So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005
80 watchers
Dec 2017
12:42pm, 18 Dec 2017
25,405 posts
|
SPR
You wouldn't normally know though as the only reason you do is it was leaked. I don't think we can say it should have been sorted in a couple of weeks without knowing what it involves. Inrng has stated some of what it involves and that would certainly take more than a couple of weeks.
|
Dec 2017
1:25pm, 18 Dec 2017
3,557 posts
|
larkim
This is potentially one of those classic cases of the more we know, the more we should recognise that we (as the great unwashed public) are probably the worst to judge on the matter. Part of me can see a strong argument for complete transparency in dope testing, not least because it would give some visibility as to how much this sort of scenario is played out. It's no different that Mo's "suspcious" flag on his bio passport a year or so ago, or Paula R's issues with some of her bio data. There's a process there for giving innocent athletes a fair chance of exonerating themselves when the data is known to be inconclusive. But if we keep putting this data in the public domain, amateurs (including myself in that analysis!) will merrily google away and find out some "facts" which will generally prove what the searcher was looking for - either info which clears their favoured athlete, or which incriminates them. I know it feels incredibly naive to approach it this way, but there comes a point where we have to let the expert process run its course. We might end up having to accept that sometimes there will remain lingering doubts, but unless there is a really good reason not to accept the outcomes of WADA / UKAD / UKA / UCI panels in these matters (and for those bodies, I do generally (today) have faith in them), if they go through their processes and decide "nothing proven" or "innocent" then we should move on. Froome hasn't been allowed the dignity of fair process yet. I agree it does seem to be taking quite a while, but I'm not qualified really to offer that opinion! |
Dec 2017
1:53pm, 18 Dec 2017
32,018 posts
|
Nellers
Trying to get the basic facts clear in my head. Anyone have anything to add/dispute in the following? • The substance is Salbutamol (Ventolin) and reduces airway constriction in asthma sufferers but offers no benefit to non-asthmatics. It also hasn’t been shown to mask any other drugs which might be in the athlete’s system • It isn’t banned but has a limit on dosage. The limit in urine sample is based on estimates of how the body metabolises the drug and everyone is different so there will be some variation from person to person. • Froome was tested for Salbutamol every time he was dope controlled during the Vuelta (at least 19 of the days) and only had one single sample with adverse indications. • His sample for the one day was double the allowable amount but others have shown that the strains of Grand Tour riding could cause spikes in the way the drug is metabolised. • The level of dose that would be needed in “normal” circumstances would have been detrimental to performance (causing palpitations/dizziness in high doses) • All of that is pretty much irrelevant in terms of offence. The principle of strict liability applies and Froome is responsible for what is in his sample. If he can’t show that it was there by innocent means he will receive a ban and be stripped of his Vuelta title. • Others having similar results innocently will not be deemed proof. Froome will need to show that, in circumstances similar to those he experienced on the day of the test, legal dosage would result in abnormal concentration in his urine and I can’t imagine how they could duplicate the accumulated physical exertion of a 3 week tour in the lab to prove that. • If it was a deliberate attempt to dope it was a pretty inept one given that they know Salbutamol is easily detected by the testing and that it gives limited benefit/can be detrimental above the regular dose. |
|
Dec 2017
2:02pm, 18 Dec 2017
3,559 posts
|
larkim
Not sure this is entirely correct:- • All of that is pretty much irrelevant in terms of offence. The principle of strict liability applies and Froome is responsible for what is in his sample. If he can’t show that it was there by innocent means he will receive a ban and be stripped of his Vuelta title. Unlike something like EPO for example, presence at any level doesn't indicate guilt, it is rebuttable through PK testing. So it's not quite the same as strict liability. Though of course if he is found to have most likely taken a dose higher than 1600mg in 24 hours then he wouldn't be able to rely on accidentally taking it as a defence. Other than that, a fairly good summary. The final point is a killer for me - given that there is almost zero evidence of performance gain through inhalation of excess salbutamol, and given that it excretes within 24 hours (and is therefore bound to appear on a test when you're wearing the red jersey), you'd have to be bonkers to be trying to cheat using it. And Froome and Team Sky, despite everything, don't strike me as being that stupid. |
Dec 2017
2:13pm, 18 Dec 2017
12,050 posts
|
Chrisull
Nellers - your last point has another possible explanation... not one I necessarily buy, but certainly well within the realms of possibility, blood doping - he had a blood transfusion of his own blood, and forget he had high levels of salbutamol from when he initially took his own blood. (Common mistake to make - see below). It would also coincide with the fact he used it after having a bad day. Typically riders concentration of red blood cells is depleted over a 3 week tour.Levels don't come back up until the rider can rest. So that's why it is considered so difficult for a rider after having a bad day, to suddenly have a good one... it doesn't exclude the possibility, but a rider having a bad day often goes on to have a lot more, and.... context here for me is all. I Contador quite possibly fell foul of this with his clenbutorol failed dope test, as there were plastic residues in his urine, of the same type that blood bags are made from, as detailed here: cyclingweekly.com The amount of clenbuterol he had was not enough to be performance enhancing. So unless you buy the beef explanation (Vinokourov had the same meal and didn't fail a doping test), then blood doping is the most likely explanation for Contador's failure. Most notoriously Ricardo Ricco infused his own blood that had "gone off", and almost killed himself with sepsis. |
|
Dec 2017
2:16pm, 18 Dec 2017
32,020 posts
|
Nellers
That's an angle I hadn't considered, Chrisull. Surely to get double the concentration, though, either the levels in the added blood would have to be enormously high or the volume of blood injected would be almost another whole body full? Or am I oversimplifying the situation?
|
|
Dec 2017
2:18pm, 18 Dec 2017
12,051 posts
|
Chrisull
And before people jump down my throat for speculating too much and saying, well such a blood transfusion is very risky and would require the presence of a doctor/doctors experienced in that kind of field - where would a rider find such a person... I give you Sky's former doctor Gert Leinders: theguardian.com I draw particular attention to "offences committed when in pay of Rabobank team". Of course those were in 2009 and when he worked with Sky in 2011, he had gone clean I've no doubt. |
|
Dec 2017
2:21pm, 18 Dec 2017
12,052 posts
|
Chrisull
You're not oversimplifying ... but it is because the level of salbutamol in and level out, is not a 1 to 1 ratio (which will undoubtedly form part of Froome's defence). It is a more complex process and seems not to be fully understood...
|
|
Dec 2017
2:22pm, 18 Dec 2017
12,053 posts
|
Chrisull
Before this I even liked Froome (not many do), I had doubts yes but I suppressed them, but this affair for me is just too damn fishy.
|
|
Dec 2017
2:28pm, 18 Dec 2017
3,560 posts
|
larkim
Call me naive, but in this day and age I would be beyond astonished if that sort of operation was anywhere near a big pro tour team like Sky these days. We should be very cynical and suspicious, but I do think that that is making a leap far, far too far.
|
Related Threads
-
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017
-
Are you doping? Do you know someone who is?
Mar 2017
-
Tour De France
Aug 2020
-
Le Tour 2016
Jul 2016
-
Tour de France 2016
Jun 2016
-
T\'Tour in otley
Apr 2016
-
Le Tour 2015
Aug 2015
-
Le Tour 2014
Jun 2015
-
Tour of Britain
Jan 2015
-
Womens Tour Of Britain
May 2014
