"Having received WADA’s position on 28 June 2018, the UCI prepared and issued its formal reasoned decision as quickly as possible in the circumstances."
WADA's position is based on what? What does justify a rider having a level of a banned substance of twice the maximum limit? A rider with an incredibly suspicious background! A rider of a team with multiple doping scandals and the utmost hypocritical stance on the subject!
This is unnaceptable for the cycling world. What a disgrace.
Came here a laugh and boy was I entertained. All the outrage is laughable. I guess none of you have a medical background, but the medical evidence (and the consequence across ALL SPORTS of accepting it) must have been compelling enough for WADA's experts to accept Froome's innocence. This isn't a bunch of people with no knowledge (they seem to sit on forums), but actual scientific experts, who will have analysed all of the presented data.
Put your hand up if you know anything about pharmacokinetics..... thought not.
This is not a sad day for the sport - it is in fact a good day for ALL athletes, irrespective of the sport they perform in. We should be considering how many other athletes may have been wrongly banned if the test is flawed and how many may avoid being incorrectly banned as a result of this finding in the future.
but the medical evidence must have been compelling enough for WADA's experts to accept Froome's innocence.
Well, maybe I'm reading too much into the UCI statement, but they write:
"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."
The phrasing to me doesn't exclude a "would accept" going the other way. And since there's no mention of that, it looks to me like the UCI said to WADA "we know it's iffy, but we'd really not like to prosecute Froome, can you live with that?" And WADA answered, "sigh, how much more do we have to let you get away with? Ok then."
swsquires wrote:
Came here a laugh and boy was I entertained. All the outrage is laughable. I guess none of you have a medical background, but the medical evidence (and the consequence across ALL SPORTS of accepting it) must have been compelling enough for WADA's experts to accept Froome's innocence. This isn't a bunch of people with no knowledge (they seem to sit on forums), but actual scientific experts, who will have analysed all of the presented data.
Put your hand up if you know anything about pharmacokinetics..... thought not.
This is not a sad day for the sport - it is in fact a good day for ALL athletes, irrespective of the sport they perform in. We should be considering how many other athletes may have been wrongly banned if the test is flawed and how many may avoid being incorrectly banned as a result of this finding in the future.
The scientists are all payed up like any other employee, no problem to tweak the science with way you need to. So i guess you have some medical background unlike us, or you just believe the panel of experts because...well, they are experts?
Because if you have, i would like to know what you think could be that evidence that forced those experts to accept it. I am sincerely interested what can cause such a high levels of that substance in your body, i would thought if there is any easily possible ways, science would know by now and SKY could show this evidence much sooner. Or is there a possibility that this is the first time ever anybody had such a high level of it in body and can explain it other way then abuse of TUE? I dont say miracles cant happen, but let me smile about situation, where this first documented case ever happened to the guy who was mediocre cyclng professional seven years back and now is 6 GTs winner, competing for team known for strange past with using TUEs and turning nobodies into champions....
This is a joke. An absolute joke, even if it were another rider. Feels like I’m watching some kind of Black Mirror/conspiracy theory screenplay right here.
swsquires wrote:
Came here a laugh and boy was I entertained. All the outrage is laughable. I guess none of you have a medical background, but the medical evidence (and the consequence across ALL SPORTS of accepting it) must have been compelling enough for WADA's experts to accept Froome's innocence. This isn't a bunch of people with no knowledge (they seem to sit on forums), but actual scientific experts, who will have analysed all of the presented data.
Put your hand up if you know anything about pharmacokinetics..... thought not.
This is not a sad day for the sport - it is in fact a good day for ALL athletes, irrespective of the sport they perform in. We should be considering how many other athletes may have been wrongly banned if the test is flawed and how many may avoid being incorrectly banned as a result of this finding in the future.
The scientists are all payed up like any other employee, no problem to tweak the science with way you need to. So i guess you have some medical background unlike us, or you just believe the panel of experts because...well, they are experts?
Because if you have, i would like to know what you think could be that evidence that forced those experts to accept it. I am sincerely interested what can cause such a high levels of that substance in your body, i would thought if there is any easily possible ways, science would know by now and SKY could show this evidence much sooner. Or is there a possibility that this is the first time ever anybody had such a high level of it in body and can explain it other way then abuse of TUE? I dont say miracles cant happen, but let me smile about situation, where this first documented case ever happened to the guy who was mediocre cyclng professional seven years back and now is 6 GTs winner, competing for team known for strange past with using TUEs and turning nobodies into champions....
Yes Avin, medically trained. In fact I trained at one of the London medical schools that does a lot of anti-doping work.
These people take their work very seriously and I'm sorry, but they are not corporate shills to tweak the science. They spend a lot of their time analysing medical research, so know when it has validity or not (you are even taught the basics of this at medical school).
The body is a complex organism and the passage of a drug through that body can be impacted in a number of ways. If the whole system isn't working well it can impact the way that drug works (whether that be an aspirin you take for a headache, or a drug for asthma, or something more sinister). It is hard to know the specifics of the Froome case, but one could easily see validity in issues around infections, kidney issues, etc. Once you are in the latter part of a grand tour your body is not going to be functioning correctly. Look at how haematocrit (made famous by Mr 60%) falls over the course of a three week race, as do other important hormonal levels. In fact some drop to levels that could be seen as medically problematic, which is why some dopers in the past argued that they weren't doping as such, but just maintaining "safe" natural levels. In a way they were correct.
In fact, let me give you a haematocrit example. Back in my medical school days my haematocrit was measured at 53%. In the EPO era that would have seen me given an enforced 2 week "holiday" due to breaching the 50% limit - or I would have had to prove it was natural. A few months later my Haematocrit was measured at 43%. So, we are talking a massive change in a short space of time. It also demonstrates how putting a simple value as a limit can be meaningless - you have to understand why my haematocrit may have been raised abnormally (or was the 43% actually abnormally low for me). Was I dehydrated, or was there a flaw in the testing procedure, etc.
Sky clearly have money to look into these things. Look at the study they paid for to deal with the Henao situation. Just as how the results of that research will be beneficial to other athletes coming from high altitude countries, the results of the Froome research will probably be beneficial across all sport. As I said before, this is a win for everyone.
As for the turnaround of Froome from 7 years ago, that is irrelevant to this case. A lot can change very quickly. We all know about his parasite infection, which will have made a massive difference. Then there is just the simple argument that an athlete finally "gets it". They start taking their profession seriously, their diet, their training, etc. Similarly we see athletes who are amazing for a couple of years and then go the other way - not through lack of ability, but getting complacent/lazy/etc.
I'm so done with this shitshow of a sport.
As a cycling spectator you get used to closing your eyes regarding some stuff, but this is too much for me to handle. I have no interest anymore in torturing myself by watching this circus. I'm baffled how anyone can say this is a good day for the sport, how can people be so ignorant regarding all the facts that are known and the history of the sport?
Froome will go on to win the Tour and I have no doubt that his results will stand the test of times like he said. This is a terrible day for cycling.
swsquires wrote:
Came here a laugh and boy was I entertained. All the outrage is laughable. I guess none of you have a medical background, but the medical evidence (and the consequence across ALL SPORTS of accepting it) must have been compelling enough for WADA's experts to accept Froome's innocence. This isn't a bunch of people with no knowledge (they seem to sit on forums), but actual scientific experts, who will have analysed all of the presented data.
Put your hand up if you know anything about pharmacokinetics..... thought not.
This is not a sad day for the sport - it is in fact a good day for ALL athletes, irrespective of the sport they perform in. We should be considering how many other athletes may have been wrongly banned if the test is flawed and how many may avoid being incorrectly banned as a result of this finding in the future.
The scientists are all payed up like any other employee, no problem to tweak the science with way you need to. So i guess you have some medical background unlike us, or you just believe the panel of experts because...well, they are experts?
Because if you have, i would like to know what you think could be that evidence that forced those experts to accept it. I am sincerely interested what can cause such a high levels of that substance in your body, i would thought if there is any easily possible ways, science would know by now and SKY could show this evidence much sooner. Or is there a possibility that this is the first time ever anybody had such a high level of it in body and can explain it other way then abuse of TUE? I dont say miracles cant happen, but let me smile about situation, where this first documented case ever happened to the guy who was mediocre cyclng professional seven years back and now is 6 GTs winner, competing for team known for strange past with using TUEs and turning nobodies into champions....
Yes Avin, medically trained. In fact I trained at one of the London medical schools that does a lot of anti-doping work.
++++
Thanks for the answer mate, good to have the emotion less one. You seem to know what you are talking about, still it is not enought to strip me of my scepticism, when this is about Froome and SKY, with their past concerning Wiggins, anti-doping protocols and such. But thanks anyway...
swsquires wrote:
It is hard to know the specifics of the Froome case, but one could easily see validity in issues around infections, kidney issues, etc.
So you're saying that if he was sick that could explain his analytical findings? Please go on and enlighten us all how our lord and savior Chris Froome managed to win a mountain stage in one of the toughest events in one of the most extremely demanding sports on earth, defeating all the other contenders. All of this while being sick!! It's bullocks! Where's the science, the logical reasoning behind that?
swsquires wrote:
Sky clearly have money to look into these things.
Indeed
swsquires wrote:
As for the turnaround of Froome from 7 years ago, that is irrelevant to this case. A lot can change very quickly. We all know about his parasite infection, which will have made a massive difference.
Again your argument that a disease makes an individual stronger has little logical background.
swsquires wrote:
Then there is just the simple argument that an athlete finally "gets it". They start taking their profession seriously, their diet, their training, etc. Similarly we see athletes who are amazing for a couple of years and then go the other way - not through lack of ability, but getting complacent/lazy/etc.
As it would to any other rider. It doesn't explain how someone who barely was able to finish a Grand Tour somehow starts demolishing the rest of the field - especially when most of them happen to be doping convicted riders
It gives me shivers to think that there are "medical trained" people who are able to accept this load of crap without any hint of critical reasoning.
Bikex wrote:
I'm so done with this shitshow of a sport.
As a cycling spectator you get used to closing your eyes regarding some stuff, but this is too much for me to handle. I have no interest anymore in torturing myself by watching this circus. I'm baffled how anyone can say this is a good day for the sport, how can people be so ignorant regarding all the facts that are known and the history of the sport?
Froome will go on to win the Tour and I have no doubt that his results will stand the test of times like he said. This is a terrible day for cycling.
Pretty much where I stand ,I will not be watching the circus in a few days .
Petacchi and ulissi should sue for loss of earnings
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.
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.
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).
Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:
So basically as they cant reproduce the state of things how it was that day, so becasue of that Mr. Froome could be right with his explanation? Sorry, but
I'm tempted to make a Facebook event "pull Froome off his bike at Alpe d'Huez, but I fear I might get a police visit if the event gets too big (which I think it will).
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
So basically as they cant reproduce the state of things how it was that day, so becasue of that Mr. Froome could be right with his explanation? Sorry, but
It's the professional cycling version of "the dog just ate my homework" excuse.
The only difference is that Froome is saying:"You can't prove I'm lying" and WADA is replying: "You're absolutely right, I can't"
swsquires wrote:
It is hard to know the specifics of the Froome case, but one could easily see validity in issues around infections, kidney issues, etc.
So you're saying that if he was sick that could explain his analytical findings? Please go on and enlighten us all how our lord and savior Chris Froome managed to win a mountain stage in one of the toughest events in one of the most extremely demanding sports on earth, defeating all the other contenders. All of this while being sick!! It's bullocks! Where's the science, the logical reasoning behind that?
swsquires wrote:
Sky clearly have money to look into these things.
Indeed
swsquires wrote:
As for the turnaround of Froome from 7 years ago, that is irrelevant to this case. A lot can change very quickly. We all know about his parasite infection, which will have made a massive difference.
Again your argument that a disease makes an individual stronger has little logical background.
swsquires wrote:
Then there is just the simple argument that an athlete finally "gets it". They start taking their profession seriously, their diet, their training, etc. Similarly we see athletes who are amazing for a couple of years and then go the other way - not through lack of ability, but getting complacent/lazy/etc.
As it would to any other rider. It doesn't explain how someone who barely was able to finish a Grand Tour somehow starts demolishing the rest of the field - especially when most of them happen to be doping convicted riders
It gives me shivers to think that there are "medical trained" people who are able to accept this load of crap without any hint of critical reasoning.
Your last comment in particular made me laugh. Someone who looks at things from a scientific perspective rather than clear emotional hatred will see things clearly.
Am I saying Froome or any other cyclist is clean? No. However, do I have a better understanding of physiology and the effects of drugs (whether banned or not).... yes.
The point is that by the end of a three week Tour every single rider is compromised. They will all be "sick" to one degree or another. Look at Pinot in the Giro. That will have developed over a period, rather than just appearing suddenly, so he was performing quite well while actually sick, until it really took hold. Some of the cyclists will end a tour covered in cold sores and have a severely compromised immune system. Many will end a Tour with kidney and intestinal issues due to a combination of their daily diet and the three weeks of continuous effort.
The use of the term "sick" is loose though. Many of the issues will not necessarily affect performance, but will impact how the body metabolises drugs (as was the case here). A number of riders will recount how after they finished a tour they were in bed "sick" for a number of days. Again, this is something they will have already been suffering with into the last few days of the race.
I'm really sorry, but it is so sad that people with little or no knowledge seem to think they know better. That is like someone thinking they can do better buying/selling shares than a Fund Manager who has a team of analysts and direct access to the companies they invest in.
Regarding your comment about the parasite, the simple scientific reasoning would be that while he had the parasite it may have affected his performance, even if only by 1 or 2 percent. Once rid of it his body was no longer compromised and thus his performance improved. You have to remember that this isn't a simple 1+1=2. That increased performance doesn't just translate into your in race performance. It means that you are no longer getting as tired from training, so can train more and harder, which translates into more performance gains. Simple physiology really.
I'm not going to make any more comments because there is clearly too much hatred here. My aim was just to try to add some logical reasoning as someone that has actually been trained in the medical field. Clearly none of you want to assess the validity of your views - you just want to moan about how the sport has been destroyed and things like that.
ok, but in which other GT Froome got such level of Salbutamol in urine? Argumenting like this is expected that Froome is reaching sometimes 1900/1600, why just a measurement 2000? and then nothing?
I support a lot you say, swsquires, I'll add that there isn't a clear line between clean and doper, there is plenty of "legal doping" which surely every serious athlete uses and it can be a thin line between legal and illegal.
However, you undercut yourself with:
That is like someone thinking they can do better buying/selling shares than a Fund Manager who has a team of analysts and direct access to the companies they invest in.
I believe monkeys beat fund managers in every test so far.
Back to Froome, it's surprising it took this long. His main defence was what he said right from the start, he used most of his daily dosis right before the interview and doping test and that would lead to a high reading even though he stayed below the daily limit. It's odd that they can't test the core of that theory, seems pretty straightforward to me. Possibly they even did such a test and didn't find a higher reading with a late intake, so Sky says that's not enough, you'd have to replicate Froome's condition on the day.
