2018 PRO thread

[ms6073]

Hilarious to hear Froome & Bralisford hanging their hats on "hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong".

Yes, it is quite a stark contrast to the team's formative years when Brailsford fired anyone and everyone who was even remotely involved with PED's!

[CrankAddictsRich]

Froome's HR/Cadence/Power data is being broadcast on Velon at the Ruta de Sol.. also Sep Vanmarcke and former teammate Mikel Landa.
Can't think that's happened before, interesting to compare directly against Landa.

Obviously a PR tactic to show transparency, but hell, I don't care, it's fascinating!

It may be the first time that power data has been shown for Froome and Landa, etc... but I'm certain that his HR data was shown at some point last year. I can't remember the race, but I remember it was one of the smaller, 1 week races early in the season. I remember the peloton was climbing a small climb, not going hard, but I remember that Froome's HR was something ridiculously low like 80 bpm or something and other guys in the peloton were doing 120-130 bpm.

[wingguy]

It may be the first time that power data has been shown for Froome and Landa, etc... but I'm certain that his HR data was shown at some point last year. I can't remember the race, but I remember it was one of the smaller, 1 week races early in the season. I remember the peloton was climbing a small climb, not going hard, but I remember that Froome's HR was something ridiculously low like 80 bpm or something and other guys in the peloton were doing 120-130 bpm.

Hmm. I don't remember that specifically, but I do remember a few times last year that race TV would pick a climber and a sprinters HR data to show the contrast of how easy the GC guys are going when the sprinters are fighting to stay in contention. So the context is important.

[Rondje]

Didn’t we see Dumoulin, Quintana etc in the Giro? Then you could also see the power diference in a climb dus to weight difference.

[KWalker]

Hilarious to hear Froome & Bralisford hanging their hats on "hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong". This is so backwards.

innocent until proven guilty? I remember that being a core principal of several Western systems of justice.

[Rondje]

It may be the first time that power data has been shown for Froome and Landa, etc... but I'm certain that his HR data was shown at some point last year. I can't remember the race, but I remember it was one of the smaller, 1 week races early in the season. I remember the peloton was climbing a small climb, not going hard, but I remember that Froome's HR was something ridiculously low like 80 bpm or something and other guys in the peloton were doing 120-130 bpm.

Hmm. I don't remember that specifically, but I do remember a few times last year that race TV would pick a climber and a sprinters HR data to show the contrast of how easy the GC guys are going when the sprinters are fighting to stay in contention. So the context is important.

Had to search for a bit, but found a Giro video of stage 20 that showed the top GC contenders data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLJY0V34Lqc at 35:20, no HS data but speed, power and cadans of Dumoulin, Nibali and Quintana.

[bilwit]

Hilarious to hear Froome & Bralisford hanging their hats on "hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong". This is so backwards.

innocent until proven guilty? I remember that being a core principal of several Western systems of justice.

The rule is that you can only have up to 1000 ng/ml in your urine sample. As a matter of fact, both his urine samples contain 200% of the maximum limit. That is proof that the rule was broken, is it not? Backwards.

[sfo423]

According to the sir: “The rule is the number of puffs. So did he take more than the allowed number? No. I am 100 percent confident that I cannot see how it won’t play out.”

Hilarious to hear Froome & Bralisford hanging their hats on "hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong". This is so backwards.

innocent until proven guilty? I remember that being a core principal of several Western systems of justice.

The rule is that you can only have up to 1000 ng/ml in your urine sample. As a matter of fact, both his urine samples contain 200% of the maximum limit. That is proof that the rule was broken, is it not? Backwards.

[Kjetil]

I am 100 percent confident that I cannot see how it won’t play out.

[spdntrxi]

According to the sir: “The rule is the number of puffs. So did he take more than the allowed number? No. I am 100 percent confident that I cannot see how it won’t play out.”

Hilarious to hear Froome & Bralisford hanging their hats on "hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong". This is so backwards.

innocent until proven guilty? I remember that being a core principal of several Western systems of justice.

The rule is that you can only have up to 1000 ng/ml in your urine sample. As a matter of fact, both his urine samples contain 200% of the maximum limit. That is proof that the rule was broken, is it not? Backwards.

Whomever the Sir is .... is wrong

It’s not number of puffs... otherwise they would find a way to get 30000ngml
Per puff

[bilwit]

According to the sir: “The rule is the number of puffs. So did he take more than the allowed number? No. I am 100 percent confident that I cannot see how it won’t play out.”

innocent until proven guilty? I remember that being a core principal of several Western systems of justice.

The rule is that you can only have up to 1000 ng/ml in your urine sample. As a matter of fact, both his urine samples contain 200% of the maximum limit. That is proof that the rule was broken, is it not? Backwards.

Whomever the Sir is .... is wrong

It’s not number of puffs... otherwise they would find a way to get 30000ngml
Per puff

He's arguing the technicality -- in your example, it would be "legal" if you "inhaled" the allowed maximum dosage but somehow defied all rules of physics and logic and magically returned several hundred times the expected concentration in your urine, then it would still be "legal" because they can't really prove that you didn't inhale (or inject) the allowed dosage (or in Froome's case, come up with a BS reason like "he had a kidney delay").

Like I said, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing in this situation is completely backwards.

[tymon_tm]

Froome's already racing, earth hasn't stopped, fans haven't boycotted the race, riders haven't used pumps to vent their displeasure. there's no single party in whose interest it would be to punish Froome. we'll throw some stones, fill some pages on various forums, but that's it, that's how far it goes I'm affraid.

[wingguy]

He's arguing the technicality

It's not a technicality, it's the rule. The rule governs how many puffs you are allowed to take within a certain time limit - the test threshold is the point at which it should be certain that you took more.

in your example, it would be "legal" if you "inhaled" the allowed maximum dosage but somehow defied all rules of physics and logic and magically returned several hundred times the expected concentration in your urine, then it would still be "legal" because they can't really prove that you didn't inhale (or inject) the allowed dosage (or in Froome's case, come up with a BS reason like "he had a kidney delay").

No, that's an incorrect characterisation. The UCI don't have to prove their case at this point, the test result does that for them unless Froome can provide substantial medical evidence that the test result could be produced legally. If he can't he will be sanctioned, the burden of proof is on him - but under the rules governing this kind of substance he does have the opportunity to try and produce some evidence before a sentence is handed down.

[sfo423]

Correct!

He's arguing the technicality

It's not a technicality, it's the rule.

in your example, it would be "legal" if you "inhaled" the allowed maximum dosage but somehow defied all rules of physics and logic and magically returned several hundred times the expected concentration in your urine, then it would still be "legal" because they can't really prove that you didn't inhale (or inject) the allowed dosage (or in Froome's case, come up with a BS reason like "he had a kidney delay").

No, that's an incorrect characterisation. The UCI don't have to prove their case at this point, the test result does that for them unless Froome can provide substantial medical evidence that the test result could be produced legally. If he can't he will be sanctioned, the burden of proof is on him - but under the rules governing this kind of substance he does have the opportunity to try and produce some evidence before a sentence is handed down.

The Q then becomes for the tested sample, how many puffs (in an allowable time) would it take to get such a sample? 10, 50, 250 puffs? Is that more than the allowable puffs? Yes> sanction. No> move on.

Could the TUE have been for a more watered down version of the inhaler, yet the dr's gave him a highly concentrated inhaler "by mistake?" Them is some hard climbs in Spain.

[dereksmalls]

Can't wait until my kidney fails so I can win a GT!!