soft ground with disallowing MDs to prescribe to their patients. It’s far easier to eliminate racing on PEDs.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I didn't say the MDs couldn't prescribe to riders, but any usage would have to be coordinated with the race doctor. If it meets a certain threshold in regards to the treatment potentially providing a performance enhancement or masking an injury to the point there is a risk of serious damage, the rider should be pulled. Just like the a boxer being pulled out by a ring doctor. 

The teams would hate it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

While they certainly need to tighten up the TUE process the larger issue is OOC cortisone use. Sky, Wiggins, Brailsford, and Froome are flat out lying about their use of cortisone out of competition.


----------



## PBL450

Alaska Mike said:


> I didn't say the MDs couldn't prescribe to riders, but any usage would have to be coordinated with the race doctor. If it meets a certain threshold in regards to the treatment potentially providing a performance enhancement or masking an injury to the point there is a risk of serious damage, the rider should be pulled. Just like the a boxer being pulled out by a ring doctor.
> 
> The teams would hate it.


Thanks, I def read you wrong... I don’t understand the pharmacology well enough to consider what kind of scenarios might make performance enhancing drug use essential for a rider to continue racing safely. I do think it would be hard to argue that a system that defends PEDs use is safer than stopping a rider who needs a PED to continue safely. If clinical information supports that idea than rider safety is a wash out in the argument. Rider entitlement replaces it. Those are not moderately different propositions. I’d love it if a MD or pharmacist or something close would wander on by and add that information. 

Of course, the flip side is to create a riders union and prohibit testing.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Doctor Falsetti said:


> While they certainly need to tighten up the TUE process the larger issue is OOC cortisone use. Sky, Wiggins, Brailsford, and Froome are flat out lying about their use of cortisone out of competition.


*What?* Sky is not being 100% transparent and truthful when it comes to their use of certain substances? That perhaps marginal gains are more than a really nice pillow? Perish the thought.

The only thing that's going to counter that (from any number of riders/teams) is more OOC testing, and the UCI has the resources nor political will to do that.

I still say the only doctors treating ProTour riders should be hired, certified, and paid for by the UCI. Much harder to do an effective team doping program when your doctor is a party apparatchik.


----------



## aclinjury

I know this is old news, but it substitute the name Wiggins for Froome and it'll be the same


----------



## GlobalGuy

I know that this deflects from the specific ongoing debates about individual riders at a given time being accused of taking PEDs. Nevertheless, I think the following is THE main point to all of those individual cases and debates:

All elite cyclists use PEDs. Always have and likely always will. Most elite athletes in any major sport that require power, speed, endurance and recovery use PEDs. Cycling and then track and field simply led the way or opened the door for the widespread common usage of PEDs. 

Finally, for this post, the organizations that are supposed to test, monitor and enforce the rules regarding the use of PEDs are corrupt, dishonest and at best incompetent. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## tommybike

GlobalGuy said:


> I know that this deflects from the specific ongoing debates about individual riders at a given time being accused of taking PEDs. Nevertheless, I think the following is THE main point to all of those individual cases and debates:
> 
> All elite cyclists use PEDs. Always have and likely always will. Most elite athletes in any major sport that require power, speed, endurance and recovery use PEDs. Cycling and then track and field simply led the way or opened the door for the widespread common usage of PEDs.
> 
> Finally, for this post, the organizations that are supposed to test, monitor and enforce the rules regarding the use of PEDs are corrupt, dishonest and at best incompetent.
> 
> Just my opinion.


We all do. It is just a matter of how you define PED. I mean in the literal sense taking Vitamin C or Amino Acids would count. Caffeine is most certainly a PED. 

It is just about wgo gets to choose. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## KoroninK

It appears the UCI has sent this case to the Tribunal. UCI rejects Froome's defense, sends case to anti-doping court | VeloNews.com


----------



## coldash

KoroninK said:


> It appears the UCI has sent this case to the Tribunal. UCI rejects Froome's defense, sends case to anti-doping court | VeloNews.com


It appears that the original Le Monde article was a bit “embellished” when it was translated into English and it was stated, incorrectly, in some versions that the UCI had rejected the defence and had sent the case to CAS. AFAIK, the case going to the UCI tribunal - not CAS - is the expected next stage. So, not a lot of news and not a lot of progress, sadly


----------



## Alaska Mike

Actually, this is progress. 

They've recognized that Sky/Froome's defense is not enough of a justification to be taken at face value and prevent a trial (for lack of a better word). Once it went public, we all knew the UCI was going to have to just to save face, but they have to follow the process and give the defense team a chance to develop and present their case for dismissal. It's in Froome's "best interests" to drag this out as long as they can, so he can race and potentially win big events like the Giro and Tour, strengthening his hand if it goes to a punitive phase. Maybe they'll go with a backdated ban that doesn't take away any of his results, just to avoid the bad press of having to strip the holder of all GT titles of his victories. Imagine what that would do to the UCI's position with ASO and RCS. At least, that's what I assume the defense team is looking at if the case doesn't go their way. To ignore the political implications would be stupidity for them.

I don't think Froome will be kept out of the Giro or the Tour. Maybe this will be resolved by the Vuelta, but he wouldn't be participating in that after racing two GTs back-to-back, unless he crashes out of one of the other two early on.

His now-deleted "fake news" tweet indicates his bunker mindset, so he's in this for the long haul.


----------



## coldash

Alaska Mike said:


> His now-deleted "fake news" tweet indicates his bunker mindset, so he's in this for the long haul.


Actually his deleted tweet referred to the original English language translation of the French language story that added a few “extras” such as incorrectly stating that the case was being referred to CAS. That was just plain wrong and when it was corrected, Froome deleted his tweet because it was no longer relevant. The sequence of events is important.


----------



## KoroninK

Alaska Mike said:


> Actually, this is progress.
> 
> They've recognized that Sky/Froome's defense is not enough of a justification to be taken at face value and prevent a trial (for lack of a better word). Once it went public, we all knew the UCI was going to have to just to save face, but they have to follow the process and give the defense team a chance to develop and present their case for dismissal. It's in Froome's "best interests" to drag this out as long as they can, so he can race and potentially win big events like the Giro and Tour, strengthening his hand if it goes to a punitive phase. Maybe they'll go with a backdated ban that doesn't take away any of his results, just to avoid the bad press of having to strip the holder of all GT titles of his victories. Imagine what that would do to the UCI's position with ASO and RCS. At least, that's what I assume the defense team is looking at if the case doesn't go their way. To ignore the political implications would be stupidity for them.
> 
> I don't think Froome will be kept out of the Giro or the Tour. Maybe this will be resolved by the Vuelta, but he wouldn't be participating in that after racing two GTs back-to-back, unless he crashes out of one of the other two early on.
> 
> His now-deleted "fake news" tweet indicates his bunker mindset, so he's in this for the long haul.


Then they will have to restore a LOT of other races and title to riders who have had them stripped, including Lance's Tour titles, Alberto's Vuelta and Giro titles, and tons of other races and stage wins and podiums to a lot of riders.


----------



## coldash

KoroninK said:


> Then they will have to restore a LOT of other races and title to riders who have had them stripped, including Lance's Tour titles, Alberto's Vuelta and Giro titles, and tons of other races and stage wins and podiums to a lot of riders.


Although some / many might be able to claim some sort of retrospective judgment based on a successful outcome of Froome’s case _supposed_ legal basis, I doubt it would include LA or AC. Froome’s case is as a result of an AAF, not having taken banned substances etc.


----------



## Alaska Mike

KoroninK said:


> Then they will have to restore a LOT of other races and title to riders who have had them stripped, including Lance's Tour titles, Alberto's Vuelta and Giro titles, and tons of other races and stage wins and podiums to a lot of riders.


Not really. They could backdate a short ban to only affect a small number or even no races. They could apply a ban going forward (into the off-season) and not have him lose anything. I'm not sure what's in the rules regarding this, but if there's a way to wiggle out of not vacating multiple GT titles, they'll probably use it- especially if it affects the Tour. I can't see them not applying some sort of sanction here, but how and when they apply it is going to be the key.

Lance, Alberto, and any number of others are out of luck.


----------



## KoroninK

IMO, that will make a bigger farce of things than not stripping titles, esp la Vuelta title where he had the positive to start with. Also it will more than show favoritism which the sport cannot afford.


----------



## Alaska Mike

KoroninK said:


> IMO, that will make a bigger farce of things than not stripping titles, esp la Vuelta title where he had the positive to start with. Also it will more than show favoritism which the sport cannot afford.


Not saying I disagree with you, but I'm sure they're looking at every way to minimizing the bad non-cycling press. The cycling press will hound them no matter what, but if they have to strip a Tour title from Froome (because to the majority of the world, that's the only cycling race)? Something as non-severe (when looked at superficially) as this is going to be a very, very big thing. If they can minimize it, they will.


----------



## aclinjury

This is becoming a bigger farce by the day. This sort of indecision is exactly why pro cycling is a joke. I'm baffled at the notion of any possible damage control. Pro cycling needs to clean house, build from scratch. Right now, pro cycling is like that cheating girl/boyfriend that keeps telling you: "oh he's nothing to me, just a friend, I promise not to sext him anymore". Only to find more sh*t a month from now. It's an abusive relationship, and that's what procycling and its fans are having.


----------



## KoroninK

Alaska Mike said:


> Not saying I disagree with you, but I'm sure they're looking at every way to minimizing the bad non-cycling press. The cycling press will hound them no matter what, but if they have to strip a Tour title from Froome (because to the majority of the world, that's the only cycling race)? Something as non-severe (when looked at superficially) as this is going to be a very, very big thing. If they can minimize it, they will.


But they should be more worried about the actual cycling fans. Not everyone else. I also have a feeling that something non severe will piss off a lot of the guys in the peloton it's self. I'm not sure that is a smart idea either.


----------



## Alaska Mike

...and now we find out the test is deeply flawed and therefore nobody has ever used it for performance enhancement.

I just don't know what to believe anymore. First we discover EPO does nothing for athletic performance, and now this...


----------



## DaveG

Alaska Mike said:


> ...and now we find out the test is deeply flawed and therefore nobody has ever used it for performance enhancement.
> 
> I just don't know what to believe anymore. First we discover EPO does nothing for athletic performance, and now this...


I think WADA and the UCI should just come clean and make an announcement that they are only interested in weeding out performance enhancing drugs when a star rider is not involved. Just say what we already know, skip the phony dance, and close the case


----------



## OldChipper

Alaska Mike said:


> ...and now we find out the test is deeply flawed and therefore nobody has ever used it for performance enhancement.
> 
> I just don't know what to believe anymore. First we discover EPO does nothing for athletic performance, and now this...


In typical yellow “journalistic” style, Cycling News grossly overstates the methodology and conclusions of the previous, EPO, study, presumably to discredit the investigator. If I recall correctly... The study has a very small sample size, about 12 or so subjects, they were all un-trained or low-level amateurs (for obvious reasons - they didn’t want to get “popped” in their racing), and the study was pretty short-lived (6 weeks or so?). It’s probably not terribly surprising that untrained riders don’t show much difference between EPO and the control group as actual training on the bike is likely to have a much greater impact than EPO. EPO isn’t magic fairly dust that will turn a couch potatoe into a TdF champion without any training. Also, it’s well known that people with naturally high hematocrit levels don’t benefit nearly as much from EPO and I don’t think that was controlled for. So for Cycling Weekly to say the his previous study “claimed there is no performance benefit from EPO” is pretty badly overstating the conclusions and methodology of the study.


----------



## love4himies

Froome = Lance 2.0


----------



## Fredrico

love4himies said:


> Froome = Lance 2.0


You just never know. 

Strong coffee, aspirin, amphetamines, cocaine, anti-asthmatics, cold remedies, a beer and cigarette before attacking for the finish line, and who knows what other substances supercharged the human engines in pro cycling history? 

What the teams should do is submit a list of the crap they're feeding the riders so the other teams, if they choose, can use them also to equalize a perceived threat, if there is any. If performance capabilities change on a given day, alter doses accordingly. Lance went the whole time doing it this way, taking advantage of strategic possibilities along the way, and passed the drug tests.

Just a perverse thought so I can enjoy watching the next TDF.


----------



## Rashadabd

I feel like VN is saying what a lot of us are thinking without directly saying it.....

What's wrong with Chris Froome? | VeloNews.com


----------



## Fredrico

Rashadabd said:


> I feel like VN is saying what a lot of us are thinking without directly saying it.....
> 
> What's wrong with Chris Froome? | VeloNews.com


Maybe spin, but the coach said he's holding back Froome so he peaks for the TDF. Maybe his time is winding down. Maybe he has asthma!  Gotta see how he does in July.


----------



## gegarrenton

He looks even worse now. Not sure mis timing his peak, or if the stress is getting to him.


----------



## love4himies

gegarrenton said:


> He looks even worse now. Not sure mis timing his peak, or if the stress is getting to him.


Or he's not doing the drugs he once was now that he's been caught.


----------



## gegarrenton

love4himies said:


> Or he's not doing the drugs he once was now that he's been caught.


That thought had crossed my mind.


----------



## Rashadabd

love4himies said:


> Or he's not doing the drugs he once was now that he's been caught.


I think, if you are being objective, you have to at least be open to the possibility that is the case. He looks like a completely different rider now, slightly above average GC guy really. The guy was riding and TTing people into the ground almost at will before. I definitely don’t know what happened for sure, but this looks strange and I am a guy that typically hopes they are all clean at this point, but the Sky situation seems fishy.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I don't know. He's mostly hanging with guys who targeted this race, and his goals were to peak for the last week. I'd say they missed the timing and the wreck really did do some damage. I fully expect him to climb the standings still. Maybe not to the top of the podium, but not too far off after the TT and the final week.
The stress could be getting to him, but I think he just bit off more than he could chew this time around.
If he isn't banned by the Tour, I fully expect him to be the Froome of "old"- and all that implies. I thought it odd that he would target the Giro-Tour double before he had his fifth Tour locked up, but I guess he felt like it was the right thing to do.
Don't bury the guy yet.


----------



## gegarrenton

Alaska Mike said:


> Don't bury the guy yet.


I'm gonna shovel all the dirt I can on the **** head.


----------



## 9W9W

gegarrenton said:


> I'm gonna shovel all the dirt I can on the **** head.


It's amazing how err...irrelevant he becomes when he's not in the spotlight up front. Good cycling without the Sky train, who would have thunk it.


----------



## duriel

gegarrenton said:


> I'm gonna shovel all the dirt I can on the **** head.


no... this may be relegated to PO~!!!!!


----------



## spdntrxi

duriel said:


> no... this may be relegated to PO~!!!!!



why ? since when is shoving dirt on Froomes head PO material


----------



## DrSmile

2018 is the year of travesties... first a ridiculous settlement for Lance, now Sky vaulting Froome to Giro victory.

Disgusting. This (professional) sport sucks.


----------



## love4himies

DrSmile said:


> 2018 is the year of travesties... first a ridiculous settlement for Lance, now Sky vaulting Froome to Giro victory.
> 
> Disgusting. This (professional) sport sucks.


It's a head shaker, for sure.

WTF happened. I say it's a hidden motor that there isn't currently technology out there to detect it. There is nothing else to explain today. An 80KM time trial gaining 3 minutes ahead of the GC group


----------



## coldash

love4himies said:


> It's a head shaker, for sure.
> 
> WTF happened. I say it's a hidden motor that there isn't currently technology out there to detect it. There is nothing else to explain today. An 80KM time trial gaining 3 minutes ahead of the GC group


Hidden motor? Isn’t that what that well doper Hesjedal was alleged to have used. As documented elsewhere Froome took more time out of Dumoulin going down the Col de Finestre rather than going up. Maybe he has a time travel device fitted


----------



## love4himies

coldash said:


> Hidden motor? Isn’t that what that well doper Hesjedal was alleged to have used. As documented elsewhere Froome took more time out of Dumoulin going down the Col de Finestre rather than going up. Maybe he has a time travel device fitted


Yes it was and proven he didn't.

Froome was able to go 80KM on his own and gain time, it wasn't all down hill, there were 2 more climbs after that. I don't believe he did it clean, not for one bit.


----------



## coldash

love4himies said:


> Yes it was and proven he didn't.
> 
> Froome was able to go 80KM on his own and gain time, it wasn't all down hill, there were 2 more climbs after that. I don't believe he did it clean, not for one bit.


Clearly it wasn’t all downhill but he gained time on Sestriere descent as well. Must be a remarkable motor and battery


----------



## velodog

DrSmile said:


> 2018 is the year of travesties... first a ridiculous settlement for Lance, now Sky vaulting Froome to Giro victory.
> 
> Disgusting. This (professional) sport sucks.


It's getting to the point where Professional Wrestling is more believable.


----------



## coldash

DrSmile said:


> 2018 is the year of travesties... first a ridiculous settlement for Lance, now Sky vaulting Froome to Giro victory.
> 
> Disgusting. This (professional) sport sucks.


Just seen this posted on another forum



> Froome's ascent of Finestre, even will the full Sky lead out was the slowest there has been. (2005, 2011, 2015 were all faster)
> Richard Carapaz ascended the Jafferau fastest, but was almost 3 minutes slower than Santambrogio/Nibali in 2014, in appalling conditions.
> Dumoulin and Froome both 20 odd seconds slower than Carapaz


Thought some perspective might be useful


----------



## Marc

love4himies said:


> It's a head shaker, for sure.
> 
> WTF happened. I say it's a hidden motor that there isn't currently technology out there to detect it. There is nothing else to explain today. An 80KM time trial gaining 3 minutes ahead of the GC group


"Marginal Gains" LOL.


----------



## rtso21125307

Marc said:


> "Marginal Gains" LOL.


Thousands of nano motors on the inside lining of the bike frame, undetectable for the next ten years - where they will be commonplace, legal, and level the playing field once and for all!


----------



## GlobalGuy

love4himies said:


> Yes it was and proven he didn't.
> 
> Froome was able to go 80KM on his own and gain time, it wasn't all down hill, there were 2 more climbs after that. I don't believe he did it clean, not for one bit.


No one has been clean for the tours since 1991.


----------



## DIRT BOY

If ANYONE think Froome and SKY is clean, tune off your TV's and never watch Pro Cycling again. This is Postal and Lance all over again. At learnt it was the US dominating and not the UK.
Oh, Froome is nice and lance was an ass, right? WHO CARES! Lance still won beat beat all the other cheaters by being a better doper an cyclist.

But wait, Where is Greg LeMond on this? Or only goes after Americans? My a$$ he was clean too.


----------



## gofast2wheeler

Don't think that its to unbelievable. Think about it,Yates cracked understandable lost a **** load of time, and since when is Duomolin even in the same category of a climber as Froome. So yea, I believe this is believeable. Froome has not really pushed through the whole tour so maybe he's peaking feel bad for other guys. Froome is just in another class compared to Yates, Doumolin, etc.


----------



## Marc

gofast2wheeler said:


> Don't think that its to unbelievable. Think about it,Yates cracked understandable lost a **** load of time, and since when is Duomolin even in the same category of a climber as Froome. So yea, I believe this is believeable. Froome has not really pushed through the whole tour so maybe he's peaking feel bad for other guys. Froome is just in another class compared to Yates, Doumolin, etc.


Yes...because at week 3 in a 3-week tour, people who have been losing time hitherto suddenly thrashing the competition and dropping the all the GC guys, solo, is so believable.


----------



## Finx

I guess Froomey finally found that missing Inhaler? (Sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## il sogno

coldash said:


> Hidden motor? Isn’t that what that well doper Hesjedal was alleged to have used. As documented elsewhere Froome took more time out of Dumoulin going down the Col de Finestre rather than going up. Maybe he has a time travel device fitted


That was cause the Dumoulin group sat up and waited for Reichenbach.


----------



## il sogno

That was....not normal.


----------



## izza

How many Jiffy bags arrived at Sky’s hotel the night before last?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## coldash

il sogno said:


> That was cause the Dumoulin group sat up and waited for Reichenbach.


So that’s proof positive that Froome is doping. To be fair it is as good logic as most of the recent allegations


----------



## coldash

Marc said:


> Yes...because at week 3 in a 3-week tour, people who have been losing time hitherto suddenly thrashing the competition and dropping the all the GC guys, solo, is so believable.


As mentioned in the Stage 16 thread, the third week of the Giro often sees a big changes in relative performances e.g. Nibali made up 4 minutes when he won. It is normal for the Giro. Many predicted that Yates would have problems in the third week and lo and behold ....


----------



## Marc

coldash said:


> As mentioned in the Stage 16 thread, the third week of the Giro often sees a big changes in relative performances e.g. Nibali made up 4 minutes when he won. It is normal for the Giro. Many predicted that Yates would have problems in the third week and lo and behold ....


Getting tired over 3 weeks of riding is one thing....suddenly pwning the entire GC and peloton on a solo 80km time trial over mountains, to win the GC of the Giro from a deficit of several minutes? I mean really?


You look in the OED under "_unbelievable_" It refers you to stage 19 of the 2018 Giro.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Yes it was and proven he didn't.


"WTF happened. I say it's a hidden motor that there isn't currently technology out there to detect it." 
Please enlighten us then how Hejsedal, who built his career on lies and doping, has "proven" there's no motor that current technology could not detect (what ever tf that means).


----------



## 9W9W

Yeah, really deflated about the Martian winning. Shame. This is not to say that he should have cracked like Yates. But the furious eggbeater rides off into the distance routine is so old. This was a fun Giro until Sky ruined it.


----------



## coldash

Marc said:


> Getting tired over 3 weeks of riding is one thing....suddenly pwning the entire GC and peloton on a solo 80km time trial over mountains, to win the GC of the Giro from a deficit of several minutes? I mean really?
> 
> 
> You look in the OED under "_unbelievable_" It refers you to stage 19 of the 2018 Giro.


... and what about the Zoncolan win in week 2 and Nibali sticking it to all the GC in his win as well as climbing faster than Froome did in stage 19


----------



## Marc

coldash said:


> ... and what about the Zoncolan win in week 2 and Nibali sticking it to all the GC in his win as well as climbing faster than Froome did in stage 19


You mean the Zoncolan win...where the margin was 6 seconds?...and not multiple minutes?


So what you're saying is that the s18 win is even _less_ believable. Got it.


----------



## coldash

Marc said:


> You mean the Zoncolan win...where the margin was 6 seconds?...and not multiple minutes?
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that the s18 win is even _less_ believable. * Got it.*


Somehow I don’t think you have!


----------



## SNS1938

So pre-Salbutamol and this Landis-like performance, Froome had a cup of piss thrown on him at the TdF. What's going to happen this year??? Dutch corner could have some bitter Dumolin fans there ... and they have been drinking for a few days before the TdF rolls through ... they could have buckets of piss.

Farse.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

Marc said:


> You mean the Zoncolan win...where the margin was 6 seconds?...and not multiple minutes?
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that the s18 win is even _less_ believable. Got it.


Nibali has not really measured up to Froome's in head to head a grand tour, and none of the other guys in this Giro have been serious competition to Nibali or Froome in the past Grand Tours. He has won 6 Grand Tours now, it's in his legs to win convincingly against these 2nd-stringers who normally would not come close to challenging him in a Tour de France.

and also .. Froome gained a lot of his time gap on the descents in stage 19. He's always been one of the best descenders, coming from MTN biking past. Dumoulin and Yates are not known to be strong on the descent. Check the full coverage and note the time gaps growing the most on descents.


----------



## KoroninK

Very brazen on Froome's part.


----------



## coldash

KoroninK said:


> Very brazen on Froome's part.


Bold certainly. The nerve of the guy. Turning up to a GT and making a stage wining move. Maybe you should watch synchronised swimming


----------



## PBL450

He rides with slavish devotion to his power meter losing time and letting riders go while trying to minimize the losses. All knowing this would be the stage, 19, where they would be in bigger trouble than him. Knowing also, Tom D can’t climb with him. Yates and Pinot blow up from those monster efforts. Tom D hangs in, a slave to his power meter. But he also knows he can’t climb with Froome. Amazing and valiant effort by Tom D, and if Froome isn’t in the GT he repeats. Doping or discipline? In the absence of a violation we can only consider it discipline.


----------



## Marc

PBL450 said:


> He rides with slavish devotion to his power meter losing time and letting riders go while trying to minimize the losses. All knowing this would be the stage, 19, where they would be in bigger trouble than him. Knowing also, Tom D can’t climb with him. Yates and Pinot blow up from those monster efforts. Tom D hangs in, a slave to his power meter. But he also knows he can’t climb with Froome. Amazing and valiant effort by Tom D, and if Froome isn’t in the GT he repeats. Doping or discipline? *In the absence of a violation we can only consider it discipline.*



_ance _rmstrong wasn't caught on a violation either. Didn't mean jack. Suspiciously amazing performance is just that. Especially for someone who was relatively recently kvetching about how bad his asthma was and needing a TUE for an inhaler that he had to justify why he was caught OD'ing on it.


----------



## PBL450

Marc said:


> _ance _rmstrong wasn't caught on a violation either. Didn't mean jack. Suspiciously amazing performance is just that. Especially for someone who was relatively recently kvetching about how bad his asthma was and needing a TUE for an inhaler that he had to justify why he was caught OD'ing on it.


Worth reading:

Dekker: The problem with Froome and Team Sky is a lack of transparency | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## den bakker

Marc said:


> _ance _rmstrong wasn't caught on a violation either. Didn't mean jack. Suspiciously amazing performance is just that. Especially for someone who was relatively recently kvetching about how bad his asthma was and needing a TUE for an inhaler that he had to justify why he was caught OD'ing on it.


but enough about Yates.


----------



## KoroninK

coldash said:


> Bold certainly. The nerve of the guy. Turning up to a GT and making a stage wining move. Maybe you should watch synchronised swimming


Landis like move and we all know that is only possible by doping. As for the test, doesn't matter as a negative test literally doesn't mean anything. Yes is was very brazen because it's not plausible to do what he pulled and follow it up the next day and look like he could easily put another 2 to 3 minutes into the entire field. That has doping written all over it.


----------



## coldash

KoroninK said:


> Landis like move and we all know that is only possible by doping. As for the test, doesn't matter as a negative test literally doesn't mean anything. Yes is was very brazen because it's not plausible to do what he pulled and follow it up the next day and look like he could easily put another 2 to 3 minutes into the entire field. That has doping written all over it.


Completely incorrect. Do you think that Froome would have taken that time out of Nibali or Quintana or Porte? No way. Froome made most of his gains on the descents. Do you really think that he could have done that against Nibali? So, no, “we” don’t all know that. You really do need to look at the timings data

Baseless accusations don’t prove or even indicate doping


----------



## gofast2wheeler

On cycling news there was report on the times on the climb where Froome rode away it said I believe he was not the fastest but 2 other cyclists were I believe it was the Ecuadorian and the Columbian, can't remember names. IMO, team Sky are just better at tactics this was planned and everything went there way. Yates imploded and DuMoulin is not even in the same league as Froome as a climber. Oh, his bike was checked for motors nothing. TDF is going to be interesting if he is allowed to race, Movistar Nairo is going into it fresh and I believe is the only one who can challenge Froome on the climbs and his team is very strong.


----------



## Marc

coldash said:


> Completely incorrect. Do you think that Froome would have taken that time out of Nibali or Quintana or Porte? No way. Froome made most of his gains on the descents.* Do you really think that he could have done that against Nibali*? So, no, “we” don’t all know that. You really do need to look at the timings data
> 
> Baseless accusations don’t prove or even indicate doping


So in your effort to defend Froome as not a doper...you compare him to someone who raced on a team full of dopers. Well done. Bravo.



gofast2wheeler said:


> On cycling news there was report on the times on the climb where Froome rode away it said I believe he was not the fastest but 2 other cyclists were I believe it was the Ecuadorian and the Columbian, can't remember names. IMO, team Sky are just better at tactics this was planned and everything went there way. Yates imploded and DuMoulin is not even in the same league as Froome as a climber. Oh, his bike was checked for motors nothing. *TDF is going to be interesting if he is allowed to race,* Movistar Nairo is going into it fresh and I believe is the only one who can challenge Froome on the climbs and his team is very strong.


Not really.

TdF is very predictable. Parade peloton ride with no racing until 20-30km to go on the flat stages...Then everyone will try and gang up on Team Sky in the mountains, and fail miserably. Yet again. At least there's lots of video-tourism and Kirby will have lots of wining/dining recommendations on Eurosport.


----------



## coldash

Marc said:


> So in your effort to defend Froome as not a doper...you compare him to someone who raced on a team full of dopers. Well done. Bravo.


The comparison was clearly with Nibali’s descending skills. Where does doping enhance that, pray tell? To repeat, because you can’t seem to understand the data, Froome took his margin over Dumoulin on the descents. If Dumoulin had descended even nearly as well as Froome, he would have finished Stage 19 in the Pink. 

BTW Are you saying thay Nibali is an established doper or just that he rode with someone who is/was? If it is the latter, do what?


----------



## PBL450

coldash said:


> The comparison was clearly with Nibali’s descending skills. Where does doping enhance that, pray tell? To repeat, because you can’t seem to understand the data, Froome took his margin over Dumoulin on the descents. If Dumoulin had descended even nearly as well as Froome, he would have finished Stage 19 in the Pink.
> 
> BTW Are you saying thay Nibali is an established doper or just that he rode with someone who is/was? If it is the latter, do what?


The article I posted above makes reference to his descending pace over his climbing pace. I am not making claims for its veracity, but didn’t Froome do this 2 TDFs ago where he started with a bigger big ring just for this purpose, a surprise attack on a dangerous descent? Pardon my memory if I’m off, but I could swear I remember him doing exactly this before. And yes, good comparison with Nibali as a master descender! He and Sagan are fearless and amazing. Froome isn’t the best at anything but he’s damn good at everything. TT, climbing, descending... And I’m curious as well about the doping insinuation regarding Nibali? Car towing cheater, yes... haha. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## love4himies

Here is a link to the data on Froome vs Dumoulin:

https://ammattipyoraily.wordpress.c...-last-80-3-km-froome-↔-dumoulin-gps-time-gap/


At the summit he was about 42" ahead and at the base of the Zoncolan Froome was 1'29" ahead of Dumoulin. He ended the stage winning 3'23" ahead.


----------



## love4himies

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Been seeing this a lot. First, it’s not true. It was 49% on climbs, 29% on descents, 22% on flats. Second, it means working (hard) the whole time, no respite, no shelter, & still taking time. If anything, the numbers make the performance MORE remarkable. They’re not mitigating <a href="https://t.co/GdQl3N0aF5">https://t.co/GdQl3N0aF5</a></p>— Ross Tucker (@Scienceofsport) <a href="https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1000408199080521728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Based on the same data in my link above this is a summary of where Froome made up his time.


----------



## coldash

love4himies said:


> Here is a link to the data on Froome vs Dumoulin:
> 
> https://ammattipyoraily.wordpress.c...-last-80-3-km-froome-↔-dumoulin-gps-time-gap/
> 
> 
> At the summit he was about 42" ahead and at the base of the Zoncolan Froome was 1'29" ahead of Dumoulin. He ended the stage winning 3'23" ahead.


The Zoncolan wasn’t in stage 19. It was in stage 14.

The *deltas* i.e. time gains taken from the Giro live updates for stage 19 were approx

Finestere climb 37s
Finistere descent 1 min 15
Sestriere climb 49s
Sestriere descent 25s
Valley 15s
Final climb 3s


----------



## spdntrxi

coldash said:


> The Zoncolan wasn’t in stage 19. It was in stage 14.
> 
> The *deltas* i.e. time gains taken from the Giro live updates for stage 19 were approx
> 
> Finestere climb 37s
> Finistere descent 1 min 15
> Sestriere climb 49s
> Sestriere descent 25s
> Valley 15s
> Final climb 3s


why you combining false flat with descent time... misleading much.

Froome performance was great non the less.... I just think he should have never been there in the first place.


----------



## coldash

spdntrxi said:


> why you combining false flat with descent time... misleading much.
> 
> Froome performance was great non the less.... I just think he should have never been there in the first place.


A lot of the shallow descents have incorrectly been labelled as flats and it seems to tie in pretty well with what Dumoulin and his team have said (and he expected to lose anything up to a minute on the Finestre climb.)

IMO, Dumoulin could have narrowed the loss substantially if he had said to himself “It is now a 80Km TT” and ignored Pinot and his team mate and the two white jersey contenders. They didn’t really contribute anything and if he was waiting for them on the descent, then that was a mistake

All very easy to say from here, I know.


----------



## love4himies

coldash said:


> The Zoncolan wasn’t in stage 19. It was in stage 14.
> 
> The *deltas* i.e. time gains taken from the Giro live updates for stage 19 were approx
> 
> Finestere climb 37s
> Finistere descent 1 min 15
> Sestriere climb 49s
> Sestriere descent 25s
> Valley 15s
> Final climb 3s


You are right it's the Finestre.


----------



## love4himies

coldash said:


> A lot of the shallow descents have incorrectly been labelled as flats and it seems to tie in pretty well with what Dumoulin and his team have said (and he expected to lose anything up to a minute on the Finestre climb.)
> 
> IMO, Dumoulin could have narrowed the loss substantially if he had said to himself “It is now a 80Km TT” and ignored Pinot and his team mate and the two white jersey contenders. They didn’t really contribute anything and if he was waiting for them on the descent, then that was a mistake
> 
> All very easy to say from here, I know.


From the Giro website:



> A long uncomplicated climb follows, leading to the Sestriere categorised summit. Following a fast drop into Oulx* and a false flat section leading to Bardonecchia* That false flat is about 14km or so.


----------



## coldash

Yes, as I said, it depend how you label these. There are a lot of “if onlys” e.g. if Sam Oomen had got back to Dumoulin on the Finestre descent then ..., if Dumoulin hadn’t waited then ....


----------



## KoroninK

coldash said:


> Completely incorrect. Do you think that Froome would have taken that time out of Nibali or Quintana or Porte? No way. Froome made most of his gains on the descents. Do you really think that he could have done that against Nibali? So, no, “we” don’t all know that. You really do need to look at the timings data
> 
> Baseless accusations don’t prove or even indicate doping


No he didn't. He made about half the time on the climbs, not the desents.
Here's the break down:
Finestre climb: 42s
Finestre descent: 44s
False flat: 21 s
Sestriere: 58 s
Sestriere descent: 15 s
False flat: 24 s
Jefferau: -1s

That is MORE time on climbing than descending. Maybe you should try looking at the times again.


----------



## coldash

KoroninK said:


> No he didn't. He made about half the time on the climbs, not the desents.
> Here's the break down:
> Finestre climb: 42s
> Finestre descent: 44s
> False flat: 21 s
> Sestriere: 58 s
> Sestriere descent: 15 s
> False flat: 24 s
> Jefferau: -1s
> 
> That is MORE time on climbing than descending. Maybe you should try looking at the times again.


 Here are some others I’ve seen quoted elsewhere 

Froome's lead over Dumoulin at various points was (when he passed those points)
Finistere Summit: 0.37
Intermediate sprint: 1.51
Sestriere Summit: 2.41
20km to go: 3.10
Base of final climb: 3.20
Finish: 3.23

Sunweb and Dumoulin have said that they lost that time on the descents

Maybe you should check your sources again


----------



## rufus

coldash said:


> Just seen this posted on another forum
> 
> 
> 
> Thought some perspective might be useful


You know Santambrogio got thrown out of that Giro for doping, right?


----------



## coldash

rufus said:


> You know Santambrogio got thrown out of that Giro for doping, right?


Yes. As I said it was a *quote* from another forum and I think it would have been dishonest to edit it to remove Santambrogio from it.

You did see the Nibali part, right?


----------



## rufus

The Nibali who rode so long for Astana? The one that has Vinokourev as team director? That Nibali? 

And even with all that, Nibali hasn't been caught doping. Unlike Froome.


----------



## coldash

rufus said:


> The Nibali who rode so long for Astana? The one that has Vinokourev as team director? That Nibali?
> 
> And even with all that, Nibali hasn't been caught doping. Unlike Froome.


If you are convinced Nibali is a doper the please feel free to start a thread about it. 

Something more than he once ....... and therefore must be ..... would be helpful


----------



## The Weasel

'I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles...either' - Chris Froome


----------



## rufus

coldash said:


> If you are convinced Nibali is a doper the please feel free to start a thread about it.
> 
> Something more than he once ....... and therefore must be ..... would be helpful


They're all dopers. Once you accept that, then we can move on.


----------



## coldash

rufus said:


> They're all dopers. Once you accept that, then we can move on.


Well if that is all you have then I suggest you move on ........ to another sport


----------



## rufus

Be willfully blind if you wish to. I stopped believing in Santa Clause a long time ago.


----------



## rufus

Watching the interviews after stage 20 right now. How come Froomie isn't coughing and hacking up a storm? I mean, he's got terrible asthma, he wouldn't even be able to compete were it not for his inhaler.


----------



## spdntrxi

rufus said:


> Watching the interviews after stage 20 right now. How come Froomie isn't coughing and hacking up a storm? I mean, he's got terrible asthma, he wouldn't even be able to compete were it not for his inhaler.


I've had enough of these attacks to know.. it does not start right away... more like an hour to two. If I dont take a couple puffs after I stop, it will be a rough night of weezing. I still think CF is a farce.


----------



## coldash

> Now, to the controversy. Polemica is the Italian word for it.
> 
> Chris Froome won. I don’t think I need to rehash my opinion of him lining up at any race while his “paperwork” hasn’t yet been sorted. I don’t like it.
> 
> I would like to defend Froome on one thing, though. It’s a big thing, too. I want to defend his ride on Stage 19.
> 
> People called it Landis-esque, harkening back to that crazy ride Floyd put in at the 2006 Tour de France. Of course, he was popped shortly after, so the implication drawn by that comparison is pretty clear. But there are several key differences between Floyd’s ride and Froome’s ride. Fundamentally, I’m arguing that these differences are what tip Landis’ ride into unbelievable territory, and make Froome’s ride somewhat more believable.
> 
> First, Froome hadn’t lost 10 minutes, like Landis did, and was still in the game. Before Froome attacked he got his team to blow the race to pieces. Yates was already gone when Froome launched on his own with 80km to go. Dumoulin was in a group, but three of those five riders weren’t riding. This made Froome’s ride more mano-a-mano than Floyd’s.
> 
> Landis attacked alone on the first climb, Col des Saisies, and was still flying five — yes, FIVE — massive climbs later. He gained over three minutes on that first climb, while Óscar Pereiro’s team chased and Cadel Evans, Andreas Kloden, Carlos Sastre, and Denis Menchov were isolated.
> 
> Compare this to Froome, who gained most of his advantage on descents. Sure, he was being chased by five riders in the valley, but five riders doesn’t always mean five riders. I’d say he was chased by about 2.5 riders. The two kids (battling for the white jersey) were just sitting on, Reichenbach was pretty useless in the flats and was basically a parachute on the downhills, and Pinot was protecting his podium position. It was mainly Dumoulin who was making any headway.


Full article here

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/the-secret-pro-an-insiders-view-on-chris-froomes-crazy-giro-attack/


----------



## GlobalGuy

rufus said:


> They're all dopers. Once you accept that, then we can move on.


The truth. Full and complete.


----------



## thighmaster

Im in no way going to defend SKY as Team postals clone, but maybe the rest like Dumoulin really aren't good major tour riders anyway. I'm pretty sure the rest are squeaky clean, insert eyes roll here.


----------



## GlobalGuy

The winner of the 1996 Tour de France, Bjarne Lykkegård Riis carried the nickname of Mr. Sixty by the Peloton because his hematocrit was measured as high as 60. Other times he tested at 56. 

Froome dopes. They all do. They all have since approximately 1991. Before that doping was common but more varied with much of it not physiologically effective. 

Remember this is a sport where in France circa 1998 when the French stopped numerous team vans they found doping supplies and equipment in every case. 

I don’t fault Froome for doping. But let us not try to pretend that he is not. There is a tenancy for most of us if we like a particularly successful athlete to not want to believe, “not my guy. He or she is clean.”


----------



## coldash

*Froome no longer in trouble*

Froome no longer in trouble!

UCI statement on anti-doping proceedings involving Mr Christopher Froome


> The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). *On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF*. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome.


----------



## Marc

coldash said:


> Froome no longer in trouble!
> 
> UCI statement on anti-doping proceedings involving Mr Christopher Froome



The UCI was also glad to accept a massive cash infusion into their bank account , too.


----------



## DaveG

coldash said:


> Froome no longer in trouble!
> 
> UCI statement on anti-doping proceedings involving Mr Christopher Froome


So they wont reveal whatever lame explanation that Froome's legal team concocted?


----------



## love4himies

Why doesn't this surprise me at all. This is Lance and Postal all over again. 

Now they may as well as lift the ban against the limit on salbutamol. If it's been determined that Froome can be double over the limit then anybody else can.


----------



## velodog

Uci=wwe


----------



## 9W9W

hah! 

Have you seen WWE's stock price recently? (ticker WWE)


----------



## atpjunkie

9W9W said:


> hah!
> 
> Have you seen WWE's stock price recently? (ticker WWE)


the new breed of wrasslers don't have good names


----------



## atpjunkie

rufus said:


> Watching the interviews after stage 20 right now. How come Froomie isn't coughing and hacking up a storm? I mean, he's got terrible asthma, he wouldn't even be able to compete were it not for his inhaler.


that's what Katie Compton said (so to speak)


----------



## CoffeeBean2

DaveG said:


> So they wont reveal whatever lame explanation that Froome's legal team concocted?


WTF?!?!

"WADA’s position is as follows:

1.	Based
on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- 
including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short 
period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented 
illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the 
excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not
inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the 
permitted maximum dose.

2.	WADA
recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit 
concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without 
exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited
List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate,
typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as 
permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is 
compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.

3.	In
Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been 
practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate 
the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control 
(e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying 
doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).

4.	Therefore,
having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into 
account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

-	the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;

-	an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and

-	the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.

WADA believes this to be the right and fair outcome for what was a very complex case."

source: aroundtherings dot com /site/A__63909/Title__WADA-will-not-appeal-UCI-decision-in-Christopher-Froome-case/292/Articles

So, it can't be reproduced so WADA is just going to accept Froome's explanation.


----------



## love4himies

In other words: WADA DID NOT want to find Froome guilty and therefore accepted any explanation.


----------



## Rashadabd

love4himies said:


> In other words: WADA DID NOT want to find Froome guilty and therefore accepted any explanation.


I had to chuckle and shake my head upon reading this when I got up. I literally can’t take pro cycling seriously anymore. Did they forget they banned Pettachi and others for having lower levels of the same drug in their system??? The UCI and WADA are broken and need complete rebuilds IMO. 

Maybe it’s time to give cyclocross more attention again or just embrace being a basketball and soccer fan. This doping and sponsor stuff with pro road cycling is looney tunes. It’s tough to be invested in who wins amidst the foolishness that continues to be legitimized and explained away.


----------



## aclinjury

unbelievalbe, after almost a year, this is the kind of fluffy explanation we get from the scientists at WADA?

Then what will be the implications for past and future salbutamol infractions? Just say you cannot recreate the condition due to its uniqueness and get away with it?

Give Lance Armstrong his 7 titles back!


----------



## CoffeeBean2

aclinjury said:


> unbelievalbe, after almost a year, this is the kind of fluffy explanation we get from the scientists at WADA?
> 
> Then what will be the implications for past and future salbutamol infractions? Just say you cannot recreate the condition due to its uniqueness and get away with it?
> 
> Give Lance Armstrong his 7 titles back!


And clear Petacchi and Ulissi, while they're at it.


----------



## harryman

Rashadabd said:


> I had to chuckle and shake my head upon reading this when I got up. I literally can’t take pro cycling seriously anymore. Did they forget they banned Pettachi and others for having lower levels of the same drug in their system??? The UCI and WADA are broken and need complete rebuilds IMO.
> 
> Maybe it’s time to give cyclocross more attention again or just embrace being a basketball and soccer fan. This doping and sponsor stuff with pro road cycling is looney tunes. It’s tough to be invested in who wins amidst the foolishness that continues to be legitimized and explained away.


I've given up on the skinny dudes and their chemists, although the scenery is still nice. I've been watching the world cup DH races, they're exciting. Rachel Atherton broke her chain, then crashed and still podiumed since she's got balls as big as cantaloupes and the skills to match. Impressive. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qdzhhccdPY


----------



## DaveG

aclinjury said:


> unbelievalbe, after almost a year, this is the kind of fluffy explanation we get from the scientists at WADA?
> 
> Then what will be the implications for past and future salbutamol infractions? Just say you cannot recreate the condition due to its uniqueness and get away with it?
> 
> Give Lance Armstrong his 7 titles back!


What I don't get is if they were going to just sweep this under the rug why did they wait until the 11th hour and allow the unprecedented move by ASO to try to ban him. This could not have been handled any worse


----------



## Marc

velodog said:


> Uci=wwe



Now now, don't be unfair to the WWE.

They actually make money and get people wanting to pay for TV rights (TV rights is how they stay in business, as the live-show tickets don't sell)....also their shows are absolutely hysterical to (have to) watch. The moreso because fans who pay for tickets take it so over-the-top seriously....and it is so obviously fake when not seen from the myopic lens of the camera.


Also...WWE pays some of the best wages for their technicians in the entire live productions industry.


----------



## aclinjury

DaveG said:


> What I don't get is if they were going to just sweep this under the rug why did they wait until the 11th hour and allow the unprecedented move by ASO to try to ban him. This could not have been handled any worse


Bingo.
Froome's situation was allowed to linger for almost a year.
Then ASO exercised the nuclear option at the 11th hour and threatened to ban Froome.
Then immediately, WADA and UCI stepped in to clear him using the some sort of bs simpleton explanation.
The corruption could not have been anymore obvious. 
There had to be some major wheelin & dealin between the Sky lawyers and the UCI and WADA that went on behind closed door. There is no other way to explain this blatancy.


----------



## DaveG

aclinjury said:


> Bingo.
> Froome's situation was allowed to linger for almost a year.
> Then ASO exercised the nuclear option at the 11th hour and threatened to ban Froome.
> Then immediately, WADA and UCI stepped in to clear him using the some sort of bs simpleton explanation.
> The corruption could not have been anymore obvious.
> There had to be some major wheelin & dealin between the Sky lawyers and the UCI and WADA that went on behind closed door. There is no other way to explain this blatancy.


Can WADA and the UCI be that oblivious to how this makes them look? I know the answer is yes, but they did more damage to pro cycling here than Froome did


----------



## Marc

DaveG said:


> Can WADA and the UCI be that oblivious to how this makes them look? I know the answer is yes, but they did more damage to pro cycling here than Froome did



All UCI employees hence forth need "_*BRIBE ME*_" tattooed on their foreheads.


----------



## DaveG

Marc said:


> All UCI employees hence forth need "_*BRIBE ME*_" tattooed on their foreheads.


I know some are saying that ASO overstepped their bounds but I am glad they did what they did because it pointed out how corrupt the UCI and WADA are.


----------



## KoroninK

Marc said:


> Now now, don't be unfair to the WWE.
> 
> They actually make money and get people wanting to pay for TV rights (TV rights is how they stay in business, as the live-show tickets don't sell)....also their shows are absolutely hysterical to (have to) watch. The moreso because fans who pay for tickets take it so over-the-top seriously....and it is so obviously fake when not seen from the myopic lens of the camera.
> 
> 
> Also...WWE pays some of the best wages for their technicians in the entire live productions industry.



Add a couple more things to be totally fair to the WWE. They have never banned drugs (other than actually illegal ones) and as soon as one state wanted to drug test because it was a sport they had no problem admitted it's only entertainment and results are known long before anyone starts the show for the night. Plus yes they actually make tons of money.

Wait, you mean that's who I should have contacted after graduating from college? (I have a degree in broadcasting.)


----------



## KoroninK

I totally agree that this did more damage to the sport than anything else they could have done. I'm also glad the ASO did what they did because they proved how corrupt the UCI and WADA are (although the past Olympics and Russia I think proved the WADA is corrupt, this just cemented that). With this decision we know know that anti doping is a total farce and that the pro peloton is as dirty if not dirtier than it's ever been. This decision also cements my decision than when Valverde retires I'm certainly not going hunting to watch races, which also means being in the US I probably won't bother with any races since none of them are actually easy to watch. I shall just go back to watching ice hockey. At least that is believable. Oh and Indy Car racing, which at least is entertaining and the drivers are exceptionally accessible to the fans.


----------



## Marc

KoroninK said:


> Add a couple more things to be totally fair to the WWE. They have never banned drugs (other than actually illegal ones) and as soon as one state wanted to drug test because it was a sport they had no problem admitted it's only entertainment and results are known long before anyone starts the show for the night. Plus yes they actually make tons of money.
> 
> Wait, you mean that's who I should have contacted after graduating from college? (I have a degree in broadcasting.)


A degree in broadcasting wouldn't get you a gig....a degree in theater tech is more what they want (plus experience).

Their department roadie techs (LX/audio/video/utilities/carps) are pulling in a few grand a week (flights comp'd)--working 3/4 days a week. Meals included on-site, as they have their own first-class catering truck that goes everywhere on the road with them. Whatever the Talent asks for they have from 20Oz ribeye to Captain Crunch. Seriously, for a local tech there are few acts that feed the talent and locals as well as WWE.

Confession...I've worked a few of their shows as a local. Very few shows treat the local labor as well as WWE.


----------



## Rashadabd

2018 Tour de France -- Chris Froome freed to race, but it's time to take deep breath and reassess anti-doping


----------



## Rashadabd

KoroninK said:


> I totally agree that this did more damage to the sport than anything else they could have done. I'm also glad the ASO did what they did because they proved how corrupt the UCI and WADA are (although the past Olympics and Russia I think proved the WADA is corrupt, this just cemented that). With this decision we know know that anti doping is a total farce and that the pro peloton is as dirty if not dirtier than it's ever been. This decision also cements my decision than when Valverde retires I'm certainly not going hunting to watch races, which also means being in the US I probably won't bother with any races since none of them are actually easy to watch. I shall just go back to watching ice hockey. At least that is believable. Oh and Indy Car racing, which at least is entertaining and the drivers are exceptionally accessible to the fans.


I am in a similar mood/place. If it's there and I'm in the mood, I will check out the Classics or a race here and there, but I'm not scheduling or going the extra mile to watch and/or follow teams and riders. It's beyond silly at this point. I will just enjoy riding myself. Soccer and basketball become my primary sports to watch.

2018 Tour de France -- Chris Froome freed to race, but it's time to take deep breath and reassess anti-doping


----------



## aclinjury

Rashadabd said:


> 2018 Tour de France -- Chris Froome freed to race, but it's time to take deep breath and reassess anti-doping





> Numerous outlets have reported that Froome's defense team included a salbutamol study using dogs as subjects as part of a 1,500-page scientific package.


The ninja research by Froome's defense team is amazing. Amazing, 1500 pages and they need to bring in dogs. Total and complete mockery of the scientific community.


----------



## CoffeeBean2

aclinjury said:


> The ninja research by Froome's defense team is amazing. Amazing, 1500 pages and they need to bring in dogs. Total and complete mockery of the scientific community.


They probably included the dogs, because they were betting nobody would want to read a 1500 page "scientific report".


----------



## love4himies

aclinjury said:


> The ninja research by Froome's defense team is amazing. Amazing, 1500 pages and they need to bring in dogs. Total and complete mockery of the scientific community.


Yup.

From Rashadabd'l link:



> The procedural path for an athlete who exceeds that limit is to undergo a "controlled pharmacokinetic test" to prove his or her metabolism processed it differently.
> 
> Froome got an exception to that, WADA stated, because his specific circumstances -- illness, dehydration and stress -- in the third, sweltering week of an ultimately victorious Vuelta campaign couldn't be replicated in a test. Many athletes could claim the same.


And further down the article:



> At some point, the anti-doping establishment is going to have to narrow its banned list to a smaller one, limited to substances that truly hurt athletes and irrevocably harm competition, back it with real science, *and make rules that don't bend for the 1 percent*. Otherwise, the whole system is going to collapse into irrelevance and disarray. And yes, there has to be a system.


----------



## velodog

Can Team Sky be legally uninvited from the Tour and Vuelta?

If not, they can trump up some charges during the race and throw Froome out of the race. We know that they can do that after what they did to Sagan last year.


----------



## SNS1938

velodog said:


> Can Team Sky be legally uninvited from the Tour and Vuelta?
> 
> If not, they can trump up some charges during the race and throw Froome out of the race. We know that they can do that after what they did to Sagan last year.


Or the road side fans can shower the Sky riders with so much piss that Froome won't have any team mates left ... 

I think that's more likely than ASO not inviting Sky.


----------



## velodog

SNS1938 said:


> Or the road side fans can shower the Sky riders with so much piss that Froome won't have any team mates left ...
> 
> I think that's more likely than ASO not inviting Sky.


That works for me too.


----------



## KoroninK

Rashadabd said:


> I am in a similar mood/place. If it's there and I'm in the mood, I will check out the Classics or a race here and there, but I'm not scheduling or going the extra mile to watch and/or follow teams and riders. It's beyond silly at this point. I will just enjoy riding myself. Soccer and basketball become my primary sports to watch.
> 
> 2018 Tour de France -- Chris Froome freed to race, but it's time to take deep breath and reassess anti-doping


Interesting piece and she's not far off. I actually think this is going to have some fairly immediate damage to the sport that has barely recovered from the doping scandals of the early 2000's. At this point Slipstream has got to be exceptionally thankful they have a 4 year sponsorship deal and possibly longer term. On the other hand this very well could be the final nail in the coffin of BMC. Not sure how you find a new sponsor after this.

For the non pro side I don't think it should hurt as much, I think the youth teams should be insulated from this.


----------



## KoroninK

SNS1938 said:


> Or the road side fans can shower the Sky riders with so much piss that Froome won't have any team mates left ...
> 
> I think that's more likely than ASO not inviting Sky.


I'd be more shocked if this doesn't happen. Although I'd like to suggest Gatorade to someone as that stuff is exceptionally sticky after it dries AND does not wash out very easily.


----------

