Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

tailwindhome

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifi ... oceedings/

Sending the Lads round seems harsh, but they'll learn him. #Belfastjoke

salsiccia1

Is there any way to block threads in the same way as you can block some posters? Other than the odd update (hat tip to TWH for his recent link, for example) this thread is now complete bollox. Yet I can't stop popping in.

pinno

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is there any way to block threads in the same way as you can block some posters? Other than the odd update (hat tip to TWH for his recent link, for example) this thread is now complete bollox. Yet I can't stop popping in.

You mean you weren't riveted to Britain's top biscuit on Channel 5?!

Pross

Pinno wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is there any way to block threads in the same way as you can block some posters? Other than the odd update (hat tip to TWH for his recent link, for example) this thread is now complete bollox. Yet I can't stop popping in.

You mean you weren't riveted to Britain's top biscuit on Channel 5?!

Did they include the Jaffa Cake like BBC did despite it categorically being confirmed in Court that it isn't a biscuit?

richard_t._biscuit

Pross wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is there any way to block threads in the same way as you can block some posters? Other than the odd update (hat tip to TWH for his recent link, for example) this thread is now complete bollox. Yet I can't stop popping in.

You mean you weren't riveted to Britain's top biscuit on Channel 5?!

Did they include the Jaffa Cake like BBC did despite it categorically being confirmed in Court that it isn't a biscuit?

Biscuit is as biscuit does.

mamba80

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

There are arguments both ways for confidentiality in these things. Yes it might be argued why should a rider's reputation be damaged unfairly if they are subsequently cleared but at the same time the more that is kept within limited circles the easier it is for them to be swept under the carpet as we subsequently found out with Armstrong.

Personally I come down on the side of openness - if your blood values exceed certain limits that information is released automatically - if that subsequently turns out to be for innocent reasons you are cleared equally publically. Froome fans may say unfair but if Froome had been a lesser rider on a small team he or she wouldn't have had the resources to give himself the best chance of proving his innocence - the bigger riders may have more reputation to lose but they also have the resources to challenge these results and perhaps avoid falling foul of these rules in the first place.

I really comes down to what you think the law (in general) is there for.

Is it to protect the innocent or is it to punish the guilty? Is collateral damage to the innocent acceptable to bring the guilty to justice, and if so how much?

There is no right answer. Philosophers have been debating this for centuries. Personally I subscribe to Blackstone that it is better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer.

as far as im aware, there is no law involved here, no crime committed, you are talking as if this were the high court, it's about a bike rider, no more, life will carry on.

froome is not yet innocent nor guilty, its presumptuous to assume either, he will have his chance to prove that he took a permissible amount and his metabolism produced a very high urine concentration, if he can, he will be cleared and exonerated.

RichN95.

So what was the final verdict?

If it wasn't a Penguin or a HobNob of some variety I'm appealing it to CAS

larkim

TailWindHome wrote:

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

Sending the Lads round seems harsh, but they'll learn him. #Belfastjoke

Interesting note in that about the rider having the opportunity to voluntarily suspend themselves, a route Froome has clearly chosen not to go down.

Obviously on the one hand that would say "I'm expecting to be found to have committed an anti-doping violation", but it could be spun as "I don't want to ride whilst this is hanging over me" etc.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

Sending the Lads round seems harsh, but they'll learn him. #Belfastjoke

Interesting note in that about the rider having the opportunity to voluntarily suspend themselves, a route Froome has clearly chosen not to go down.

I'm not sure you can infer that from it. The whole release is written with no specific mention to Froome. It's a very general piece probably largely copied and pasted from elsewhere.

larkim

Given he road in the World TTs after being informed of his AAF, I think its fairly safe to assume he's not voluntarily suspended himself. I'd find it very surprising indeed if he had voluntarily suspended himself without any public declaration of it - he can't just say "I didn't ride any races in the winter, so that's the same as a voluntary suspension" can he?

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

Given he road in the World TTs after being informed of his AAF, I think its fairly safe to assume he's not voluntarily suspended himself. I'd find it very surprising indeed if he had voluntarily suspended himself without any public declaration of it - he can't just say "I didn't ride any races in the winter, so that's the same as a voluntary suspension" can he?

He could justifiably have waited for the B sample first. And given that this was all supposed to be private he would have done that privately too (informing the UCI but not the public). I'm not saying this happened, but likewise we can't deduce it hasn't.

tailwindhome

I'd still like to see clarification on the time scales of the process.

If the rider elects to delay submitting a defence and keep riding, what happens?

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

I'd still like to see clarification on the time scales of the process.

If the rider elects to delay submitting a defence and keep riding, what happens?

You won't get to see anything.

If I was in charge of the whole thing, this is what would do.

At the time of the B sample CADF agree with Sky a date by which Sky have to make submissions before further CADF take action (let's say 1 March - it will be before any major race Froome plans to enter)

Froome quietly informs the UCI that he is self-suspending himself until that date (he's not racing anyway and it gets time in the bank). Self-suspensions do not require public disclosure.

On 1 March CADF decide if Sky's evidence is sufficient to drop the case, consultating with WADA. If it is they do so. If not they set a date for a hearing (in maybe a month or two) and formally suspend Froome.

If Sky/Froome want longer they can keep postponing but Froome can't ride. If the CADF more time to make a decision past 1 March, then fine but Froome can ride without fear of losing any result.


This would motivate both parties to get on with it, which is both of their interests. To save more time they could agree to take the initial hearing directly to CAS, which would prevent appeals. There's really no reason that this shouldn't be sorted out before the Giro.

larkim

RichN95 wrote:

Self-suspensions do not require public disclosure.

Interested if that's the case. Though presumably at the very least it would require formal disclosure to the UCI rather than just relying on the fact that you've not entered a race.

pinno

RichN95 wrote:

So what was the final verdict?

If it wasn't a Penguin or a HobNob of some variety I'm appealing it to CAS

Chocolate digestive and the Jaffa cake was included.

pinno

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I'd still like to see clarification on the time scales of the process.

If the rider elects to delay submitting a defence and keep riding, what happens?

You won't get to see anything.

If I was in charge of the whole thing, this is what would do.

At the time of the B sample CADF agree with Sky a date by which Sky have to make submissions before further CADF take action (let's say 1 March - it will be before any major race Froome plans to enter)

Froome quietly informs the UCI that he is self-suspending himself until that date (he's not racing anyway and it gets time in the bank). Self-suspensions do not require public disclosure.

On 1 March CADF decide if Sky's evidence is sufficient to drop the case, consultating with WADA. If it is they do so. If not they set a date for a hearing (in maybe a month or two) and formally suspend Froome.

If Sky/Froome want longer they can keep postponing but Froome can't ride. If the CADF more time to make a decision past 1 March, then fine but Froome can ride without fear of losing any result.


This would motivate both parties to get on with it, which is both of their interests. To save more time they could agree to take the initial hearing directly to CAS, which would prevent appeals. There's really no reason that this shouldn't be sorted out before the Giro.

That sounds like a sensible plan. If he voluntarily suspends himself now, perhaps he then gets a 4 month ban, in which case he is free to race from end of April. Good PR too if he went public? Plenty of time to enter the Giro.
However, that does not mean that he may not have the Vuelta result taken from him.

RichN95.

Pinno wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

So what was the final verdict?

If it wasn't a Penguin or a HobNob of some variety I'm appealing it to CAS

Chocolate digestive and the Jaffa cake was included.

Jaffa Cake - the Lance Armstrong of biscuit competitions. It should have been banned for life when it went to court to prove it was a cake.

RichN95.

Pinno wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I'd still like to see clarification on the time scales of the process.

If the rider elects to delay submitting a defence and keep riding, what happens?

You won't get to see anything.

If I was in charge of the whole thing, this is what would do.

At the time of the B sample CADF agree with Sky a date by which Sky have to make submissions before further CADF take action (let's say 1 March - it will be before any major race Froome plans to enter)

Froome quietly informs the UCI that he is self-suspending himself until that date (he's not racing anyway and it gets time in the bank). Self-suspensions do not require public disclosure.

On 1 March CADF decide if Sky's evidence is sufficient to drop the case, consultating with WADA. If it is they do so. If not they set a date for a hearing (in maybe a month or two) and formally suspend Froome.

If Sky/Froome want longer they can keep postponing but Froome can't ride. If the CADF more time to make a decision past 1 March, then fine but Froome can ride without fear of losing any result.


This would motivate both parties to get on with it, which is both of their interests. To save more time they could agree to take the initial hearing directly to CAS, which would prevent appeals. There's really no reason that this shouldn't be sorted out before the Giro.

That sounds like a sensible plan. If he voluntarily suspends himself now, perhaps he then gets a 4 month ban, in which case he is free to race from end of April. Good PR too if he went public? Plenty of time to enter the Giro.
However, that does not mean that he may not have the Vuelta result taken from him.

To keep the Vuelta the case will have to be dropped or he gets cleared at a hearing.

With my plan, the problem with announcing a self-suspension would be undoing it if the CADF drag their heels and push the dates back. That's a PR minefield. It would just be seen as someone only willing to suspend themselves when they weren't racing anyway, which is partly the case, rather than someone let down by the other side's dithering.

Good lawyering could get him on the Giro start line in a Sky jersey with everything settled - either with the case dropped, or a plea bargained no fault six month ban and Vuelta loss.

pinno

RichN95 wrote:

Good lawyering could get him on the Giro start line in a Sky jersey with everything settled - either with the case dropped, or a plea bargained no fault six month ban and Vuelta loss.

That's really not a good outcome is it?

larkim

With the talk of plans to get back into the saddle after an offence, you're assuming that he won't be completely exonerated? My betting record is poor, but my money is on a complete vindication with good solid medical stuff behind it.

joe2008

larkim wrote:

With the talk of plans to get back into the saddle after an offence, you're assuming that he won't be completely exonerated? My betting record is poor, but my money is on a complete vindication with good solid medical stuff behind it.

Assuming those medical records aren't on a lost computer.

RichN95.

Pinno wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Good lawyering could get him on the Giro start line in a Sky jersey with everything settled - either with the case dropped, or a plea bargained no fault six month ban and Vuelta loss.

That's really not a good outcome is it?

Not good for whom? Froome gets back into racing and the UCI get the case cleared quickly, cheaply and with a reasonable punishment. Let's remember this is just an asthma inhaler not Operacion Puerto

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

With the talk of plans to get back into the saddle after an offence, you're assuming that he won't be completely exonerated? My betting record is poor, but my money is on a complete vindication with good solid medical stuff behind it.

I'm just considering both eventualities, although my money would be on the other side than yours.

pinno

RichN95 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Good lawyering could get him on the Giro start line in a Sky jersey with everything settled - either with the case dropped, or a plea bargained no fault six month ban and Vuelta loss.

That's really not a good outcome is it?

Not good for whom? Froome gets back into racing and the UCI get the case cleared quickly, cheaply and with a reasonable punishment. Let's remember this is just an asthma inhaler not Operacion Puerto

Precisely, which is why a Vuelta loss is a bad outcome.

DeVlaeminck

I'm assuming any ban will be backdated to the offence. If he is found guilty then he's lost the Vuelta anyway and right now even a 6 month ban would probably wipe out the Tour, that's not in Froome or the UCIs interests and for what will be presented as a probably accidental offence would be a bit draconian.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'm assuming any ban will be backdated to the offence. If he is found guilty then he's lost the Vuelta anyway and right now even a 6 month ban would probably wipe out the Tour, that's not in Froome or the UCIs interests and for what will be presented as a probably accidental offence would be a bit draconian.

A six months ban from the date of the offence would expire on 7 March. He could ride Tirreno-Adratico (which starts that day).

cld531c

larkim wrote:

With the talk of plans to get back into the saddle after an offence, you're assuming that he won't be completely exonerated? My betting record is poor, but my money is on a complete vindication with big business behind it.

FTFY!

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'm assuming any ban will be backdated to the offence. If he is found guilty then he's lost the Vuelta anyway and right now even a 6 month ban would probably wipe out the Tour, that's not in Froome or the UCIs interests and for what will be presented as a probably accidental offence would be a bit draconian.

A six months ban from the date of the offence would expire on 7 March. He could ride Tirreno-Adratico (which starts that day).

Except a 6 month ban didn't start on the date of the offence. He was still racing at the worlds.

sloppyschleckonds

Pinno wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Good lawyering could get him on the Giro start line in a Sky jersey with everything settled - either with the case dropped, or a plea bargained no fault six month ban and Vuelta loss.

That's really not a good outcome is it?

Seems to satisfy enough fans though

sloppyschleckonds

RichN95 wrote:

this is just an asthma inhaler

Thats laughable to believe that.