• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

General Doping Thread

andruid

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
Why didn't you people bump this thread when Olympic champ Asbel Kiprop got himself in hot soup? :ranting: I didn't give the dope test people enough cash. He says, I have no idea what they put in my sample when I was in the john he says. It's perfectly normal for the testers to tell you their coming so you can make them 'tea' he says.


Anyway I reckon the Froome thing might not actually
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
andruid said:
Why didn't you people bump this thread when Olympic champ Asbel Kiprop got himself in hot soup? :ranting: I didn't give the dope test people enough cash. He says, I have no idea what they put in my sample when I was in the john he says. It's perfectly normal for the testers to tell you their coming so you can make them 'tea' he says.


Anyway I reckon the Froome thing might not actually
Click to expand...
Why do you have such a massive ****ing chip on your shoulder?
 
andruid

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
Why do you have such a massive ****ing chip on your shoulder?
Click to expand...
The issue I am trying to bring up is why such an objectively blatant breach of doping protocols went unnoticed here, when a seemingly lesser incident gets attention.
Is
 
Spikey

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
everyone at team sky was tainted anyway. it just would have been nice to say justice happen in real time
 
Spikey

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
StephenZA said:
Another cover up?

Chris Froome: UCI drops case against four-time Tour de France winner
Click to expand...
something stinks, that's for sure. basically Froome's claimed he had legit reasons for his test results, which fine they always do, and so there's actually a test in place to assess that claim, and they decided to not do this test for Froome because ???? and so are now just taking his word....? it's a bit nuts

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/opi...ling-of-the-froome-case-is-damaging-to-sport/

WADA’s contradictions

The dearth of information about why Froome was cleared is deeply frustrating. Given that this story has been huge news for months, and given that he is the defending Tour de France champion aiming for a record-equalling fifth title, why wasn’t the decision explained more fully?

Or to put it another way, why wasn’t transparency given the prominence it deserves?

WADA’s own communique offered a few additional details, but was also far from enlightening.

WADA said that it had engaged in ‘thorough consultation with internal and independent external experts,’ in coming to its conclusion, which was that ‘the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.’

Explaining that conclusion, it mentioned a number of factors specific to this case. These were defined as ‘a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol.’

WADA also said that it recognised that ‘athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose.’

However, the press release also included a jarring contradiction. Early on it said that urine levels of Salbutamol in excess of the decision limit of 1200 ng/mL would be “presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an AAF [Adverse Analytical Finding] unless the athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS), that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.” [italics our emphasis]

Simply put, a CPKS would require the athlete to try to replicate the circumstances of the test, then to inhale a legal amount of Salbutamol to try to show that an elevated urine level would occur.

That test has been done in the past with athletes who have been deemed to be over the limit for Salbutamol, including Ulissi. His CPKS was unable to replicate his test levels, and he was given a nine month sanction.

However, although WADA specifically mentioned in its communique that the CPKS is the route used to try to prove innocence, it then said that this requirement was dropped for Froome.

“In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).”

Its final conclusions were:

– the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;

– an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and

– the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.

And that was that.

No details about how Froome was able to prove his innocence without a CPKS.

No details as to why he was different to other athletes sanctioned in the past, including Ulissi and Petacchi.

And no commitment to publishing the full reasoned decision, which would lay out the evidence presented and the specific reasons why Froome was cleared.
Click to expand...
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Does it surprise anyone that a Pommy cyclist would be involved in a doping scandal? Their whole program suddenly became competitive in the lead up to London after being mediocre for a century, like they are in every sport.
 
andruid

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
Burgey said:
Does it surprise anyone that a Pommy cyclist would be involved in a doping scandal? Their whole program suddenly became competitive in the lead up to London after being mediocre for a century, like they are in every sport.
Click to expand...
It could also be a the govt tossed some extra funding so they could maximise the raw talent also. Then again it could be a bit of both. There definitely is cause for taking a closer look to see what is going on.
 
Johnners

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If I've understood it all correctly, the bit I find hardest to believe is that if it happened like sky said it did, why don't we see more false positives??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top