-
That doesn't seem like a convincing argument.
It's not you he has to convince :)
While the Swiss study was technically doping (900μg in a 12h period, compared with the WADA limit of 800μg), it showed two things which are relevant, first a high of over 3000ng/ml in urine, and second the extreme sensitivity of urinary concentration to time. Taken together, they make determining the total dose taken from a single urine test look more like a coin toss than actual science.
1 Attachment
-
gbj_tester-
Given what you say about time, are A and B samples gathered at the same time or is there a time gap?
-
Of course but if it's a jury they won't be specialists. I think you make valid point.
However, I haven't seen much that suggests the prosecuting side will struggle. Given the failure of other defence teams.
The elephant in the room is why haven't you tested positive before and why haven't there been more of these breaches if it's a coin toss.It seems he has to prove himself innocent having given a adverse sample, that's far harder.
-
This graph suggests it is perfectly feasible for Froome to be totally innocent doesn't it? I'm reading it right arn't I?
Here, a study has a shown that a dose similar to what Froome claims to have taken resulted in a urinary concentration well in excess of both the general limit and the concentration presented by Froome.
M_V
GoatandTricycle
Scrabble
That doesn't seem like a convincing argument. However true it may be.