Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem
Comments
-
cgfw201 wrote:
If Froome gets banned, surely Sky will pull the plug on the team if they stick to their word. That opens up a whole new can of worms.
There's just absolutely no way this is going to happen. A stain on them for sure but they'll be making too much money to pack it in.
Like you said - Brailsford will do what he does to make it look like they haven't swayed from their original mission statement and this isn't much of a big deal :roll:0 -
When have they actually ever said that though? It's other people saying it one their behalf.cgfw201 wrote:I’m bored to death of Sky pretending they are whiter than white,
All they have said is that they are going to be clean (which team says otherwise?) and they won't hire people with doping convictions.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:A major problem that no-one has mentioned yet is Sky's policy of not employing people who have had a doping infringement. They'll have to do a lot of spinning and/or reassessment to keep him on the team.
Because the substance is legal up to a certain amount they'll claim it isn't doping. That's how I see it going.
For the record, I don't agree with that, just think that's the way Brailsford will play it if the question is asked. It's a bit like getting banned for drink driving but then claiming that drinking alcohol isn't illegal, that sort of nonsense. That's what he does.0 -
RichN95 wrote:A major problem that no-one has mentioned yet is Sky's policy of not employing people who have had a doping infringement. They'll have to do a lot of spinning and/or reassessment to keep him on the team.
They'll throw the medical team under the bus.
Nibali picks up another GT taking him to 5“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Yeah. If they say they are satisfied that it was error not malice they could probably fudge it (it was a daft policy to start with). It would also re-open the possibility of hiring Simon Yates in future too.hanshotfirst wrote:RichN95 wrote:A major problem that no-one has mentioned yet is Sky's policy of not employing people who have had a doping infringement. They'll have to do a lot of spinning and/or reassessment to keep him on the team.
Because the substance is legal up to a certain amount they'll claim it isn't doping. That's how I see it going.
For the record, I don't agree with that, just think that's the way Brailsford will play it if the question is asked. It's a bit like getting banned for drink driving but then claiming that drinking alcohol isn't illegal, that sort of nonsense. That's what he does.Twitter: @RichN950 -
So, for the gamblers on the forum, do the odds on Nibali etc for the Tour look attractive today?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
If Froome was dehydrated when sample took, that would skew result or are the results adjusted for such things?0
-
There's a whole can of worms with these sorts of drugs in relation to acceptable amounts. An adverse finding IS NOT the same as guilt because the offence is committed only by the consumption of excess product, and whilst one part of the evidence is the absolute levels of the substance in a sample after the event, that is only one indicator of whether any offence might have occurred.
Of course the PR problem is that that is difficult to explain to the great unwashed, and even if you are intelligent enough to comprehend that concept that doesn't mean you will be convinced that the high adverse finding will necessarily be explained away through other factors - short of all medical science coming to your defence, there'll be plenty enough who will be cynical about it and if Froome is cleared will say he's got off on a technicality.2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)0 -
Opinion in my (non-cycling) office 'it's hardly a surprise, all cyclists are drug cheats'. Genuine mistake or not, cycling will never shake off its negative image.0
-
EPC06 wrote:t5nel wrote:inseine wrote:RichN95 wrote:
A better precedent is Ulissi - more recent and under current rules. He got a nine month ban. I’d expect similar here.Rick Chasey wrote:There is precedent that you get done for this too.
Petacchi tested over the limit for salbutamol, had it absolved by the italian fed, and then that was overruled by CAS.
I may be wrong but I think Petaccho would have been cleared under current rules.
Did Ulissi have a TUE? I thought that was the issue. Still if it's really 2000 it's a above the maximum allowed even with a TUE
Does anyone on here understand what the benefit, if any, of having so much in the blood stream. I would have thought there was no effect pas an optimum dose (i.e. airways open.)
Not really the point is it.
Not trying to justify - if anything pointing out how exceedingly foolish and amateurish this makes Sky/Froome look. This sounds like it was so basic an error and, from what little I know, there was probably very little to gain but much to lose!My bikes
MTB - 1997 Kona Kula
Hybrid - Kona Dew Deluxe
Road - 2011 Ribble Gran Fondo, Omega Matrix Ultegra0 -
-
-
What Sky probably need now is to point to correspondence with the UCI on the day of the higher usage, body mass and dehydration data which was externally validated (or at least very trustworthy) which demonstrates they were open and transparent with UCI over this (at the very least).
In fact, an ideal world would have some sort of post-race medical document published by all teams - a bit like the scrutineering docs that the FIA publish in between qualifying and the race in F1 which details any components changed whilst the cars are in parc ferme conditions.2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)0 -
I feel cheated.i truly believed sky were clean but it turns out they are just bending the rules. Road cycling now has only 1 course of action.Its got To be life time bans for all offensives and all medications must be banned. Shame on you sky.0
-
-
RichN95 wrote:
When have they actually ever said that though? It's other people saying it one their behalf.cgfw201 wrote:I’m bored to death of Sky pretending they are whiter than white,
All they have said is that they are going to be clean (which team says otherwise?) and they won't hire people with doping convictions.
Jiffy bags, testosterone patches, doping doctors, 2x bio passport failures, tramadol, wiggins tues, kenacort, now this.
Them pretending to be clean is really wearing thin.0 -
cgfw201 wrote:Another bit of wee-wee poor PR from Sky. He’s well over the limit, and based on the Ulissi case will get a totally deserved ban. Will be entertaining watching Brailsford try and spin another web of lies for the next few weeks until this unravels.
If Froome gets banned, surely Sky will pull the plug on the team if they stick to their word. That opens up a whole new can of worms.
I’m bored to death of Sky pretending they are whiter than white, when they are so clearly not so more than happy to see them crash and burn.
This.
And if he doesn't get stripped & banned then there is something seriously wrong.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
But then what about teams like Novo Nordisk that promote that fact that diabetics can still be athletes and lead a normal life.john1967 wrote:I feel cheated.i truly believed sky were clean but it turns out they are just bending the rules. Road cycling now has only 1 course of action.Its got To be life time bans for all offensives and all medications must be banned. Shame on you sky.
Would this ban lemsip and a lifetime ban if you took that before a race when you had a cold ?
Lifetime bans just promote going further into doping if you are going to cheat as the punishment is the same.0 -
In my view Sky, as a team, rider + principle + doctor would have talked this through and worked out the pros/cons/risks before making a decision. To say otherwise is plainly ridiculous. Bearing in mind what CF had said about the BW and his TUEs in the recent past, I am betting my house on the fact that he thought this through, backwards, sideways and lengthways before going ahead. He is too savvy an individual not to have anticipated this and this also applies to SirDB. I might also suggest that his Mrs would have had her say as well - and she would not have held back either! I also agree with the idea that it should be possible for those suffering with asthma to participate in any event in spite of their condition. Also, any analogy with alcohol is also ridiculous. I am not a huge CF fan, but even I can see that there is a lot of evidence to support a challenge to an outright ban. This was about treating an acute condition - not about cheating.
Just hope they wrote it all down.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:HaydenM wrote:If I was taking my blue inhaler that much in 24 hours I would need a nebuliser, (or this amazing new one I've got, if anyone is having trouble with asthma I highly recommend Fostair)
Do explain to the non-asthmatics.
If your symptoms were that bad that you were not responding to repeated doses of salbutamol through an inhaler you would be struggling to walk up stairs or lie down. A nebuliser is pumping the drug and oxygen into you. Bear in mind that if you are this bad you could be admitted to hospital and it could kill the old the sick and the weak0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:cgfw201 wrote:Another bit of wee-wee poor PR from Sky. He’s well over the limit, and based on the Ulissi case will get a totally deserved ban. Will be entertaining watching Brailsford try and spin another web of lies for the next few weeks until this unravels.
If Froome gets banned, surely Sky will pull the plug on the team if they stick to their word. That opens up a whole new can of worms.
I’m bored to death of Sky pretending they are whiter than white, when they are so clearly not so more than happy to see them crash and burn.
This.
And if he doesn't get stripped & banned then there is something seriously wrong.
Sky are hardly going to throw him under the bus in an initial press release, are they?
And as for hoping the team 'crashes and burns', isn't that a bit harsh on all of the employees?It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
8 puffs a day isn't that big a deal, but his urine sample suggests a lot more taken. I would have thought Sky's approach will be to demonstrate that the quantity in his urine does not relate to an excessive consumption that was on breach of the rules and was due to metabolism, dehydration etc etc. He could still get away with it but at least as likely he'll get similar sanction to Ulissi. Interestingly, I think Ulissi got a ban but wasn't stripped of results? So could be good news for Thomas, less so for Nibali.0
-
Why not?
They have always said that they don't condone dopers, will get rid of any dopers - past, present, future, staff, riders, etc - so first thing they should do is suspend him then move towards sacking. This is what every other team does.
He has failed the two tests and they have admitted that he was over the limits therefore breaking internal Sky rules and the UCI's rules.
This isn't conjecture - it's fact.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Ah, 'tis pity he's not one of those kickballers, when it would simply be 'so what, nothing to see here, next'.0
-
Matthewfalle wrote:Why not?
They have always said that they don't condone dopers, will get rid of any dopers - past, present, future, staff, riders, etc - so first thing they should do is suspend him then move towards sacking. This is what every other team does.
He has failed the two tests and they have admitted that he was over the limits therefore breaking internal Sky rules and the UCI's rules.
This isn't conjecture - it's fact.
The rules say that there will be no automatic ban and allow the team / rider to present a medical explanation for the levels found. That seems to be what Sky is investigating. It's not that different to Henao's passport anomalies. To suspend Froome now would be a bit ruddy weird!0 -
And just before he was going to not win sports personality again.0
-
Matthewfalle wrote:Why not?
They have always said that they don't condone dopers, will get rid of any dopers - past, present, future, staff, riders, etc - so first thing they should do is suspend him then move towards sacking. This is what every other team does.
He has failed the two tests and they have admitted that he was over the limits therefore breaking internal Sky rules and the UCI's rules.
This isn't conjecture - it's fact.
Isn't the limit for consumption - not what's present in the urine ... ? (can't be arsed to read the links to the rules/excuses)
If so, a concentrated urine sample - as would be expected just after the finish (when they eject their bottles with quite some distance to go) along with perhaps a final "puff" on the inhaler - or however it's taken by the pro-athletes - could go a long way to explain the result.
I'd hope that TS would have meticulous medical records for their team leader - including (perhaps) evidence of the volume of medication before, during and after the race along with records of what was taken, when and why.0 -
Seems to have done them just fine not having the records for what was in Bradley's Jiffy bag?Slowbike wrote:I'd hope that TS would have meticulous medical records for their team leader - including (perhaps) evidence of the volume of medication before, during and after the race along with records of what was taken, when and why.0 -
