Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Current TDF odds

Chris Froome 7/4
Tom Dumoulin 9/4
Richie Porte 9/2
Nairo Quintana 6/1
Mikel Landa 14/1
Nibali 20/1
Uran 25/1
Bardet 25/1

So the favourites are someone who might be banned and someone who isn’t riding it.

What impact does that have on the odds for the others?

It should shorten them. But money moves markets more than events.

redvision

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Nibali (the only active rider who's won all 3 GTs) and is Mr Consistent, is offered at better odds than Landa - who isn't even guaranteed team leadership.
Got to be worth an e/w punt?

Na, I wouldn't put money on him. Look at how age caught up with contador last season. Nibali will be 34 this year and despite his podium at the vuelta, I think the competition in the tour will be too strong for him, even if Froome is not there.

DeVlaeminck

You can make a case against any of them including Nibali but who would you fancy ahead of him?

redvision

DeVlaeminck wrote:

You can make a case against any of them including Nibali but who would you fancy ahead of him?

With Froome racing I expect him to dominate again (even if he has ridden the giro) with Landa, Porte and Dumoulin fighting it out for the other podium places.

Without Froome I think it would be between the three I mention above and also G.

DeVlaeminck

If I was offered Nibali, Quintana and Bardet against those three I think I'd have the better hand...if Dumoulin rides the Giro.

darkhairedlord

Ladbrokes probably stuck a guy on the last climb wearing a sky jersey handing knobled water to froome. Anything to avoid paying out....

Vino'sGhost

If you won and the bookies paid out, but Froome was later dqd do you have to pay your winnings back?

ademort

Vino'sGhost wrote:

If you won and the bookies paid out, but Froome was later dqd do you have to pay your winnings back?

I think if somebody was going to cost the bookies a fortune then we would probably see our cycle friendly labrador make an appearance to cause the required accident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3p0dmeecwE Ouch

timothyw

Aren't there a few bookies that have in the past advertised paying out even if a stewards enquiry occurs on the horses?

Eg here: https://support.skybet.com/app/answers/ ... post-rules

Vino'sGhost

ademort wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

If you won and the bookies paid out, but Froome was later dqd do you have to pay your winnings back?

I think if somebody was going to cost the bookies a fortune then we would probably see our cycle friendly labrador make an appearance to cause the required accident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3p0dmeecwE Ouch

Sit betfair. Staaaay staaaaay staaaaay here betfair here rofl lolol

The_Boy

Vino'sGhost wrote:

If you won and the bookies paid out, but Froome was later dqd do you have to pay your winnings back?

No. Rules for all bookies I have used pay out on the result at the time of the podium presentation.

RichN95.

The_Boy wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

If you won and the bookies paid out, but Froome was later dqd do you have to pay your winnings back?

No. Rules for all bookies I have used pay out on the result at the time of the podium presentation.

Also the rules of PTP.

andyp

Is anyone else half expecting Cyclingnews to publish a interview recorded at a seance, where the medium gets in contact with Anquetil's spirit to get his opinion on the Froome case?

iainf72

It's ridiculous, isn't it?

Wellens comments are ridiculous too. This whole TUE = bad, mkaay thing is going to end badly.

redvision

So from today's press we now know that Froome has not made himself unavailable for selection. So I assume from this that he is convinced that he can explain the salbutamol levels.

So hopefully the situation will conclude shortly.

sherer

redvision wrote:

So from today's press we now know that Froome has not made himself unavailable for selection. So I assume from this that he is convinced that he can explain the salbutamol levels.

So hopefully the situation will conclude shortly.

haven't picked up a paper today, what have I missed ?

redvision

sherer wrote:

haven't picked up a paper today, what have I missed ?

Julie Harrington discussed the Froome case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycl ... 52451.html

"Chris Froome isn't banned and he is available for selection," Harrington told reporters. "There is an option for an athlete to rule themselves out of being available for selection and Chris hasn’t chosen to do that so under the rules of racing, he is available and is innocent until proven guilty.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

So from today's press we now know that Froome has not made himself unavailable for selection. So I assume from this that he is convinced that he can explain the salbutamol levels.

So hopefully the situation will conclude shortly.

There's no selection to be made by British Cycling until the end of the season. If he had suspended himself there's no need to tell British Cycling.

DeVlaeminck

Yeah I wouldn't read much into that other than him not wanting to accept guilt.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

There's no selection to be made by British Cycling until the end of the season. If he had suspended himself there's no need to tell British Cycling.

Yes I know that, but what is interesting about her comments is the confirmation that he has chosen not to make himself unavailable for selection - this is for sky and BC. She was directly asked if he had self suspended from any competition.

To me this decision implies he is extremely confident of being cleared.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There's no selection to be made by British Cycling until the end of the season. If he had suspended himself there's no need to tell British Cycling.

Yes I know that, but what is interesting about her comments is the confirmation that he has chosen not to make himself unavailable for selection - this is for sky and BC. She was directly asked if he had self suspended from any competition.

To me this decision implies he is extremely confident of being cleared.

But why would she know? This is between Froome and the UCI.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

But why would she know? This is between Froome and the UCI.

No idea. She didn't divulge further details, just that he is currently available to race in all competitions for BC and Sky.

Richmond Racer 2

Pros seem to be up for commenting on his pozzie more than is usual when a name gets hit with an AAF

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Pros seem to be up for commenting on his pozzie more than is usual when a name gets hit with an AAF

It's the off season, there's no news and websites have clicks to get. So more people are asking for comments.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But why would she know? This is between Froome and the UCI.

No idea. She didn't divulge further details, just that he is currently available to race in all competitions for BC and Sky.

You miss my point. If Froome self-suspends all he has to do is tell the UCI that he won't race, no-one else. He would have no need to tell British Cycling, so she wouldn't know.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

You miss my point. If Froome self-suspends all he has to do is tell the UCI that he won't race, no-one else. He would have no need to tell British Cycling, so she wouldn't know.

What about track events though? She said he is available for selection for all events. There is the track championships coming up later this month. I appreciate he isn't a track racer but in theory they could select him right?

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

You miss my point. If Froome self-suspends all he has to do is tell the UCI that he won't race, no-one else. He would have no need to tell British Cycling, so she wouldn't know.

What about track events though? She said he is available for selection for all events. There is the track championships coming up later this month. I appreciate he isn't a track racer but in theory they could select him right?

No, she thinks he's available as she knows no different. Maybe he is maybe he isn't. If they select him to ride the Keirin then I'm sure BC will find out.

Remember this was never supposed to be public. Everything will have been conducted on a need to know basis.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

Remember this was never supposed to be public. Everything will have been conducted on a need to know basis.

Yeah I agree. The fact that his test results were leaked is something which really has to be addressed after the case has been resolved.

carbonclem

Katie Compton (US Cyclo Cross Champion) says her gut feeling is that 'something more is going on'. This is definately the sort of data we need on this case.

I thought more telling is Froomey updating his Facebook profile this week to his Vuelta podium shot - seems to imply a massive level of confidence (from him or his media team) in keeping the win?

Richmond Racer 2

You have your work cut out, Rich