|
Dec 2017
12:25pm, 13 Dec 2017
37,285 posts
|
While Raptor Knitted Socks by Night
The recurring bilharzia is about as credible as JT-L's atypical glandular fever.
|
|
Dec 2017
12:58pm, 13 Dec 2017
12,230 posts
|
Bazoaxe
or Tyler Hamiltons phantom twin
Not read all the detail, but this disappoints me....
|
|
Dec 2017
1:09pm, 13 Dec 2017
3,537 posts
|
larkim
Tucker is once again weakening his own arguments by mixing up facts.
Froome's use of a salbutamol inhaler was NOT under a TUE (and didn't need to be).
|
|
Dec 2017
1:15pm, 13 Dec 2017
3,538 posts
|
larkim
I genuinely think we need to wait and see here. The urine concentration of salbutamol is not a strict liability offence - WADA permits up to 1600 micrograms of salb. to be taken daily (within 24 hrs) and given how straightforwardly this chemical makes it into the urine I'd guess there's almost zero chance of Froome deliberately, intentionally exceeding this amount during the Vuelta.
The adverse finding he's in receipt of is for a level of salb. in his urine beyond the flag which says "this level is unlikely to be present without having taken > 1600 micrograms", but it isn't conclusive. There are studies which I've seen linked which clearly say that dehydration and body mass loss (as is typical in a day in the saddle in the vuelta) cause readings to be exaggerated.
And ref Pettachi - Pettachi was before salb. was removed from the banned list (2010).
Honestly, I think we need to wait and see how much Froome / Sky's "excuse" for these levels seems to stack up when formally presented. If their assertions stretch credulity then fair enough - bang to rights. As things stand, we just don't know (and probably shouldn't be aware at this point if we're considering natural justice).
|
|
Dec 2017
1:26pm, 13 Dec 2017
25,395 posts
|
SPR
After Armstrong, everyone seems to want to be the one catch the next cheat. It's a big overcorrection imo.
|
|
Dec 2017
1:29pm, 13 Dec 2017
3,539 posts
|
larkim
Agree 100% with that SPR. Tucker / Dan Roan / etc seem hell bent on making their journalistic careers through exaggeration and innuendo (and I know Tucker isn't a journo, but it often feels like that!). I'm 100% behind clean sport, but also fairness.
|
|
Dec 2017
3:38pm, 13 Dec 2017
12,029 posts
|
Chrisull
Well I'm still waiting on the jiffy bag contents from Sky, and I don't buy they don't know. I know people who were totally pro Wiggins, pro Sky, and that alone busted the deal for them.
|
|
Dec 2017
3:55pm, 13 Dec 2017
3,541 posts
|
larkim
Agree the jiffy-bag issue raises some concerns, but I personally can get past that given the amount of publicity given to the issue, the investigations conducted etc and the conclusions drawn - incompetence rather than doping.
I could be wrong, but that's where I prefer to sit on that one.
Froome had a bad day on 6th September in the Vuelta - got dropped by his rivals on a climb and was struggling. He bounced back on 7th and that was the day after which he would have had the urine sample.
Certainly the concept that he might have had some asthamtic issues on the 6th and medicated to resolve them for the 7th seems entirely plausible - and that might open the door to either excessive (inadvertently excessive?) use, but we need to wait for the UCI to judge.
|
|
Dec 2017
3:56pm, 13 Dec 2017
37,287 posts
|
While Raptor Knitted Socks by Night
I found the jiffy bag decision quite bewildering. The "incompetence" was neither plausible nor excusable. Except that for some reason it was both accepted and excused.
|
|
Dec 2017
3:59pm, 13 Dec 2017
3,542 posts
|
larkim
To be honest, if what you're suggesting / implying is a cover-up, I'd find that harder to believe - the amount of collusion that would have to take place for that outcome is quite significant.
|
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017
