Chris Froome contrôlé positif à la Vuelta 2017 (ajout sondage)

[AlbatorConterdo]

Sinon, quelques uns ont déjà relevé des incohérences dans les données gracieusement fournies par la Sky :

https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/1014556027935739905

(comment on intègre un tweet ? )

faut copier le lien du tweet avec un clic droit et chercher les balises à droite quand tu postes

[AlbatorConterdo]

Fermez ce topic : il n'y a jamais eu d'affaire :

https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-rou ... tch/919314

[charlix]

source : thetimes

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.

“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.

“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.

“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.

[rbl85]

C'est seulement maintenant qu'ils s'en rendent compte ?!

[Richard]

Armstrong montait 12 fois l'Alpe d'Huez à l'entrainement.

Ca laisse beaucoup de temps pour récupérer en descente ça.

en une sortie

et ça fait plus de 13 000 m de dénivelé positif

Respect

[Noé]

Il ne s'est jamais rien passé, Froome est innocent et le cyclisme n'a jamais été aussi propre. D'ailleurs, j'ai toujours eu un faible pour Vegni et pour le panache d'Uran. Tout va bien.

[AlbatorConterdo]

Oui, je dois faire mon mea culpa :
Souvent, j'ai critiqué Vegni, alors qu'il n'a pas hésité à sortir 2 millions juste pour rendre ce TdF un poil plus indécis.
Bravo.

[Lemon-Curry]

Sinon, quelques uns ont déjà relevé des incohérences dans les données gracieusement fournies par la Sky :

https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/1014556027935739905

(comment on intègre un tweet ? )

faut copier le lien du tweet avec un clic droit et chercher les balises à droite quand tu postes

[GATO]

C`est le juge alemand Ulrich Haas, qui au TAS a condamné Contador et Valverde.
Qui á la AMA a innocenté Vroom Vroom.

[Fusagasuga2]

Je tenais bon mais là j'ai de moins en moins envie de suivre le Tour. Foutage de g***** généralisé.

[CrocoboyMr0]

Sky a donc payer ce pauvre scientifique australien au RSA

[Lemon-Curry]

Ca laisse beaucoup de temps pour récupérer en descente ça.

en une sortie

et ça fait plus de 13 000 m de dénivelé positif

Respect

Ma source ne le précise pas.

[Taosloop]

source : thetimes

The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.

“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.

“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.

“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.

Si ce témoignage est fiable, et que le prof en question est clean de corruption, ça change sacrément la donne. (et pourrait meme faire revenir sur mon jugement sur Froome) jusqu'à quel point peut-on être sûr que ce témoignage ne fait pas parti d'une stratégie de com orchestrée par Sky et sa toile d'influence?

[GATO]

C`est le juge alemand Ulrich Haas, qui au TAS a condamné Contador et Valverde.
Qui á la AMA a innocenté Vroom Vroom.

[rbl85]

Porte a dit que les données de Sky pour le Giro était des "fake news"

[Wombat]

Non mais le scientifique qui sort du bois pour nous expliquer que son test était faux parce qu'il ne prenait pas en compte la déshydratation (alors qu'il y a eu un taux corrigé justement en tenant généreusement compte de ce critère). C'est d'ailleurs débile de s'amuser à prétendre le contraire corriger des valeurs bios en fonction de la déshydratation même des labos de campagne le font en routine, si ça avait suffi pour innocenter Froome il n'y aurait pas eu d'affaire.

Et il nous explique qu'on devrait mener des études sur trois semaines à plus de 30 °C sur des asthmatiques. Faut pas aussi que le témoin soit quadruple vainqueur du TOur de France et s'appelle Chris Froome pour que l'étude soit valable aussi.


La vérité est toujours inchangée. Du jour au lendemain Froome a vu un de ses paramètres bio crevé le plafond sans aucune raison, ni justification apparente. Chose qui ne lui était JAMAIS arrivé sur aucun GT alors que depuis 2011 il doit être contrôlé sur 90 % des étape.

Froome sait qu'il a triché, l'UCI et l'AMA savent qu'il a triché, ses collègues et les suiveurs savent qu'il a triché, mais il n'aura rien. Après c'est pas un drame non plus ce genre de trucs arrivent tout le temps à des magouilleurs politiques criblés de procès qui finissent toujours par s'en sortir.

[Teteoo]

Pour être plus précis, il dit qu'il pense que c'est un moyen de noyer le poisson et que c'est un peu nimps, les pros savent comment bien s'alimenter en course.

[CrocoboyMr0]

Il aura l'air malin Richie Door quand Sicard va remporter le Tour en suivant la nutrition Sky by Fleury Michon

[marooned]

C'est quand même grave ce qu'il se passe. Ulissi et Petacchi ont subi un préjudice important en termes d'image mais aussi d'un point de vue financier suite à leur suspension. Du coup, ils vont certainement porter plainte contre les instances qui les ont condamné et leur réclamer quelques millions d'€ en dommages et intérêts.

[CrocoboyMr0]

Petacchi a plus dit qu'il était content et que cela prouvait son innocence