Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

RichN95.

He hasn’t competed either. I would suggest that not racing is enough to be considered as self-suspending. I don’t think there’s a formal process.

tim000

so the UCI want someone else to do their dirty work for them .

blazing_saddles

Dave l'Apartement?
Does he rent out his vacant space by the week or month?
Lets not follow our rules, lets all be French.

RichN95 wrote:

He hasn’t competed either. I would suggest that not racing is enough to be considered as self-suspending. I don’t think there’s a formal process.

When Sky suspended Moscon for 6 weeks, there was outcry from certain parties decrying the fact that the rider was not due to race during the period. It wasn't a suspension in their eyes.
Many of the same individuals have been calling for suspension of Froome since this story broke, even though he had no intention of racing for 3 months.
Which leads one to the obvious conclusion that for some, it is about establishing the presumption of guilt.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

He hasn’t competed either. I would suggest that not racing is enough to be considered as self-suspending. I don’t think there’s a formal process.

When Sky suspended Moscon for 6 weeks, there was outcry from certain parties decrying the fact that the rider was not due to race during the period. It wasn't a suspension in their eyes.
Many of the same individuals have been calling for suspension of Froome since this story broke, even though he had no intention of racing for 3 months.
Which leads one to the obvious conclusion that for some, it is about establishing the presumption of guilt.

Similarly those that demanded that anti-doping be made independent of the UCI management are now angry that Lappartient is not getting involved.

Mad_Malx

davidof wrote:

UCI Boss calls on someone to ban Froome
PARIS (AFP)



Four-time Tour de France winner Chris Froome should be banned according to world cycling governing body chief Dave l'Apartement

“Someone should ban Froome,” l'Apartement told French regional newspaper L'Immonde. “Now, far be it from me to stick my oar in and I don't want to comment on the rider’s guilt, but it would be easier for a French rider to win the 2018 Tour if Froome didn't start. Quite apart from that, I think that’s what the other riders want. They’re fed up with the lanky streak of misery winning everything, it is just not fair!”

l'Apartement said that regardless of Froome’s innocence or guilt, until he is either exonerated or found to have broken the rules, he should be banned

“Whether the test result is abnormal or not, either naturally or fraudulently, it’s awful: in the eyes of the French public he’s already guilty and should be banned from cycling, I don't really give a shoot about the details” said the UCI chief.

Froome’s main rivals have hit out at cycling authorities for failing to ban the reigning Tour and Vuelta a Espana champion, who tested for elevated levels of the asthma medication salbutamol during his victory in Spain’s Grand Tour last September.

French rider Roman Bidet (Ag2r-La Mondiale) said Froome had made cycling a “a laughing stock” earlier this week over the affair.

Bidet went as far to suggest that if Froome wasn't banned, the rider himself should voluntarily “retire” from racing to give everyone a fair crack. l'Apartement said that “Bidet is only saying out loud what everyone’s thinking under their breath.”

Very good

m.r.m.

Wonder how much longer this will run. Froome seems oddly chill about it. Posting on social media like nothing is amiss. The entire thing is really weird.

shipley

This is turning into a circus, not helped by Mr Foome’s lack of fans / colleagues in the sport.

SKY really should act both to preserve (salvage ) their reputation and that of the sport. Nothing wrong with standing on the sidelines until the enquiry is complete.

I wish SKY would take a more selfless approach given the growing negative feelings.

RichN95.

Shipley wrote:

This is turning into a circus, not helped by Mr Foome’s lack of fans / colleagues in the sport.

SKY really should act both to preserve (salvage ) their reputation and that of the sport. Nothing wrong with standing on the sidelines until the enquiry is complete.

How long should he sit on the sidelines? Some of the bans for this offence have been as short as four months. What if this takes a year and then they decide that he should only get a six month ban?

There was a similar situation in cricket where Ben Stokes had to sit out an entire Ashes series as the CPS took several months to make a decision that should have taken a week.

andyp

Now Tom Van Damme, Head of the UCI Road Commission wades in.

One almost might think there's a concerted UCI effort to pressurise Sky to suspend Froome.

Let's hope they've checked their own rule book on this one...

tailwindhome

I quite like this piece.
No idea if it's medically sound but.....

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/comment ... est_454985

iainf72

andyp wrote:

Now Tom Van Damme, Head of the UCI Road Commission wades in.

One almost might think there's a concerted UCI effort to pressurise Sky to suspend Froome.

Let's hope they've checked their own rule book on this one...

It's fairly ridiculous. Either you accept the rules of the sport or you don't. If you work for the UCI and you don't, either quit, or campaign to change them...

Mind you, I have not found any evidence that David L. pointed out this was something that needed be to changed last year.

gsk82

TailWindHome wrote:

I quite like this piece.
No idea if it's medically sound but.....

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/comment ... est_454985

I don't get all the excitement over this defence. If his levels were strangely high one day, what could it be other than his kidneys reacting differently on different days? That's not as outrageous as "KIDNEY FAILURE!!!" so obviously its not how it wasreported.

God I hate the media... and people.

ademort

OK, so it,s obvious that the French hate SKY and Froome. But what,s new, we knew that already.Similarly when Zinedine Zidane headbutted Marco Matterazi in the 2006 world cup final he waited to be shown a Red card by the referee instead of just walking off the pitch when we all knew what was coming.

shipley

RichN95 wrote:

Shipley wrote:

This is turning into a circus, not helped by Mr Foome’s lack of fans / colleagues in the sport.

SKY really should act both to preserve (salvage ) their reputation and that of the sport. Nothing wrong with standing on the sidelines until the enquiry is complete.

How long should he sit on the sidelines? Some of the bans for this offence have been as short as four months. What if this takes a year and then they decide that he should only get a six month ban?

There was a similar situation in cricket where Ben Stokes had to sit out an entire Ashes series as the CPS took several months to make a decision that should have taken a week.

I don’t know but they (SKY) should make some sort of comment or gesture as the current strategy is only serving to work against them, detrimentally affecting their reputation and that of the sport. This won’t attract sponsors, or indeed keep their own one. They have a big enough budget and Froome is only one rider. May sound drastic but if I was big Dave I would be wondering if throwing him under the bus might preserve the team.

I don’t believe Froome is dirty, but rules is rules and they were broken. Accept it, be contrite and move on and let’s end the circus before the Giro kicks off.

RichN95.

Shipley wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Shipley wrote:

This is turning into a circus, not helped by Mr Foome’s lack of fans / colleagues in the sport.

SKY really should act both to preserve (salvage ) their reputation and that of the sport. Nothing wrong with standing on the sidelines until the enquiry is complete.

How long should he sit on the sidelines? Some of the bans for this offence have been as short as four months. What if this takes a year and then they decide that he should only get a six month ban?

There was a similar situation in cricket where Ben Stokes had to sit out an entire Ashes series as the CPS took several months to make a decision that should have taken a week.

I don’t know but they (SKY) should make some sort of comment or gesture as the current strategy is only serving to work against them, detrimentally affecting their reputation and that of the sport. This won’t attract sponsors, or indeed keep their own one. They have a big enough budget and Froome is only one rider. May sound drastic but if I was big Dave I would be wondering if throwing him under the bus might preserve the team.

I don’t believe Froome is dirty, but rules is rules and they were broken. Accept it, be contrite and move on and let’s end the circus before the Giro kicks off.

So rules are rules, except for the rules that allow him to race, they are the rules but shouldn't be. And rules that might not have been broken should be treated as though they have and rules that are actually being applied should be deliberately broken.

And Sky should suspend Froome from doing something that he hasn't been doing anyway.

If a legal case is taking a long time put the pressure on the prosecution not the defendent.

ocdupalais

gsk82 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I quite like this piece.
No idea if it's medically sound but.....

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/comment ... est_454985

I don't get all the excitement over this defence. If his levels were strangely high one day, what could it be other than his kidneys reacting differently on different days? That's not as outrageous as "KIDNEY FAILURE!!!" so obviously its not how it wasreported.

God I hate the media... and people.

Similarly, it wasn’t that long ago that the idea of a top athlete - let’s say a Tour winner - might have asthma was a preposterous notion. And now there’s derision that so many top cyclists apparently have the condition. I’m looking at Froome, Poels, Aru, Nibali, Bardet, Gesink, Barguil, etc, and thinking these are the sickliest looking wimps in the history of sport - get them to A&E; asthma must be the least of their issues. I’m amazed there aren’t more who are flag-waving members of the Respiratorially Puny.
If Froome is convinced he only had his allotted puffs, then there must be some other explanation for his adverse analytical finding...?
It’s a warped defence - his “I puffed, but didn’t inhale” moment.
It makes you wonder when a team/individual is prepared to pursue the preposterous in the face of public derision: it’s either utter arrogance, or some form of corporate autism.
Or maybe there’re just really really sure that what they opine is true!

Mad_Malx

Why is SKY written in capital letters?

Mad_Malx

TailWindHome wrote:

I quite like this piece.
No idea if it's medically sound but.....

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/comment ... est_454985

Occam's razor for me is he took too many toots, while dehydrated.

Mad_Malx

Sky (or SKY) haven't actually used the words 'kidney failure', have they?

No_Ta_Doctor

Mad_Malx wrote:

Sky (or SKY) haven't actually used the words 'kidney failure', have they?

Doesn't the whole thing come from a report that the UCI were hiring a kidney specialist, ergo some kidney related defence must be planned by SKY, ergo Froome was cycling when he should have been receiving dialysis in a coma? Lot of people wanting to get their schadenfreude in early I think.

tim000

if sky believe froome is innocent why should they suspend him ?

iainf72

Mad_Malx wrote:

Sky (or SKY) haven't actually used the words 'kidney failure', have they?

I'm pretty sure the SKY thing is done to wind me up.

The team are in a no win situation. They suspend Froome, it'll all be ahhh-they-know-he's-guilty, they don't, it's ahh-they-have-no-morals. It's like hiring a lawyer - It's seen as guilt. But you'd be a fooking moron not to hire a lawyer. And you'd be an even bigger moron not to hire the best lawyer with experience in this kind of stuff, regardless of innocence or guilt.

ademort

Surely the UCI boss is completely wrong to call for a ban for Froome. Should he not wait until any investigation is completed and give Froome a chance to explain the high readings.

tim000

ademort wrote:

Surely the UCI boss is completely wrong to call for a ban for Froome. Should he not wait until any investigation is completed and give Froome a chance to explain the high readings.

correct . anyone calling for froome to be banned is saying fook the rules . who cares if he might be innocent . might not be quick , but let the process run through and let the experts decide if he should be banned .

Mad_Malx

ademort wrote:

Surely the UCI boss is completely wrong to call for a ban for Froome. Should he not wait until any investigation is completed and give Froome a chance to explain the high readings.

I’m definately for due process, but it’s a mockery if either Sky or WADA drag this out and Fenton starts the Giro without resolution.

NB - You do realise that Davidof’s quote wasn’t entirely accurate?

tim000

cant see this been sorted out quickly . if found guilty froome will probably appeal . if innocent WADA have said they will appeal . this will run for a while .

RichN95.

tim000 wrote:

cant see this been sorted out quickly . if found guilty froome will probably appeal . if innocent WADA have said they will appeal . this will run for a while .

An ex-wada person has said they could appeal. Big difference.

The simple way to do this is for CADF to give him a six month ban and he can be back racing legitimately by late March. Then take the while thing to CAS to sort it out properly. And if there's a few more months to serve do it from the decision. No backdating.

Vino'sGhost

Shipley wrote:

This is turning into a circus, not helped by Mr Foome’s lack of fans / colleagues in the sport.

SKY really should act both to preserve (salvage ) their reputation and that of the sport. Nothing wrong with standing on the sidelines until the enquiry is complete.

I wish SKY would take a more selfless approach given the growing negative feelings.

It's cycling, it's dirty it goes with the territory.

tim000

iainf72 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the SKY thing is done to wind me up.

well it will be now

Richmond Racer 2

hehehehe