Thursday, July 16, 2015

USADA Testing for Q2 2015

The USADA individual athlete test history is updated through Q2 (June 30), 2015:

8 Athletes Selected
14 Total Tests

Athlete Name
Test Count

Robert C Bryan
2

Jamie Hampton
1

John Isner
2

Madison Keys
1

Jack Sock
1

Serena J Williams
3

Venus E Williams
3

Donald Young
1

Running total for 2015 so far:

14 Athletes Selected
28 Total Tests

Athlete Name
Test Count

Michael C Bryan
2

Robert C Bryan
4

Lauren Davis
1

Jamie Hampton
2

John Isner
2

Steve Johnson
1

Madison Keys
2

Bethanie Mattek-Sands
1

Christina M McHale
1

Jack Sock
2

Sloane Stephens
1

Serena J Williams
3

Venus E Williams
5

Donald Young
1

63 comments:

  1. I always knew it. Serena is never tested

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it hilarious how Venus is always tested more than Serena. Have you seen her play in the past few years?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wasn't it this time last year Wayne Odensik got tested and it wasn't until December (Q4) that he tested positive? If i remember correctly someone commented that they were surprised Wayne an obvious doper hadn't been caught.

    ReplyDelete
  4. does it really mater how many times they're tested? The vast majority of them are using substances like HGH (micro-dosing or otherwise), EPO type substances, and various forms of testosterone that leave their system within a few hours. Unless they blood test each player immediately before and/or after a match the amount of tests they take really isn't going to mean anything.

    The only occasion that frequency of testing would mean something is for the few players that are are using muscle building PEDs and/or their common masking agents and it's pretty easy to tell they're doing that stuff away from competition based testing so the ATP/WTA would have to send a crew every week for players who aren't competing in a given week and that will never happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's informative when a player is tested more than their peers. It suggests who might be on the testers radars. In the case of venus, for instance, it's noteworthy that she is tested more than her sister over the past few years, when Serena is ranked higher... To me that suggests that USADA are targeting her for a reason... Who knows what that could be, but maybe something to do with her TUEs or prior physiologic profiles.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. yet, interestingly, she has been playing better lately and may have advanced further at this year Wimbledon if she didn't play Venus. They should be testing her more so that she can play better in order to make a few more malcontents

      Delete
    4. RE: Ancus, I guess that's true but then weren't there years where Radwanska and several others were tested like 8 times and Serena was only tested twice. I want to say 2011 or 2010. Somewhere in there. Not to mention you'd have to assume that the orgs truly have any interest in pinching any player who is a money earning draw and thus far I haven't seen any evidence of that.

      Delete
    5. ....unless you believe in the Nadal silent ban type rumors

      Delete
    6. This does not tell us which players are tested more than their peers. This tells us how many times a player was tested out-of-competition by USADA. It would make sense for USADA to NOT test players who were in competition and being tested by other testing authorities.

      As Serena wins a lot -- she is "in competition" much more than Venus. Maybe she is tested more -- maybe not, but we can't tell from this.

      But as Chas asked, does testing even mean anything? Given that anyone can dope, Serena doesn't have any advantage. In fact, a low ranked player who is not subject to OOC testing would seem to have a huge advantage.

      Delete
    7. @Chas... These are purely USADA testing stats.... (they don't test Radwanska; are you thinking about ITF testing numbers?).
      USADA don't share the ITF's potential conflict-of-interest in terms of athlete-generated revenue. They were the organization that went after Lance, so I rate them highly in terms of integrity. If USADA are targeting Venus, I suspect there's a reason. That's what I take from this.

      @MTracy... IMHO, these stats illuminate which US tennis players USADA feel need more focused testing, either because of dominance, or for some other reason. I suspect USADA know that OOC testing is what counts, and care little about how many IC tests a tennis player incurred by any ADO, since these are close to worthless.

      I get the point about micro-dosing, but ADOs have to keep testing somehow. And Evading detection while doping is not an even playing field. It's about having the most effective and novel doping regimens, and the best advice about how to use them with minimal risk of detection. That's likely to be the preserve of the richest athletes, unfortunatley.

      Delete
    8. I find the quarter testing data quoted on this site very interesting especially since there was a high profile ban based on them late 2014.

      During 2014 the testing figures are noted on this site for Wayne Odenik. These OOC sample were collected but it wasn't until the sample provided in December (Q4) that a prohibited substance was detected? Giving Waynes history and assuming that USADA had targeted him for ten tests because of this. Is it really an assumption USADA are indeed targeting some players more than other because they have information the public don't?

      Athlete Name Test Count For 2014

      Michael C Bryan 5

      Robert C Bryan 10

      Jamie Hampton 4

      John Isner 8

      Madison Keys 3

      Bethanie Mattek-Sands 3

      Christina M McHale 3

      Wayne Odesnik 10

      Sam Querrey 4

      Sloane Stephens 6

      Serena J Williams 10

      Venus E Williams 10

      Also it would be interesting for the same reason, to see if there is any change to the testing occurrences of the athletes based on the recent case of a TUE being overturned?

      Delete
    9. yeah my bad. I was thinking ITF stats.

      Delete
  5. This is the issue with you guys. When the players are not tested, you will say they protect them because they don't want them to fail a doping test. When they claim they are tested more than anyone, haters brush that as rubbish. When the figures show that they are tested more than anyone, then it becomes the testers must know something we don't because we are so sure she is doping she is doping based on visual proof we can't even provide but since at least we have enough imagination to make stories based on gossip that happen behind closed doors, we are certain she is doping. All of a sudden, the testers are not complicit anymore in covering up for them.
    Another issue is that the other insecure girls on the tour don't want to lift weight because at least it will help some of our novices to fully understand that any woman who has a predisposition to gain a lot of weight would be bulky if she lifted. The only people who don't develop muscles are those who refused to eat and are very skinny. So it is important that these women feed. It is not that they look any better without then muscles anyway. I would still take Serena before them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. USADA are an independent government sponsored organization whose financial health is not dependent upon the wealth created by the athletes they test. USADA have a history of gong after big name athletes. That's why their targeting is taken seriously.

    The ITF are not-independent, and are conflicted when it comes to anti-doping decisions, since scandals involving big names would harm the games reputation, and ultimately hurt the bottom-line. As Travis Tygart keeps saying, you can't police and promote. That's why their historically low OOC testing numbers have been criticized.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "USADA have a history of gong after big name athletes"

      It is always worth remembering that they caught the six big fish they were targeting by giving sweetheart deals to rather a lot of smaller fry. Six month bans which covered the off season, and also were backdated somewhat and the like. Heck some names were redacted as part of 'ongoing investigations' about which nothing has been heard again in coming up for three years. There was a political, grandstanding element to it, as there often is with the US justice system. Probably because they need the fuss from the occasional big fish to keep their budgets. The result of those choices, the redactions, the slaps-on-the-wrist is that Cycling stables have not been swept clean.

      It is also worth noting that, for all the testing of Armstrong that USADA did (they were after him for years), it was testimony rather than testing which exposed him.


      It goes without saying, or at least it ought to, that your second paragraph is right on the money. It boggles the mind that anyone can think having the players bodies operating the anti-doping programmes is a sound way of proceeding. USADA and other such properly independent bodies having sole responsibility and full autonomy to do what they believe necessary would be a huge leap forward. They may not be perfect (no organisation is flawless, all need to be funded from somewhere), but they would be a huge step up from the current situation.

      Delete
  8. Who do you think they should be testing? Other than Venus and Serena, the rest is a bunch of nobodies. Why should any rational mind dedicate any resources toward them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Isner, Stephens and Keys qualify as nobodies. They might not have a huge international appeal,but they're pretty popular in the US and really outside of Fed, Nadal, Djoker, Murray, Serena, Sharapova, and maybe Wozniacki and Azarenka, no one else really has a ton of international appeal or would qualify as the type of player who would generate ticket revenue on their own outside of their home country. That's kind of the problem with how the ATP and WTA market the sport. They make it seem like no one outside of a few players really matter.

      Delete
    2. They are still nobodies in my book regardless. It is not the ATP or WTA faults. Stephen and Keys have a whole 2 titles under their names if I am correct. They need results

      Delete
    3. You obviously follow the personality, a lot of people follow the sport. Which is sort of the point of this website. Do you think anyone would care about the individual's involved making millions regardless of whether they win titles, if nobody cared about the integrity of the sport itself?
      Tennis is a sport that goes back to the Tudor era and will continue long after you have gave up the ghost on your interest in Tennis Eric.

      Delete
    4. Obviously they don't seem to care so much about the one who makes the most millions if I remember correctly. I watch multiple disciplines of sports and I played 3 sports myself and that's why I tend to have better understanding of the world of athletes. I understood from the substance of the posters on the site that most of them mainly watch tennis and that's possible why they think women can't have muscles. If only thy ever watched many of the women disciplines in the Olympics , they would understand that a woman athlete top athele offers more than screams and pictures.
      Unless tennis is the only sports you watch, how are you going to watch nobodies when you have your own life, work, and other responsibilities? I watched tennis for a long time and I have seen good tennis and incredible tennis for a long time. I don't really know how I can start enjoying mediocrity anymore unless I am a tennis player or a tennis coach. I don't watch boxing anymore since the black heavy hitters are not in it. I may stop watching the men's tennis if Federer retires because I don't like the way Djokovic, Murray, or Nadal play the game. Unless Tsonga and Wrawrinka can start challenging for the top spot, I can't watch boring and bad quality stuff just because I am a fan. I am first a fan of quality before I am fan of everything else.

      Delete
  9. This is a balanced article addressing the doping allegations being leveled at Chris Froome.

    "Tour de France: Why are Team Sky attracting doubters?"
    http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/33587176

    An English corporation addressing doping suspicions about an English cyclist, riding for an English team.... If only tennis journalism had that degree of rigor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More patriotism than rigor, I read on that piece of crap.

      Delete
    2. You're right. Rigor was the wrong word. A lot of it did sound sycophantic, but there were also lots of references to doping and suspicious circumstances, which (in a British publication) might have been as far as they could go, given the constraints under which they operate. There's just nothing comparable in tennis.


      Portions like this might have been designed to make readers think skeptically.
      "As mentioned last week, some have never believed in his 2011 transformation from peripheral squad member, with no real form and a contract set to expire, to an all-rounder who would have won the Vuelta a Espana had he not been riding in support of Bradley Wiggins. His performances since have only fuelled the conspiracy theories, and the 2013 Tour champion has arguably been scrutinised more than any other sportsman over the past four years. Some of this is entirely legitimate, given cycling's past and the fact a great many champions have assured us of their propriety only to later be rumbled as cheats - Jalabert and Rasmussen, for example. A degree of scepticism is as sensible at the Tour as travel wash and sunscreen. It should also be added that Froome and Team Sky have not always helped themselves by occasionally straying from the team's noble founding sentiments, in particular the well-documented "zero tolerance" approach to hiring riders or staff with links to doping, or the promise not to use sick notes for medicine so that riders can race."

      Delete
    3. I guess there are no rigorous journalists in Switzerland

      Delete
    4. They shouldn't stop at Froome either. The national hero Brad Wiggins was clearly on his 'supplements' for all of 2012 and beyond. Though you'd probably be crucified for stating this in England.

      Delete
    5. So Froome has a magic parasite that shows up whenever his performance suffers. http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/froome-confirms-no-tue-still-treated-for-bilharzia-parasite_295548.

      Curiously, the treatment is debilitating and he can't train while on the medication. Yet despite a debilitating parasite infection that he claims he has had for years that requires dramatic treatment that means he can't train while taking it, he still performs at the top of his sport.

      Nadal should check his knees for these bilharzia worms -- sounds like the exact same thing Froome has. Lets you perform great for a while, then the "worms" come out, and you have to go see a doctor and can't perform that well.

      His manager explains Froome sudden rise in the ranks as: "Brailsford said it wasn’t until the bilharzia was diagnosed and treated that the real Froome could emerge."

      So, he had worms for years, was able to be a mid-ranked professional cyclist, but it wasn't until the worms were diagnosed on treated that he was able to "lance" his way into the upper echelons.

      Oh, and he also has typhoid, Urticaria, Blastocystosis, and asthma. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2673588/Chris-Froomes-secret-battle-Eight-doctors-six-clinics-four-countries-five-different-illnesses-remarkable-personal-struggle-Great-Britains-Tour-France-champion.html . Sheez.. If he were healthy, he could probably just ride the whole tour in one week.

      Delete
    6. Talking of the BBC and being open about Doping, this sounds very worth a watch:-
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3csy4rh
      Looking at the blurb, it appears to be playing solely on BBC World News in North America. Hopefully the rest of us can watch it online or similar, given some of the quotes that are being used to promote the show.


      Howman said Wada's estimation of the level of cheating varied between sports.

      "We have some guestimates based on some research undertaken over the last years," he told BBC's Hardtalk.

      "It's far more than we would wish it to be - over 10%. That is of concern because those being caught by the system is far lower than that. Not in all sports, in some sports.


      Asked whether he knew some of the world's top athletes were cheats, Howman said: "Not to the same level as the information we had on Lance Armstrong but certainly we have information that is being investigated about a number of athletes around the world."

      Delete
  10. If you check out Transworld sport on youtube, there's videos of the williams sisters, Nadal and Djokovic.

    They come across as prodigiously talented. They are too young (well certainly the Williams sisters are) to be realistically taking drugs. There's also videos of Roger Fed and Sharapova so that suggests that those in the know, those who have great insight into tennis, realised they had a very bright future.

    Nadal shows remarkable hand to eye coordination in his clip when he is playing keep-uppy with a tennis ball.

    Is that down to doping? No, it's down to a native ability for ball sports.

    Serena in her clip already looks huge for her age. Maybe she's just a psychical freak, born to dominate others and has exploited that to it's maximum ability.

    As for Djokovic, I recall at Queens a few years ago during the first set of his match against Nadal he was dominating for long periods, but lacked the confidence and consistency to see the match out. Now he is doing so.

    Is all this so surprising?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skepticism about doping in tennis is not about taking talentless couch-potatoes and turning them into GS champions.... It's the concern that doping is giving a fraction of highly-talented athletes an unfair advantage.

      Lots of players have exceptional hand-eye coordination, strategic skill, and amazing shot making capabilities... However, if they're not fast enough to get to the ball in good position (time and time again over hours), and if they can't recover rapidly between points games and matches, then they won't fully exploit their ability.

      Doping augments speed, strength, stamina, and recovery, all parameters that differentiate the great from the good in the modern game.

      Delete
    2. Based on the arguments accidentally listed, Federer ranks heads and shoulders above Serena in the doping department and that is why nobody has been able to tell me the physical manifestations of doping that Serena "the Queen" Williams displays. But since it is more about who do I like and who do i dislike, it makes sense that Serena is targeted.
      I rest my case.

      Delete
    3. Arcus: Well said. 100% agree.

      In terms of Serena, the physical manifestation is an average serve speed well above women of her height. It is on par with men of her height. Her top-end serve speed is above that of men of her height -- and well above women of her height.

      However, I am frankly glad that Serena continues to play well. Some of the women just don't even try out there. It is good to see Serena just smash the crap out of the little primma donas. She is great to watch in person. I wish she played Indian Wells.

      Just because I think Serena is doping doesn't mean she didn't earn it. I am equally certain that numerous other female players dope and they don't have the where-with-all to make it work. No question that Serena worked for everything she has earned. No question Serena oozes talent. I just don't fool myself that her performance is 100% natural.

      Delete
    4. Mtracy. There is a criteria you seem to forget though. If you see Serena next to Djokovic when they were dancing, you would have noticed how huge she is compared to Djokovic. In other words, she weighs more than the men of her size and it changes everything. No man with the height and weight of Serena can be a top player on the men side because his mobility will be extremely limited. So we can't really compare Serena to the men of her height. Also, if you guys pay close attention you will notice the huge gap between Serena's fastest serve and the men's fastest serve. The men try to place the ball more compared to the women because men have more ability to return fast serves, so it does affect the average speed of their serves.

      Delete
    5. Exactly Eric ed. Serena is built like a muscle man while Djokovic is built like a tdf cyclist. Both could be doping but using different regimes clearly.

      Delete
    6. The point I was making is not to compare Serena and Djokovic. It was just to show how huge Serena is. Do you really believe Serena's ass and breasts are so huge because of doping. Is that why Stosur and all body builders are flat? No no no. Genetics has to do with it.

      Delete
    7. What discredit you guys is why you are so sure Serena dopes even though you don't see obvious common signs od doping from her but you seem to know that Federer doesn't dope even. though he satisfies all criteria listed above and even more. Serena only has strength. Why can't she dope to gain all the other advantages that will guarantee her more than 30 slams?

      Delete
    8. Eric with the way things are going more than 30 slams is entirely possible.
      August 2017 will see her at 30. Though it will make a compete joke for women's tennis if Serena completely dominates for the next 3 years.

      Delete
    9. WTA lists Serena at 155lbs (70kg). http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/9044.
      That is not "fat." That is not "over weight." Yes, she has breasts -- most women do.

      ATP lists Ferrer at 160lbs (73 kgs) http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/david-ferrer/f401/overview.

      Both are listed at 5'9". 160 is more than 155, no?

      Delete
    10. I don't know how accurate these figures are. Serena looks heavier that Ferrer to me.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. So serena is bigger, stronger, and has more endurance than ever, while her opponents born ten years after her wilt after a couple of sets against her might. But, she has breasts so she can't be doping.

      Logic Eric Ed style.

      Delete
    13. Anyone can be bigger and stronger at a later age. If you gain weight at a later age, are you supposed to become thinner because you are growing older? I am about Serena and Federer's age so I know how the body feels when you gain weight. It is inaccurate to say she has more endurance. Women only play best of 3.

      Delete
  11. "lots of players"

    How come there wasn't a transworld documentary about David Ferrer then for instance, a hard working player who has all the athletic capabilities you suggest but has never won a grand slam? Or Tim Henman?

    Bit of a coincidence surely that all the trans world profiles are about the players who have gone on to dominate tennis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure of the point here. All top players look like ace players when they are Ali lined as teenagers. (They are all filmed these days, in case they make it big.). However it takes doping to make a journeyman top 10 or 20 into a consistent top 10 or 5.

      Delete
    2. How do you know they are all filmed these days? Do you have any evidence of this? Or is this something you've just come up with off the top of your head.The only videos I can see on youtube are Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Sharapova and the Williams sisters. Did they bury the Ferrer one?

      Delete
    3. Murray and Gasquet are on line

      Delete
    4. Because I've seen them, read interviews. Heck you can see ten year olds filming themselves surfing these days, I'm sure 16 year old tennis hot shots being filmed is just common sense. But hey refuse to believe it if you want. As for no Ferrer transworld doco, probably because he's a boring git and not marketable enough. He was also 15 about 18 years ago when there was far less common videoing.

      Delete
    5. Maybe but you provide no evidence of this.

      Don't get me wrong, I think drugs is a big problem in tennis but then it is in other sports as well. Tonight Usain Bolt will take on Justin Gatlin who has been banned twice from athletics and yet is running quicker now than he ever was while nearing his mid thirties.

      Personally I find it an utter disgrace that Nike rewarded him with a contract. He should in my opinion not be running at all, and should be banned for life.

      Cheaters sicken me. Sadly though it's hard to believe that Bolt, who has run quicker than any doped or non-doped athlete ever has, is clean either.

      That's the nature of sport these days.

      I do think though that this site has gone too much in the opposite direction to the way the general media like to portray it, it's gone too overboard with the allegations.

      Then again I watched the BBC coverage of wimbledon this year and the complete lack of an alternative viewpoint to the usual drivel about how wonderful all these athletes are, and how lucky we are to see them at their peak, was rather startling.

      You have Linsday Davenport on the commentary team for example, who was known as the tower of power, and she goes on about how great Serena is, and then she goes to watch her pupil Madison Keys with these absolutely huge arms just pounding the ball and hitting it harder than a man, and you just fear for the future of tennis.

      Interesting as well was the crowds reaction when Djokovic won the title. Normally when somebody wins wimbledon, the crowd go absolutely bonkers whoever it is, crazier still if it's someone they like Murray, or their favourite Federer.

      But When Djokovic won it felt like polite applause at best. The crowd really don't like him, even though he's won three titles now. The public don't warm to him and you wonder why that is.

      Delete
    6. It would seem that cheaters don't actually sicken you -- only people who get caught.

      Delete
    7. No you're completely wrong. All cheaters sicken me, those who get caught or not. you have to take that position, otherwise cheating becomes normal, we accept it and sport suffers as a result.

      You can see why a doper or a cheat would get to where they are though. Eventually the athlete/tennis player/cyclist is told that his rivals are all cheating. You can even imagine the conversations given to them by the coach, team manager and so on :

      "Look bud. your rivals are all on something. It's not cheating because you're already being cheated. Everyone is on something already. So you have a choice. Put yourself on a level playing field and just give yourself a little boost, or always be an also-ran"

      That's the excuse that most cheaters like Lance Armstrong make, that everyone else was doing it so the only way to compete is to cheat yourself. His team mate, Tyler Hamilton said he could either cheat or go back and work in a cycling shop in Colorado.

      He took the former option.

      In my view who is responsible for this situation where there is so much cheating in sports? Is it the athletes themselves, the drug companies who provide them, the doctors, or even the media who seem to turn a blind eye?

      No, I actually think it's us. The silent majority, who venerate these athletes and put them on a pedestal.

      Like yesterday I watched the Anniversary games, and when Mo Farah stormed off the home bend the crowd rose to him. I thought here is a guy who's career has arguably been tainted by his association with his coach and yet the crowd really don't care, all they want is to watch these superhuman performances and what goes on behind the scenes they don't really care about. If anything, it's only really the media that cares (or certain sections of it)

      To the masses, athletics/ tennis and so on are really just entertainment. You take away the doping and the best 100 meter runners might be running 10.5, then everyone turns off.

      Take away the doping in tennis and you don't see these gladitorial battles in tennis where two players are still thrashing it out in set five and playing at a superhuman level, when any mortal players would have cried enough long ago.

      That's why the sports association turns a blind eye, because they realise most spectators don't care about doping. Until that situation changes and the masses protest more about these freakish displays, then nothing will change.

      Delete
  12. Spain's national antidoping organization did 4 (FOUR!) OOC tests on tennis players in 2014, the same number as Qatar!!! ... Even the Mexican equivalent did 13......

    Russia's ADA did and astonishing 4 tests total (IC+OOC) !!!!

    Australia shockingly only did 4 tests on tennis players, and none were OOC...

    What a joke.

    https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_2014_anti-doping-testing-figures_full-report_en.pdf
    Page 63.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leaving organisations in charge of their own anti doping is Not the way of the future.

      Delete
    2. To be honest would any country want to discredit their own players? therein lays the issue.

      Delete
    3. Don't count out Frum. Sorry I forgot. One is not a true citizen.

      Delete
  13. Eric Ed, Frum is a Journalist, we're talking about official bodies who have the power not only to end the career of a doper but to strip them any professional achievements tied to the discovery of a banned substance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He wasn't always a journalist but I get your point

      Delete
  14. Pro video game league looking to start WADA testing :http://kotaku.com/new-esports-drug-tests-are-full-of-loopholes-1719817001

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Logged in to post the same news. Great minds....

      http://bit.ly/1MqRiDV

      Delete
    2. Mmm...ADHD medicine...sure there's a few who have a TUE for that.

      Delete
  15. Good piece.

    http://www.politico.eu/article/drugs-on-wheels-doping-tour-de-france/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Seems the recent actions of french cycling fans actions are just a bitter reaction to a British man getting the yellow jersey?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/11761735/Tour-de-France-2015-French-bitter-about-Chris-Froomes-success.html

    What do you think?

    Old man abuses Chris Froome:
    https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/old-man-abuses-froome-nearly-142310408.html

    Random spiting act on R9
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3173680/Chris-Froome-SPAT-fan-Tour-France-just-days-having-urine-thrown-face-Brit-closes-second-title.html

    Urine thrown at him - Jealousy and not a reaction to he's supposed doping.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/33581524

    ReplyDelete