Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Professional Cycling For the Fans Follow the Tour de France,the Giro de Italia, the Spring Classics, or other professional cycling races? Here's your home...

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-14-13, 05:08 PM   #101
Bacciagalupe
Professional Fuss-Budget
 
Bacciagalupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 6,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athens80 View Post
The most objective and suspicious indicator is that Froome's ascent of the Ax 3 Domaines....
That's not "objective evidence." It's supposition, which conveniently forgets that the Ax 3 climb usually comes later in the Tour, that Porte suffered the next day, and Froome also slowed up.

"Objective evidence" would be finding a bunch of blood bags in the soigneur's car, or a positive doping test.


Quote:
It's quite an improvement if a clean rider beats nearly all the doped riders of the near past.
Does that mean Hesjedal was doping? Did Evans win clean? Is Quintana doping? Does coming in 30 seconds slower than Froome prove or disprove his doping status?
Bacciagalupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 05:22 PM   #102
cincipeddler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=Bacciagalupe;15850618]That's not "objective evidence." It's supposition, which conveniently forgets that the Ax 3 climb usually comes later in the Tour, that Porte suffered the next day, and Froome also slowed up.

Haven't i read before that riders come into the tour at about 85% and ride into full fitness during the tour so as to peak? Im sure that was something i read in the Armstrong book?
If that is the case, then times on ax 3 domaines would be faster around stage 11 to 16 or so?
cincipeddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 05:26 PM   #103
Athens80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
That's not "objective evidence."
The clock and the mountain are the most objective indicators we have, short of everyone releasing their power meter logs, blood values, etc. I absolutely agree that other factors guide how you weigh that indicator, indicators such as wind, the place of the climb in the stage and in the overall Tour, relationship to rest days, etc. Froome had the fastest not-known-to-be-doped climb of Ax 3 Domaines in Tour history, that is objective. Explain it away by other factors. It's an indicator, but only an indicator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
Does that mean Hesjedal was doping? Did Evans win clean? Is Quintana doping? Does coming in 30 seconds slower than Froome prove or disprove his doping status?
You'll have to explain your references. I've referred to Froome's time on stage 8. It was better than all but two doped performances on that climb. The next closest to Froome on that climb this year was Richie Porte, at 51 seconds back. Are you suggesting that if Froome's time up Ax 3 Domaines is suspicious, that we must suspect the rider closest behind him as well? (Quintana was 2'02" back of Froome on stage 8; Evans was 4'36" back.)
Athens80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 05:30 PM   #104
Giacomo 1 
Senior Member
 
Giacomo 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Queens NYC
Bikes:
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Don't know if this relates, but being a track and field fan it hurts -

Tyson Gaye, America's 100 mtr. champion tests positive for doping. Does not dispute the findings and will drop out of Worlds.

Jamaican sprinters Osafa Powel and Sherone Simpson have also tested positive.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor...itive-test.ap/
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor.../?sct=obinsite

What a mess the sporting world is becoming...
__________________
Colnago Super
Torelli Pista
Basso Gap
Fabio Barecci
Miyata 1400A

It never gets easier, you just go faster. ~ Greg LeMond
Giacomo 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 05:37 PM   #105
bruin11 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Bikes: Lynskey Helix, Serotta Fierta IT, Torelli, Raleigh Carbon Revenio 3.0
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
All questioning Sky taking feeds at 10k. This article says it was legal since it was announced over race radio that feeds were allowed at that point.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1226679399416


The three riders from Froome's team that remained in the front group took a feedbag half way up the mountain. This can only be done when riding within your physical capacity.

At the time, many thought this move was outside the rules but the race officials had announced, over race radio, that feeding was allowed at this point. The move was legal and it was smart.
__________________
bruin11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 05:39 PM   #106
bruin11 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Bikes: Lynskey Helix, Serotta Fierta IT, Torelli, Raleigh Carbon Revenio 3.0
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giacomo 1 View Post
Don't know if this relates, but being a track and field fan it hurts -

Tyson Gaye, America's 100 mtr. champion tests positive for doping. Does not dispute the findings and will drop out of Worlds.

Jamaican sprinters Osafa Powel and Sherone Simpson have also tested positive.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor...itive-test.ap/
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor.../?sct=obinsite

What a mess the sporting world is becoming...
Becoming? This is nothing new in that world either.
__________________
bruin11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 05:54 PM   #107
Pantani98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Huntersville, NC
Bikes: yes!
Posts: 222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
just read the article bruin11 posted. if that is in fact the case, then Sky was just smarter than everyone else. i would also start planning to have feedbags wherever i thought this might help my team as long as they were riding w/in their "physical capacity". which i'm assuming means still moving forward. if it's an advantage, i'd had food and supplements wherever they might need to get nourishment and energy. really though, we love watching the Tour. as someone stated earlier, it's just a shame that all the cheating in the past will cause us to always questions results. and the big budget teams will always be able to hide the doping.
Pantani98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 05:57 PM   #108
reef58
Senior Member
 
reef58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wilmington, NC
Bikes: Serotta Nove
Posts: 1,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What the past has taught is trust but verify. Unfortunately people who do not like Froome are 100% convinced he is doping without evidence. Froome fans use the same arguments Lance fans used, training harder than others, better prep, genetics ect. It doesn't appear any are really objective.
reef58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:01 PM   #109
kenji666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: On yer left
Bikes:
Posts: 1,648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just because a rider dopes, doesn't mean he doesn't need to work hard and prepare.
kenji666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:08 PM   #110
breadbin
Senior Member
 
breadbin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West of Ireland
Bikes: Raleigh 531c, Marin Muirwoods, Brodie Romax
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
i kinda feel sorry for him now anyway. even if he is clean there is a huge cloud of suspicion over his win which has marred it. i myself think his ride today was abnormal and enough to warrant them suspicions. you cant just go out and destroy a field like that, specialist climbers dropped like hot potatoes. i know he can be strong or whatever but these climbers have so much advantage its unreal. weight and o2 capacity etc. when i seen it today i was upset cos it really did stink
breadbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:11 PM   #111
redfooj
pluralis majestatis
 
redfooj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: you rope
Bikes: 20 W/st.
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
at those ardently defending the purity of the sport and the riders the last few years ... it was amusing.

after the whole doping scandal blew up, to see these same people still displaying their naiveté ... its just sad.


reasonable people dont jump on a single piece of evidence. hence "reasonable suspicion".

the recent history of sky. compared to the riders overall history. the overall team performance. the *timing* of those performances from certain riders. the timing of their recovery. the ephemeral and unbelievable performances. they all compound to a damning conclusion.
redfooj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:20 PM   #112
FriendlyFred
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Physically, CT / Mentally, San Francisco
Bikes: BMC Team Machine, BMC Road Racer, BMC Streetfire, BMC AlpenChallenge
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by reef58 View Post
What the past has taught is trust but verify. Unfortunately people who do not like Froome are 100% convinced he is doping without evidence. Froome fans use the same arguments Lance fans used, training harder than others, better prep, genetics ect. It doesn't appear any are really objective.
Personally, it's not a matter of whether I like Froome or not. I actually DO sort of like him. Couldn't say the same of Wiggins, last year. Instinctively, watching the performances on stage 8 and again today, I don't believe those performances are natural. do I have pictures of Froome and SKY doping? of course not. But those performances are so outrageous that instinctively I believe they're the result of doping. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. I do think my strong reaction IS partially due to having been a supporter of LA, and buying into all of the same lies I now hear coming out of the SKY camp and the SKY supporters - better training, better prep, ect. Only this time, SKY - Froome - aren't even trying to hide it, they're just in your face with it. If SKY are clean, where's the transparency they promised prior to last season? Of all the doctors in the world, why did they hire a doping doctor? We've been down this road time after time after time and many people are not going to buy the lies and the pats on the head telling us "this time it's real."
FriendlyFred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:23 PM   #113
Bacciagalupe
Professional Fuss-Budget
 
Bacciagalupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 6,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athens80 View Post
The clock and the mountain are the most objective indicators we have....
No, they really aren't. "The clock" doesn't tell you wattage, or a true ceiling on what wattage a human can produce without doping.

"The mountain" -- or to be precise, the route -- doesn't change. Environmental factors like wind, temperature, humidity and other factors like competition, the need to take time, the strength of the team, when it happens in the race, all change.

Even some of the blood tests -- whose results I do trust, by the way -- are not entirely objective. Tests for synthetic testosterone, for example, requires interpretation on the part of the lab technicians. Witnesses, who can often be trusted, also don't provide "objective evidence."


Quote:
Froome had the fastest not-known-to-be-doped climb of Ax 3 Domaines in Tour history, that is objective. Explain it away by other factors. It's an indicator, but only an indicator.
It's speculation. And ultimately, I don't think it has much to do with Froome.


Quote:
Are you suggesting that if Froome's time up Ax 3 Domaines is suspicious, that we must suspect the rider closest behind him as well?
I'm saying that you can't call speculations -- not even real numbers, but pure speculation -- about Froome's wattage "objective evidence."

I'm saying that if "Froome beating people we knew used to dope" is valid, then other riders (like Hesjedal, Evans, Quintana, Porte etc) ought to be suspect.

And yes, if you're going to suspect Froome based on his performance, then the same reasoning should produce suspicions of riders who produce similar performances. And yet, for some reason, we don't. Hmmmm.
Bacciagalupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:23 PM   #114
kenji666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: On yer left
Bikes:
Posts: 1,648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What are they taking that can't be detected in the urine or blood tests?
kenji666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:26 PM   #115
Athens80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quoting an opinion post: "skepticism should be encouraged"

Quote:
A parallel universe - "cycling is in great health"

A quick thought on the general state of cycling first, though. Imagine a 2013 Tour without Sky on Saturday afternoon on Ax-3-Domaines. The fastest ascent of the day would have been 24:18 by Alejandro Valverde, well over a minute slower than the best Ax-3-Domaines times of 2001. Behind him, a trail of riders with big time gaps on a short climb, including group of top Spanish climbers who lost over two minutes on the day, finishing in 25:16. These are times that would not even make the top 60 on this climb (even correcting for error in timing!).

Had that happened, we would all be feeling pretty good about the world of cycling on Sunday morning, because the times would have gone in the "right" direction. We'd say "See, the sport has changed, the stricter testing of the passport and the increased scrutiny are doing the job". We'd be particularly impressed that these "slow" performances came on the very first mountain stage, when riders should be freshest. For context, a Twitter follower (ExRoadman1) reliably informs me that when the Tour did Ax-3-Domaines in 2001 and 2003 (the fastest ascents), they'd raced 1923km and 2095km before the stages, respectively. 2013? Only 1148 km, and so it was very slow despite better circumstances for a fast time.

Yes indeed, had it not been for two riders on the day, we'd be very pleased with the 'health' of cycling! We'd be wrong to be so certain of course, in the same way that we'd be wrong to conclude that it's terrible and overrun with dopers (is it telling that Valverde would be the patron of a clean peloton, for example!)

So, it was Froome and Porte who spun us around. Porte, for his part, had a terrible Sunday, something that can be viewed in one of two ways - either he paid the cost of a supra-maximal effort, a lack of pacing suited to a stage race, and we'd be more optimistic. Or his variability is suspicious. I'd go with the former, since doping is no longer as beneficial to once-off efforts.

As for Froome, he rode well enough on Sunday, but not spectacularly fast - the estimates ranged from 5.0 to 5.2 W/kg on those climbs, and he was accompanied by 30 other riders, so you could make the case for it being a heavy day following a fast one. The point is, the efforts of two riders have raised eyebrows, specifically around one team, but should not by themselves be viewed as guilty.

...

Looking ahead

So the questions will continue, as they should, because national pride and promises are not a good enough reason to believe in people given the number of lies that have preceded them. My point is this: I think most of us want a cleaner sport. Some wish to arrive there by interrogating everything, by examining every detail, by challenging every performance. They can (and do) cross a line into unfair accusation from time to time. Others want to look in a new direction, forget the past and dismiss all questions as biased, destructive, jealous, racist (yeah, I got this one the other day). Somewhere in the middle is clean cycling, and denying and diverting the questions blocks off access to that point.

The Tour now builds to its traverse of the Alps, and some incredibly difficult stages. Given the way Froome has looked, and the relative 'weakness' of his rivals, it is unlikely we will see another maximal effort in this Tour - he can follow wheels, and gain seconds near the summit of the climbs if he wishes.

And so performance analysis becomes less and less powerful. The rest of the Tour, based on Ax-3-Domianes, will continue to ride the HC climbs at the pVAM, and so will Froome. How much he has in reserve, we'll never know, unless someone discovers another level and shakes the Tour up. We look forward to that.
More at Science of Sport.
Athens80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:32 PM   #116
reef58
Senior Member
 
reef58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wilmington, NC
Bikes: Serotta Nove
Posts: 1,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
No, they really aren't. "The clock" doesn't tell you wattage, or a true ceiling on what wattage a human can produce without doping.

"The mountain" -- or to be precise, the route -- doesn't change. Environmental factors like wind, temperature, humidity and other factors like competition, the need to take time, the strength of the team, when it happens in the race, all change.

Even some of the blood tests -- whose results I do trust, by the way -- are not entirely objective. Tests for synthetic testosterone, for example, requires interpretation on the part of the lab technicians. Witnesses, who can often be trusted, also don't provide "objective evidence."



It's speculation. And ultimately, I don't think it has much to do with Froome.



I'm saying that you can't call speculations -- not even real numbers, but pure speculation -- about Froome's wattage "objective evidence."

I'm saying that if "Froome beating people we knew used to dope" is valid, then other riders (like Hesjedal, Evans, Quintana, Porte etc) ought to be suspect.

And yes, if you're going to suspect Froome based on his performance, then the same reasoning should produce suspicions of riders who produce similar performances. And yet, for some reason, we don't. Hmmmm.
It is not difficult at all as the structure is different. You just need to perform the proper test
reef58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:40 PM   #117
Athens80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
I'm saying that if "Froome beating people we knew used to dope" is valid, then other riders (like Hesjedal, Evans, Quintana, Porte etc) ought to be suspect.

And yes, if you're going to suspect Froome based on his performance, then the same reasoning should produce suspicions of riders who produce similar performances. And yet, for some reason, we don't. Hmmmm.
Froome's time up Ax 3 Domaines was better than Ullrich, Armstrong's 2nd best, Basso, Vinokourov, etc. Those are the riders who have produced similar performances on that climb. They did produce suspicions, and those suspicions ultimately were followed by suspensions.

Michael Puchowicz:
Quote:
Aside for Froome's time, every single performance in the top 10 has come from a rider during cycling's known doping era. With the 3rd fastest ever, his time beat the top efforts from Jan Ulrich and Ivan Basso, and even beat two of three times for Armstrong. In contrast, the all-time list put Richie Porte and Alejandro Valverde, 2nd and 3rd on the day, just outside of the top 20 and top 30, respectively. The historical analysis of Froome's time puts his performance into territory dominated by top doping era cyclists and is not reassuring. Porte and Valverde's times are well off the highest marks and don't stand out otherwise. 




...
Also, the analysis will only pick up the effect of doping on top riders. Lesser riders who dope may achieve performances no better than top clean riders. Lastly, the field of cycling performance estimates and monitoring is basically in its infancy. It will likely still evolve significantly.



Overall, the data suggests that the performances on AX3 fell within a range that could be expected for a relatively clean peloton with the exception of Froome. His performance on AX3 is clearly flagged as an outlier and warrants healthy rationale skepticism. Going forward, the progression of his performance should be closely followed over the rest of the Tour.
Athens80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:52 PM   #118
thehammerdog
Senior Member
 
thehammerdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NWNJ
Bikes: Road bike is a Carbon Bianchi C2C & Grandis (1980's), Gary Fisher Mt Bike, Trek Tandem & Mongoose SS MTB circa 1992.
Posts: 2,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Froome, whats he taking?

we know now that by history if anyone man is heads and shoulders above the other riders something is not Kosher?
Any thoughts.......he was almost too good today
thehammerdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:56 PM   #119
Athens80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Record Times on MONT VENTOUX Mont Ventoux 2000-2013 + Pantani

EDIT: I'M DELETING THE QUOTE BECAUSE THE DATA QUOTED WAS NOT FROM THE FULL CLIMB AND I DON'T KNOW THE OBJECTIVE RATIONALE FOR EXCLUDING THE FIRST FIVE KILOMETERS.

From this post from @ammattipyoraily. Others/authorities are welcome to correct this.

Last edited by Athens80; 07-14-13 at 09:23 PM. Reason: new info
Athens80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 06:58 PM   #120
BillyD
Super Moderator
 
BillyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene '04; Bridgestone RB-1 '92
Posts: 17,334
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Coffee. Very strong coffee.

Discuss in Pro.
__________________
See, this is why we can't have nice things. - - smarkinson
Where else but the internet can a bunch of cyclists go and be the tough guy? - - jdon
Titanium and Steel Divisions
BillyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 07:00 PM   #121
Zinger
Trek 500 Kid
 
Zinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
I think he's spiking his peach with No-Doze
Zinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 07:03 PM   #122
LeeG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 4,658
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok, remove Froome, would Quintana be clean?
LeeG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 07:05 PM   #123
stilltooslow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Merry Land
Bikes: Guru Evolo R, Colnago Pista, Look AL 464P SS, various frankenbikes
Posts: 433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I dunno.....I mean look at his arms, he looks like a skeleton. I think his secret sauce may be a total lack of any body fat. Light weight may be his drug.
stilltooslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 07:08 PM   #124
Zinger
Trek 500 Kid
 
Zinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athens80 View Post
From this post from @ammattipyoraily. Others/authorities are welcome to correct this.
That's very interesting.
Zinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-13, 07:16 PM   #125
RJM
I'm doing it wrong.
 
RJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,532
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeG View Post
Ok, remove Froome, would Quintana be clean?
Quintana is a climber (is he a specialist at anything else?) and doesn't weigh much, he also got dropped hard by Froome, but I am still suspicious.
RJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 AM.