sorry but we've seen this movie before. team sky came in (post usps/armstrong) and promised to be completely transparent, and they were, for a short time.
cue wiggins and his transformation and then (even more miraculously) froome's. the promised transparency has become increasingly cloudy and reliant on
deflecting/parsing/parrying inquiries as to questionable developments. expected. as their methods/model achieved results, the pressure to replicate the results becomes
greater than any ethics, transparency or sense of fair play. there are some decent riders within the team's current ranks and i hope they're able to extricate themselves
before they become ensnared or involved with what's sure to come out in the wash in a week, months, year, years...i don't live under the illusion that every team
except sky is pure as the driven snow-historically or currently-i tend to presume a lack of purity. it's a little different tho, when someone rubs your face in it, smiles, then says
"oh sorry, mate. my bad. hope you can forgive me." that said, i hope thomas goes full rogue on froome (and the team) in the first week and bleeps up the systematic/systemic
nonsense.

Hinault said “If the international authorities don’t sanction him it’s up to the other cyclists to shoulder the responsibility,” “If the racers accept a cheat on the race then that’s their problem.”

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2173...me-tdf-strike/

He shouldn't have used this term in the first place but especially now he should do the right thing and withdraw it unreservedly. He should also apologise to Froome.

and just playing devil's advocate here, but since sky/froome has made aso to look a fool on their biggest stage, what do you think the aso's power brokers are thinking?
can you imagine (one of) them "commissioning" a lesser rider, a planted roadside fan or two or a/the team chef/mechanic/member to sabotage froomie's quest for five in exchange
for a handsome monetary reward? unfortunately, i can.

Froome hasn't made ASO look a bunch of fools...Froome's made UCI look like corrupt idiots. Again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caretaker

Hinault said “If the international authorities don’t sanction him it’s up to the other cyclists to shoulder the responsibility,” “If the racers accept a cheat on the race then that’s their problem.”

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2173...me-tdf-strike/

He shouldn't have used this term in the first place but especially now he should do the right thing and withdraw it unreservedly. He should also apologise to Froome.

don't see the badger apologizing or admitting he was wrong even though he's been historically machiavellian. if it were up to cycling doing the right thing,
sky wouldn't enter froomie into the tdf in order to avoid any kind of potential conflict or bad press/negative pushback. but surprise! that's not what's happening.
indeed, two wrongs do not make a right.

they both have egg on their faces after froomie's "clearance." still, after the aso's proclamations that they wouldn't allow him to ride and their subsequent backpedalling,
i can't imagine that's easy for the powers that be to swallow. we're not talking virenque here...

Interesting read, maybe, just maybe, the test itself is not valid, (15.4% of virtual subjects given a false positive).

Futility of current urine salbutamol doping control.

And if so, this leaves WADA and clean sport in general in a world of pain.

It means that there have been, and will continue to be, both false positives and false negatives.

May I just add a lot of posts still say the result was double the limit.


The limits given by WADA are 1000 ng/mL with the decision limit, taking into account measurement uncertainty, is 1200 ng/mL.

After taking into account urine concentration Froome's result was 1429, so 19% over decision limit. It's still 19% but not double.

And another interesting read.

The Times

Yeah, I think you're right. It was the IOC that went easy on them.

Although what is being debated here is mostly speculation, it still creates a larger dark cloud over cycling at the highest level. How long are the governing bodies going to either turn a blind eye to this type of alleged activity and at what cost to the sport will it cause if it is allowed to continue. I'm not saying whether Sky/Froome are guilty or not. I don't know. There are people who do know however. Sponsor's are becoming more and more difficult to find and if this type of situation isn't eventually resolved, irreparable damage will possibly occur. Unfortunately, it seems that sponsor's, teams and riders are only interested in the short term and how much money and fame it brings them. If in later years, the truth that comes out of this for Sky/Froome turns out to be the same as for USPS/Armstrong, will these people feel it was worth it? I assume so if the monetary reward was lucrative enough. If this continues to be the reality, it totally sucks for the people who love this sport.

Fact: The official expert body (WADA) has declared that Froome HAS NO CASE TO ANSWER, the rest is just a load of armchair 'experts' and Froome-Haters speculating.

A lot of this online stuff is Americans (yes Americans) who still haven't gotten over their hero being exposed as a career bully and cheat. They now devote what spare time they have constructing a narrative that says 'our hero was a victim of a sport that's still as corrupt and dirty as ever'.

The episode you mention was exposed and should have been exposed for the betterment of cycling in general. I wanted to believe the farce that was presented, but alas, it was all lies and although most competitors were doing the same things (but weren't exposed on that level), it doesn't make it better. It actually makes it worse. Using immoral measures to gain an advantage in cycling has occurred almost from the inception of the sport. Read the history books. Whatever means that were available at any given time, have been used and this was long before Americans gave a care about the sport. I find it difficult to understand why anyone can't see why many find it natural to suspect fowl play. I don't want to believe this, but I suspect if the truth were truly uncovered, the findings would be that several teams and riders always have and still take measures to breach the rules. You are making accusations toward many American cycling fans by means of your intuition and even accusing them of feeling that way because of the aforementioned situation. Is that any different.

When I see interviews with Froome (not SKY mind you), I see a young man who truly believes he's innocent. I see a young man who sincerely appears to be hurt by these accusations. If I'm correct, I truly feel sorry for him, but I was fooled before. If he is truly innocent, he doesn't deserve this treatment, regardless of what has transpired before him. The ugly truth however, is that most (not only Americans) find it difficult to believe because of this dark history. I suspect the fans who have in the past, allegedly showered Froome with urine at the Tour were not Americans, but I have no way of quantifying this. Americans aren't the only ones speculating on the possibility of wrong doing.

If Foome is guilty (I tend to believe he isn't), one thing I do like about him is at least he isn't presenting his case in a hyper arrogant, smug way that has been done in the past. I hope Froome will truly be exonerated of these accusations. What has transpired this week doesn't show this imo. The pessimist in me sees governing bodies that may be corrupt and/or are not willing to take the risk of being sued. Until someone who has the power and resources to resolve these situations, the great sport of cycling will take the unfortunate hit.

And now

THIS

Nothing that wasn't known before. Dehydration is factored into the test evaluation.

No...most of us never hero-worshipped Lance. And most new and accepted the man was a jagoff long ago. Froome is in all likelihood just as dirty, he just puts on a nicer personality.


The UCI is too embarrassed to have another winner dinged for doping...so they change the rules/procedures for him and not anyone else who got a ban for the same exact thing.

So this "Professor Fitch now says that he made a “terrible blunder” and was “concerned” by cases such as Froome’s.

“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later,” Fitch continued.

“A number have been carried out… but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

Was known before?

Thank you Marcus_Ti for putting things in terms that I should have. I wanted to like LA, but even had he been legit, his arrogance was just a turn off to me. I'm not even pulling against Froome or hurling accusations at him for goodness sakes. I'm simply pulling for someone to somehow find a way to completely do away with cheating. That's all! I hear this world against American's on other types of forums as well. I get it. Everyone in the world hates us and judges the entire population on a small % of the population. Makes sense to me. We're all asses.

Edit: Even though the LA situation was a debacle from a cycling standpoint, the man did have a major impact on cancer awareness. Let the world at least give him his due.

This is typical, words without any meaning. Emoji speak.

Except dehydration wasn't properly factored in.

it is quite likely Froome still would have been high normal, but not as high as represented earlier.

From the article:
This is what I've been saying for months.

Cycling may be even more unique. I like to hydrate well, but in a race, it is time lost to stop for a potty break, so it is quite possible the elite athletes learn to limit hydration so they can complete the entire ride without stopping.

So, perhaps a urine standard should be based on time vs based on time between urination rather than actually even a concentration.

One might also argue the nebulous "performance enhancing" nature of the drug would apply more to pre-testing than in race testing.

I.E. Test for "Speed" after a race, but ignore the salbutamol post race. So, don't worry if a rider felt a need to puff during a race.

BLOOD samples?

He's been beating convicted dopers who served their bans. Any dreams of him being clean are just dreams. Only a matter of time before either he's caught, or the lid can't be kept on the PR machine any more.


Lucky for Froome, Sky were able to bribe the UCI to look the other way...unlike Ulissi and others who got banned for the exact same thing.

So, if a cyclist is fast, then he must be doping?

That is a highly "original" way of reading what I just said.

We American's (yes Americans) know we still have probably one of the few clean multiple winners. I can't speak for anyone else but a cheater is a cheater and I don't care what nationality they are.

The flawed WADA testing methodology is significant and may clear Froome. Dehydration is a significant variable. If the methodology was based on swimmers, that should have been noted and publicized last year, not just now.

When I was involved in endurance events during the 1970s in my late teens and 20s I had some wonky blood and urine tests -- proteinuria and other problems -- caused by dehydration. Didn't affect my participation since these events were such low level amateur races nobody bothered with testing. But it concerned my doctor when I'd show up with a weird grab bag of symptoms and wonky blood and urine tests. I just wasn't drinking enough and back then I avoided using salt on food, didn't drink Gatorade, etc.

Personally I don't care one way or another -- I don't dislike or distrust Froome. He seems like a perfectly nice fellow. I just find him to be the least exciting dominant champion in my lifetime, and that includes Indurain who wasn't particularly charismatic but at least looked like an unstoppable freight train in his peak. Froome looks like a pterodactyl that swooped out of the sky, killed the actual cyclist and stole his bike. It's still hard to imagine how such an awkward, ungainly guy with his elbows flapping like bony leathery wings can be aerodynamic.

OTOH, his recovery in the Giro and dominance in the late mountain stages sorta forced me into grudging admiration. If he's clean -- at least within applicable standards -- that's pretty good evidence of Sky's many marginal gains philosophy, as well as Froome's own mental toughness. He's starved himself 20 lbs below his natural weight to do this. If he's done it without the benefit of enough salbutamol/albuterol to affect his lean muscle mass/low fat physique, that's a pretty significant feat. Appetite has been the downfall of many otherwise great or potentially great athletes. And at the elite level, even the tiniest indiscretion in diet can make a difference in a field crowded with equally hungry and determined competitors.

^^Thanks for a rare thoughtful and interesting post.