So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005

1 lurker | 80 watchers

larkim Dec 2017 11:04pm, 13 Dec 2017 3,545 posts	0 larkim I don't see how pettachi doesn't wash. The point is the rules prior to 2010 ref salbutamol were completely different to what they are today. Rightly or wrongly.
SPR Dec 2017 11:15pm, 13 Dec 2017 25,399 posts	0 SPR Not defending Sky. It's been shown they are boundary pushers and yes the team can be criticised based on the image they tried to cultivate. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't judge each case on its merit. In this case, someone with long-term asthma is over the allowable limit. We also know it was a one day thing based on testing, hardly Armstrong like even if he is banned. As I said earlier, there's a rush to condemn due to Armstrong. I don't know whether Froome is a serial cheat or not, I just know the evidence isn't there to show that ATM.
Bazoaxe Dec 2017 6:25am, 14 Dec 2017 12,239 posts	0 Bazoaxe Spr. The rules aren't about serial cheating though. One offence is enough.
larkim Dec 2017 7:09am, 14 Dec 2017 3,546 posts	0 larkim But we don't know if there is an offence yet. At this point in the process we really should know nothing and the PK testing should be being completed to conclude things.
Dai Bank Dec 2017 7:23am, 14 Dec 2017 4,803 posts	0 Dai Bank Good article by Inner Ring last evening, linky not linking atm, my button pressing prob. Loads of comments, some worth reading, some laughable, but despite Dan Roan and others asserting so, this issue is not defined as a positive test. Someone has made a massive cock up and Froome will pay for that in so many ways, whether he ends up with a ban, or not. Disney taking over Fox and ultimately a controlling interest in Sky will determine the future involvement in a sport with a chequered present rather than a rider,s current situation imo.
Chrisull Dec 2017 8:33am, 14 Dec 2017 12,035 posts	0 Chrisull Ross Tucker (yes him again) makes some nuanced and good observations this morning too here, for once: sportsscientists.com Briefly it's on how Froome might well have a defence, how dehydration can lead to greater concentrations of salbutamol, how it doesn't have a 1/1 input/output relationship when inhaled ,although he asks not 100% innocently, why have no other teams campaigned to higher the 1000mg level, when other riders have fallen foul? He points out that Froome's passport will give salbutamol levels in his urine, so say he was taking a small dose and loads were showing up in his urine, then going to a large dose might push him over. He guesses this might form the basis of Sky's defence. Of course Tucker puts his great big boot through it in all the final thoughts (not a conclusion, more like a Shakespearean - "so were they all honourable men" kind of thinking) when quoting other tweets from cyclists. We're forgetting the Occam's razor explanation, and if you go to the ex riders on Twitter, Rasmussen and Jaksche, then you have one there... Landis, Vinokourouv, Rassmussen all had bad days, then next day they were at their strongest. All offered weak attempts to defend themselves. All found to have doped massively after bad day. Froome had a bad day, and came back really strong the next day. So what might the Occam's razor explanation be? Should it be a vastly experienced rider and his doctor got innocently caught out by a freak result that has never happened before, or going on past history of other riders...? Yes it is possible, but as Jaksche puts it "#neverforgetthebloodbagleftovers" Like Armstrong, who I wanted to believe was clean, this is the tipping point for me, sorry peeps. Contador did exactly this (got away with it pretty much, let's remember there were traces of plastic in his urine too). Ullrich, Armstrong, in fact pretty much every TDF winner barring Cadel Evans (yikes!) is tainted, in the last 30 years. We'll never know, but right now it's easier/simpler to believe the worst.
SPR Dec 2017 11:10am, 14 Dec 2017 25,400 posts	0 SPR Inrng's article as referred to by DB, good as always: inrng.com
sallykate Dec 2017 11:46am, 14 Dec 2017 5,249 posts	0 sallykate There was also some discussion on PM yesterday - about 26 mins in - bbc.co.uk with an expert in sports asthma. Elite sportspeople suffer more than the general population (21% vs. 9%) because of the nature of the exertion stressing the airways.
mulbs Dec 2017 11:48am, 14 Dec 2017 13,325 posts	0 mulbs Ned Boulting in discussion on talksport at about 12.30. Saw him in Hertford recently and he was honest in his thoughts re Wiggo
Chrisull Dec 2017 12:01pm, 14 Dec 2017 12,036 posts	0 Chrisull The inrng.com article is good, it pretty much tallies with the Ross Tucker one, in fact they seem to be quoting from the same sources and studies.... The difference is that the inrng one finishes with a more balanced, but still damning conclusion: " Studies show that Salbutamol to spike in urine samples beyond the WADA threshold but these relate to others not Froome and merely suggest possibility rather than probability. Instead his defence team cannot merely say because it can happen it’s possible it happened to him, instead they must point to the detailed accounts of how much was used and then rely on the outcome of PK testing. If they cannot satisfy the UCI then Froome will be stripped of his Vuelta title and face a suspension and Team Sky could be engulfed."