Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Froome's achievement

On road, off road, Mamils, Club rides or just share your routes and tips
cinelli
Lemon Slice
Posts: 550
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Froome's achievement

#141855

Postby cinelli » May 28th, 2018, 12:27 pm

I salute Chris Froome’s achievement in winning the Giro. Simon Yates’s collapse and Froome’s riding from the field on stage 19 were remarkable. This sort of thing just does not happen in major races any more, where the leading contenders are so heavily marked. You can see an hour’s highlights in this Quest TV programme:

https://www.questtv.co.uk/video/giro-2018#5789936585001

Note Froome’s enigmatic reply to the question before the stage, “Can you still win the Giro?” “Nibali turned round a deficit of four minutes so anything is possible.”

Cinelli

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1074 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#141888

Postby zico » May 28th, 2018, 2:44 pm

What's your take on the drugs issue?

Personally, whatever the eventual decision, I think it's a complete farce that an Adverse Analytical Finding in September hasn't been cleared up before now, so a rider can win a big race with such an important issue unresolved.

cinelli
Lemon Slice
Posts: 550
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#142060

Postby cinelli » May 29th, 2018, 11:28 am

I agree with zico. I am completely mystified why this is still dragging on, five months after the announcement. Like a lot of cycling fans, with the probable exception of his rivals, I hope the case is dropped.

Cinelli

todthedog
Lemon Slice
Posts: 397
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:24 pm
Has thanked: 165 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#142103

Postby todthedog » May 29th, 2018, 4:01 pm

Zico +2
Not even certain Froome will be allowed to compete in the Tour

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5244
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3244 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#142242

Postby didds » May 30th, 2018, 9:41 am

+1 here too.

I cannot fathom why it can take so long to come to a conclusion over this. Presumably there are only so many samples to be tested, and have been.

there is only so much data to check - and there's been plenty of time to do so.

Unless (and those here that understand this better may be able to shed more light?) now there is a question mark the PTB are just checking data on an ongoing basis "for ever" until effectively they can come up with a a "positive" result/answer.

WRT to rifing the TdF this year or not, presumably "they" have to make a call very soon. Part of me thinks with the three grand tours in the bag maybe its a year to talke a rest ... but then equally - why wold sky do that after all?

didds

staffordian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2298
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:20 pm
Has thanked: 1887 times
Been thanked: 869 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#142255

Postby staffordian » May 30th, 2018, 10:34 am

It seems to me that the delay over Froome must be political or legal rather than technical, because as others have pointed out, the science is surely quite clear cut.

There seems a total lack of information coming out about this. Normally, leaks or off the record briefings ensure some information appears, but unless I've missed something, there has been a wall of silence since the initial information was released about the raised level.

Very strange, in my opinion. What do others think?

Ashfordian
Lemon Slice
Posts: 995
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:47 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#142266

Postby Ashfordian » May 30th, 2018, 11:14 am

staffordian wrote:It seems to me that the delay over Froome must be political or legal rather than technical, because as others have pointed out, the science is surely quite clear cut.

There seems a total lack of information coming out about this. Normally, leaks or off the record briefings ensure some information appears, but unless I've missed something, there has been a wall of silence since the initial information was released about the raised level.

Very strange, in my opinion. What do others think?


The initial failed test was leaked rather than released. This should have all been happening behind closed doors until resolved so we should not be aware of it at the current time. Additionally, because of the drug involved, it is not a suspension so the rider is allowed to ride until the case is resolved.

I sure that because of the rider and team involved means it is political/legal

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1074 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#142439

Postby zico » May 30th, 2018, 11:48 pm

Here are the facts, as I understand them, with a bit of conjecture of my own.

Facts - Last year in the Vuelta (Spain) Froome came back from a bad day to have a very strong racing day, but was then found to have excessive levels of salbutamol, recording 2,000 (later revised to 1,400) when the permitted level was 1,000. This is an (AAF) Adverse Analytical Finding (not the same as failing a doping test, because salbutamol isn't completely banned, riders are just not allowed to have levels higher than 1,000). Salbutamol is an anti-asthama drug, not considered (in small levels) to improve performance, but is known to be potentially a masking agent for other drugs.

Under the rules Froome is allowed time to provide a satisfactory reason for this high level, and if he doesn't provide a satisfactory explanation, a range of punishments could then be applied. If he doesn't provide a satisfactory reason, it's almost certain he'd be stripped of his Vuelta victory, and it's totally unclear what would happen about his Giro win.

Froome has said he and his team doctor have always being extremely careful about ensuring they don't exceed this limit, and they're just astonished by this high reading.

Crucially, there appears to be no time-limit on how long he has to provide a satisfactory reason. (It's been ongoing since last September) and it's not clear whether the governing body can make a decision if Froome/Sky say "we need more time to provide a reason".
During this period Froome simply says "I can't say anything yet, but will when the time is right, and I know I've done nothing wrong, and I'm confident I'll be completely cleared".
This process should have been kept confidential, but it was leaked to the Guardian.

Opinions/view - Apparently Sky have been looking at a whole range of possible acceptable reasons, and if they'd found a satisfactory one, they would simply have presented it by now. So the presumption is that after 8 months, they're still searching. It's reported that one option considered was to claim that Froome's kidneys only worked every other day, so any test results should be halved, but cycling's ruling body weren't wearing that one - unsurprisingly! It's been reported that since January, Sky's approach has been to widen the question to the whole validity of the rules on salbutamol levels, in effect saying "this shouldn't have been a rule anyway" on the grounds there's no measurable effect on performance.

What happens next? Well, lawyers are heavily involved in this, so Sky may be using their financial muscle to threaten the ruling body with massive lawsuits, on the grounds that Froome breaking their rule doesn't justify any punishment that would affect his finances or reputation. Froome's supporters also appear to be advancing the view that this is a pointless rule, and doesn't account for his great performances, so we just should be ignoring it all.

If Sky simply announce Froome has been cleared and refuse to provide their reasoning and rationale, presumably the cycling world will split into those who think Froome is OK, so everything must be above board, nothing to see hear. On the other side there will be people who think they've been fooled by drug cheats before, and once again the cheats have got the upper hand. Whatever happens, it's certainly a fair cry from Sky's initial ethos of not only being pure about drugs, but transparent and being seen to be above suspicion.

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5244
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3244 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#142705

Postby didds » June 1st, 2018, 8:50 am

cheers zico for that summary - so I suppose its in effect down to cycling's authorities to set a deadline with repercussions... because if its now taken several months purely because Sky seem to have (for want of a better description) taken a long term approach to saying nothing, how long before it becomes "irrelevant" or just "dropped/forgotten" ?

If anything these rules need to be tightened to have a time limit provided going forward so that riders/teams can just ignore such requirements.

As a Sky supporter fundamentally I feel very uneasy with all this obfusctaion that still goes on, particularly after the Wiggins triamcinolone stuff. For a team that is (or was?) so vocally anti-drugs, there appears to be some levels of greyness and less than open communications over these.

Of course the entire area is muddied because of perceived anti Sky/Froome/Wiggins sentiments amongst rivals, and the legacy that the likes of Armstrong have left us all.

I think IF Frrome and Sky were proved to have cheated then that probably would be the end of my pro cycling interest.

Last night there was a pro crit in Salisbury - I couldn't attend for various reasons, but I just wonder how many of those pros and semi-pros are on "something" as well. And I realise that is the the result of all of the cycling drug cheats - one ends up not trusting anybody racing a bike.


didds

UncleIan
Lemon Slice
Posts: 954
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:35 pm
Has thanked: 616 times
Been thanked: 456 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#144061

Postby UncleIan » June 6th, 2018, 9:06 am

Like Fox Mulder - I want to believe

Sir Dave and chums on "that" giro stage...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44372328

Interesting read.

Ian

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#149967

Postby swill453 » July 4th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Snorvey wrote:Resting heartbeat = 32 bmp.... : :shock: That's almost dead!

Could be partly due to genetics. My resting heart rate is about 42, and I'm no athlete.

Scott.

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#149975

Postby vrdiver » July 4th, 2018, 1:37 pm

swill453 wrote:
Snorvey wrote:Resting heartbeat = 32 bmp.... : :shock: That's almost dead!

Could be partly due to genetics. My resting heart rate is about 42, and I'm no athlete.

Scott.


In my teens, my resting heart rate (RHR) was 50. Despite now being much older and significantly less fit, my RHR has dropped to 41.

I expect the trend to continue, ultimately achieving a RHR of 0 :lol:

VRD

UncleIan
Lemon Slice
Posts: 954
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:35 pm
Has thanked: 616 times
Been thanked: 456 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#149982

Postby UncleIan » July 4th, 2018, 2:17 pm

Snorvey wrote:1 hour and 5 minutes at 400w? Blimey


Interesting read. Even if I didn't understand a lot of it. This stood out though...

On stage 19 he ate 1.3kg of carbs - enough calories for four men to get through an ordinary day. Even his recovery snack contains 2,500 calories


Blimey indeed!

Ian

Ashfordian
Lemon Slice
Posts: 995
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:47 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#149994

Postby Ashfordian » July 4th, 2018, 2:38 pm

Snorvey wrote:Additonal:

His maximum heart-rate was on the final climb - 159. His resting heart-rate that morning was 32, or one beat every two seconds. He has a remarkably low heart-rate but it's the same for a lot of elite athletes.

Resting heartbeat = 32 bmp.... : :shock: That's almost dead!


As they say the resting heart rate is not unusual for an elite athlete. For example Miguel Indurain's resting HR was 28bpm.

What is exceptional about Froome is his low max HR. We've seen it in data he has released before. You would expect this number to be up in the 170's or 180's as a minimum although when you fatigue you are unable to reach your max HR numbers that you achieve when you are fresh. Although he did say after the stage that it was a managed effort and he never went too deep and this proves it

Ashfordian
Lemon Slice
Posts: 995
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:47 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#150123

Postby Ashfordian » July 5th, 2018, 10:27 am

Snorvey wrote:Team Sky have taken the unprecedented step of releasing a cache of data to BBC Sport detailing Chris Froome's diet, power output and heart-rate from the Briton's victory in May's Giro d'Italia.


1 hour and 5 minutes at 400w? Blimey


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122


There's a good BBC cycling podcast on this which is the content behind the article

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10690
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#150215

Postby UncleEbenezer » July 5th, 2018, 2:17 pm

Snorvey wrote:Team Sky have taken the unprecedented step

Surely the more interesting question is, what information they might have released, and on whom, if the case hadn't been dropped.

Must be something pretty juicy!

Ashfordian
Lemon Slice
Posts: 995
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:47 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#150348

Postby Ashfordian » July 5th, 2018, 10:04 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:
Snorvey wrote:Team Sky have taken the unprecedented step

Surely the more interesting question is, what information they might have released, and on whom, if the case hadn't been dropped.

Must be something pretty juicy!


Could it be Team Sky have released this information to mess with the heads of their opponents by saying this is what you are up against with the TdF just around the corner?

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1074 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#150481

Postby zico » July 6th, 2018, 1:36 pm

Seems pretty clear that Sky have released this latest data to deflect attention from the AAF decision, and change the conversation. (This new data isn't consistent with the facts either, as they are claiming he made up much more ground on the descents than he actually did, but that's another story).

For me, the decision on the AAF is far more interesting.

To simplify (slightly) a good analogy is of a motorist being found to have excess alcohol in a urine test, but the motorist says "I only had one pint, so your test must be faulty. I know I've done nothing wrong". After several months, the authorities say "OK then, we believe you". This hardly ever happens, so when it does, it's interesting to know how they got to this conclusion.

In Froome's case, he has always simply maintained he kept within the rules for his intake "I know I've done nothing wrong", so the tested results must be wrong. WADA (World Anti-Doping Authority) rules previously stated, in effect "if you say that, you must prove it". Froome/Sky have chipped away with a couple of "refinements" to adjust his tested results downwards from 100% higher than allowable, but they are still about 20% higher than the allowable figure. Sky have also said there's some variability between Froome's input and his tested output on previous days.

The defence which has been accepted by WADA is that on the day of the test there are enough factors special to Froome to mean that the test can't be applied to Froome (though apparently remains valid for all other riders, at least 2 of which have been banned). Froome/Sky haven't proved it isn't applicable, but appear to have said it isn't practicable to approve it (because you'd need to recreate the 3 weeks of the race, have Froome being ill for other reasons, and also have him increasing his dose.

I don't know whether (or how) he has proved he limited his intake to what was allowable - of course, that's the whole reason there is a test, where the bar is (or maybe "should be") set at a high enough level so that people exceeding the test allowance have exceeded the allowable inputs beyond a reasonable doubt.

In summary, Froome is not guilty because WADA told UCI to drop the case, saying that for this particular set of circumstances specific to Froome, their test wasn't robust enough. He hasn't proved his innocence, and hasn't proved he can replicate this exceeded test result whilst staying with the input guidelines. The troubling fact remains for pro cycling that the "abnormal" result happened on the very day when he'd been struggling with a chest infection, had previously had a bad day, but recovered to have a sensationally good day.

The timing of this decision being released is interesting. Why now? My take on it is that WADA/UCI would have preferred to release their findings towards the end of the 2018 tour, just as Froome was closing in on another victory, but with the Tour de France organisers provisionally banning Froome last week, they were bumped into bringing forward their findings. If you want to be really cynical about it, if this decision had been released 2-3 months earlier, than maybe other teams would have had time to look at which other banned drugs were susceptible to this kind of attack on the methodology, and got to work on devising a strategy and regime to be close enough to the limits to have a good chance of a successful appeal.

Seems pretty obvious to me now that Froome is a certainly to win the 2018 Tour, but I expect it to be another stage-managed performance with apparent signs of weakness before a sensational performance near the end puts him back at the top.

UncleIan
Lemon Slice
Posts: 954
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:35 pm
Has thanked: 616 times
Been thanked: 456 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#150544

Postby UncleIan » July 6th, 2018, 3:09 pm

Snorvey wrote:Let's see if he get's anywhere near the top. I have a feeling the abuse that's going to be aimed at Froome/Team Sky is not going to be pretty - particularly on the steepest of climbs where the authorities / organisers appear to have little control over the crowd.


Yes, could get very ugly indeed. Hinault in stirring things up won't have really helped either. Expect the tour to organise some motorcycle outriders to stick close to Froome where possible. Or let him suffer as they never wanted him in the first place.

RececaDron
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 190
Joined: January 17th, 2018, 1:10 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Froome's achievement

#150574

Postby RececaDron » July 6th, 2018, 4:45 pm

It's clear that WADA's Salbutamol test doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny. Fortunately, Sky had sufficiently deep pockets to have challenged it, prevailed, exposing the faulty test.

I understand there's a stream of asthma sufferers - across all sports - regularly failing this test, some with numbers way above Froome's, very few of whom are being sanctioned. The vast majority's explanations are being accepted, but we publicly hear nothing of this because it remains confidential. Only the leaking of Froome's case means we've heard about this further example.

The fella who developed WADA's Salbutamol regs knows that the regulation is faulty:

Scientist behind Wada Salbutamol rules sided with Froome
http://road.cc/content/news/244597-scie ... ded-froome

Now it's out in the open that the regulation is faulty I'd expect a string of appeals from folks who've been wrongly busted by it.

And, within the next 12 months, WADA to withdraw the current reg while they attempt to reformulate it so that it achieves what it was supposed to achieve.


Return to “Cycling”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests