Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

jam1e

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

On what planet does that approach make sense?

“It was an accident”

“Oh, ok then, we’ll take your word for it...”

Of course there’s going to be doctors and lawyers involved. Media reps etc are only a necessity at this stage as the results were leaked, if proper process had been followed they’d be saying nowt.

DeVlaeminck

To be fair to Sky, Froome is more important to them than Ulissi was to Lampre (?).

I see your point though, similar to the Henao case they risk giving the impression that they have thrown money at finding a loophole in the rules that wouldn't be available to riders on less well funded teams.

For me he is likely to cop a 9 month ban and I think that's fair. I'd need convincing he's passed up the opportunity to be treated equally to Ulissi. Just as the UCI don't need to present a case as to why Froome took salbutamol neither just because he presents his best possible defence can they asssume it was a deliberate attempt to dope.

The question for me would be when that ban starts from. If he starts racing it would be massively lenient to backdate the ban to the offence as it would open up the possibility he could do race prep for the Tour, lose any early season results but still ride the Tour. My gut feeling would be if he does even a days racing this season then he should be out til the Vuelta at the earliest.

iainf72

Matthewfalle wrote:

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

If you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit, would you engage the services of a lawyer?

Top tip - if you don't, you're an idiot.

Matthewfalle

iainf72 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

If you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit, would you engage the services of a lawyer?

Top tip - if you don't, you're an idiot.

If I did something accidentally I’d hold my hands up.

If I did something illegally I’d get a lawyer.

There’s a difference.

Matthewfalle

jam1e wrote:

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

On what planet does that approach make sense?

“It was an accident”

“Oh, ok then, we’ll take your word for it...”

Of course there’s going to be doctors and lawyers involved. Media reps etc are only a necessity at this stage as the results were leaked, if proper process had been followed they’d be saying nowt.

Why should there be doctors and lawyers involved if it was accidental?

He broke the rules, like Ulissi and everyone else he should be banned. End of.

Doesn’t matter if it was accidental or not, he should still be banned for breaking the rules.

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

If I did something accidentally I’d hold my hands up.

If I did something illegally I’d get a lawyer.

There’s a difference.

And if the prosecution don't believe you did it accidentally? What then?

You seem to think you can get off a charge by simply saying 'Whoops. My bad"

No_Ta_Doctor

Matthewfalle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

If you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit, would you engage the services of a lawyer?

Top tip - if you don't, you're an idiot.

If I did something accidentally I’d hold my hands up.

If I did something illegally I’d get a lawyer.

There’s a difference.

I'm honestly struggling to comprehend how you can manage to force such binary distinctions - the same with your assertion that breaking the rules is equal to cheating. Are you being deliberately mendacious, or do you really not see the multitude of important distinctions you're attempting to annihilate?

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

If I did something accidentally I’d hold my hands up.

If I did something illegally I’d get a lawyer.

There’s a difference.

And if the prosecution don't believe you did it accidentally? What then?

You seem to think you can get off a charge by simply saying 'Whoops. My bad"

You wouldn’t bet off a charge because you did it by accident - that’s silly. Of you’d get convicted like everyone else but at least you wouldn’t waste everyone’s time with bs.

Matthewfalle

No tA Doctor wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

If you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit, would you engage the services of a lawyer?

Top tip - if you don't, you're an idiot.

If I did something accidentally I’d hold my hands up.

If I did something illegally I’d get a lawyer.

There’s a difference.

I'm honestly struggling to comprehend how you can manage to force such binary distinctions - the same with your assertion that breaking the rules is equal to cheating. Are you being deliberately mendacious, or do you really not see the multitude of important distinctions you're attempting to annihilate?

Because this is blindingly black and white.

Option a: he took too much sally by accident - hold up your hand, say sorry, take the ban like grown up and spend 9 months riding your bike in the sun with no pressure on €4 million a year. You’d probably get away with not losing your contract because it was a self confessed Jeff up.

Option b: drag it in and on and on and on and get the lawyers et al involved and turn the public against you and still get banned and then lose your job with your team because SKY have said that they won’t employ anyone with a doping conviction..........

Matthewfalle

And this is why I am confident of eating so much curry and chips in the foreseeable future.

larkim

WE DON'T YET KNOW HE BROKE THE RULES!!!!!!

Sorry to shout but we need to remind ourselves of this. All we know is he had an adverse urine test. Tidy is not the same as breaking the rules, the rule is not taking > 1600mg in 24 hours of Salbutamol.

Until we have a finding on that, we cannot say he has broken any rules.

Matthewfalle

Yet again , this is the reason that I am confident I shall be dining like a king.

No_Ta_Doctor

larkim wrote:

WE DON'T YET KNOW HE BROKE THE RULES!!!!!!

Sorry to shout but we need to remind ourselves of this. All we know is he had an adverse urine test. Tidy is not the same as breaking the rules, the rule is not taking > 1600mg in 24 hours of Salbutamol.

Until we have a finding on that, we cannot say he has broken any rules.

Apparently it's all black and white...

Yeah, makes me want to scream as well.

Matthewfalle

No tA Doctor wrote:

larkim wrote:

WE DON'T YET KNOW HE BROKE THE RULES!!!!!!

Sorry to shout but we need to remind ourselves of this. All we know is he had an adverse urine test. Tidy is not the same as breaking the rules, the rule is not taking > 1600mg in 24 hours of Salbutamol.

Until we have a finding on that, we cannot say he has broken any rules.

Apparently it's all black and white...

Yeah, makes me want to scream as well.

It is black and white. It was either an accidental overdose of Sally or he did it on purpose.

Doesn’t matter in the long run, he still broke the rules so he should still get the same punishment as everyone else who broke the rules together with his team’s stipulated and very well documented rules on people with doping offences.

No_Ta_Doctor

Matthewfalle wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

If you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit, would you engage the services of a lawyer?

Top tip - if you don't, you're an idiot.

If I did something accidentally I’d hold my hands up.

If I did something illegally I’d get a lawyer.

There’s a difference.

I'm honestly struggling to comprehend how you can manage to force such binary distinctions - the same with your assertion that breaking the rules is equal to cheating. Are you being deliberately mendacious, or do you really not see the multitude of important distinctions you're attempting to annihilate?

Because this is blindingly black and white.

Option a: he took too much sally by accident - hold up your hand, say sorry, take the ban like grown up and spend 9 months riding your bike in the sun with no pressure on €4 million a year. You’d probably get away with not losing your contract because it was a self confessed Jeff up.

Option b: drag it in and on and on and on and get the lawyers et al involved and turn the public against you and still get banned and then lose your job with your team because SKY have said that they won’t employ anyone with a doping conviction..........

You have two options only, and they're not logically distinct. It's like a reverse Chewbacca defence, a Chewbacca prosecution perhaps.

First distinction that's important:
a) He took too much Salbutamol
b) He took an allowed dose of Salbutamol

If a) Then there's another important distinction:
c) He did so on purpose
d) He did so by accident

Only the case of c, that he took too much Salbutamol on purpose could possibly be construed as cheating.
Only the case of d would a "hands up, I made a mistake" be appropriate.

Froome is going to be arguing that b is the case - he stayed within limits and there's an issue with the test. You've clearly pre-judged this as being completely implausible, before you've heard any of the arguments. Others amongst us will wait for a ruling before we draw a conclusion.

Now please at least do us the courtesy of acknowledging that these distinctions exist and are important, rather than conflating everything to fit your preconceived prejudices. Thanks in advance.

gsk82

Why are you lot still feeding the troll? I came on here a few days ago and saw there'd been 4 pages clocked up in a few hours and assumed something had happened. But no, it was more of this dross that's been going on for probably 50 pages.

Matthewfalle

gsk82 wrote:

Why are you lot still feeding the troll? I came on here a few days ago and saw there'd been 4 pages clocked up in a few hours and assumed something had happened. But no, it was more of this dross that's been going on for probably 50 pages.

Yet again, straight to the troll. Just because someone isn’t following your train of thought/sycophancy.

I think if you bother to do any reading this is my standard line about dopers no matter what team they are from.

I just feel sorry for you that you are happy for “our” sport to yet again be dragged through the sewers.

gsk82

Matthewfalle wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Why are you lot still feeding the troll? I came on here a few days ago and saw there'd been 4 pages clocked up in a few hours and assumed something had happened. But no, it was more of this dross that's been going on for probably 50 pages.

Yet again, straight to the troll. Just because someone isn’t following your train of thought/sycophancy.

I think if you bother to do any reading this is my standard line about dopers no matter what team they are from.

I just feel sorry for you that you are happy for “our” sport to yet again be dragged through the sewers.

xoxo

No_Ta_Doctor

Obvious troll ignores the obvious arguments against his position to focus on posters calling him a troll, obviously.

iainf72

No tA Doctor wrote:

Froome is going to be arguing that b is the case - he stayed within limits and there's an issue with the test. You've clearly pre-judged this as being completely implausible, before you've heard any of the arguments. Others amongst us will wait for a ruling before we draw a conclusion.

And what's important here is there a body of evidence which indicates that this situation could occur.

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Froome is going to be arguing that b is the case - he stayed within limits and there's an issue with the test. You've clearly pre-judged this as being completely implausible, before you've heard any of the arguments. Others amongst us will wait for a ruling before we draw a conclusion.

And what's important here is there a body of evidence which indicates that this situation could occur.

Yes, there's at least a prima facie case that this is possible. The way some people are going on you'd think they had shares in a pitchfork and torches company that had a campaign offer for tar and feathers running.

iainf72

No tA Doctor wrote:

And what's important here is there a body of evidence which indicates that this situation could occur.

Yes, there's at least a prima facie case that this is possible. The way some people are going on you'd think they had shares in a pitchfork and torches company that had a campaign offer for tar and feathers running.[/quote]

Whoa there, steady with latin lawyering in italics talk sonny.

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

AND this is the crux of the matter.

If it was accidental there shouldn't need to be a defence.

The fact that there are lawyers, doctors, media, everyone getting employed by Sky starts ringing alarm bells.

If you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit, would you engage the services of a lawyer?

Top tip - if you don't, you're an idiot.

If I did something accidentally I’d hold my hands up.

If I did something illegally I’d get a lawyer.

There’s a difference.

I'm honestly struggling to comprehend how you can manage to force such binary distinctions - the same with your assertion that breaking the rules is equal to cheating. Are you being deliberately mendacious, or do you really not see the multitude of important distinctions you're attempting to annihilate?

Because this is blindingly black and white.

Option a: he took too much sally by accident - hold up your hand, say sorry, take the ban like grown up and spend 9 months riding your bike in the sun with no pressure on €4 million a year. You’d probably get away with not losing your contract because it was a self confessed Jeff up.

Option b: drag it in and on and on and on and get the lawyers et al involved and turn the public against you and still get banned and then lose your job with your team because SKY have said that they won’t employ anyone with a doping conviction..........

It is blindingly black and white, so what's with this 9 months horseshit?
The rules are quite clear.
Luckily I knew exactly where to look or else I wouldn't be wasting my time.
No attempt at a defence and you get 2 years.

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rule ... nglish.pdf

10.5.1.1
Specified Substances
Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance, and the Rideror other Person
can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a
reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on the Rider’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.

Unless you think a pair of puppy eyes is worth 15 months discount.

CuthbertC

iainf72 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Froome is going to be arguing that b is the case - he stayed within limits and there's an issue with the test. You've clearly pre-judged this as being completely implausible, before you've heard any of the arguments. Others amongst us will wait for a ruling before we draw a conclusion.

And what's important here is there a body of evidence which indicates that this situation could occur.

What evidence?

blazing_saddles

CuthbertC wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Froome is going to be arguing that b is the case - he stayed within limits and there's an issue with the test. You've clearly pre-judged this as being completely implausible, before you've heard any of the arguments. Others amongst us will wait for a ruling before we draw a conclusion.

And what's important here is there a body of evidence which indicates that this situation could occur.

What evidence?

Change the full stop to a question mark and all should become clear.
Too much reading between the lines and one misses the obvious.

iainf72

CuthbertC wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Froome is going to be arguing that b is the case - he stayed within limits and there's an issue with the test. You've clearly pre-judged this as being completely implausible, before you've heard any of the arguments. Others amongst us will wait for a ruling before we draw a conclusion.

And what's important here is there a body of evidence which indicates that this situation could occur.

What evidence?

http://www.doping.chuv.ch/files/salbutamol_03.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24518370/

bobmcstuff

Matthewfalle wrote:

He broke the rules, like Ulissi and everyone else he should be banned. End of.

Doesn’t matter if it was accidental or not, he should still be banned for breaking the rules.

This is going to sound pedantic, but since you continue to try and make it sound more black and white than it actually is:

The limit for salbutamol is for the amount ingested, not the amount excreted. The amount in urine is used as a proxy, and it's known not to be 100% reliable, hence why there is leeway and why it is not an immediate suspension. The urine amount is just used an indicator that he probably took to much, not proof that he took too much (otherwise he would have been suspended immediately).

The onus is now on Froome to prove that he did not break the dosage limit. If he can't, then he'll be banned, same as Ulissi.

No_Ta_Doctor

bobmcstuff wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

He broke the rules, like Ulissi and everyone else he should be banned. End of.

Doesn’t matter if it was accidental or not, he should still be banned for breaking the rules.

This is going to sound pedantic, but since you continue to try and make it sound more black and white than it actually is:

The limit for salbutamol is for the amount ingested, not the amount excreted. The amount in urine is used as a proxy, and it's known not to be 100% reliable, hence why there is leeway and why it is not an immediate suspension. The urine amount is just used an indicator that he probably took to much, not proof that he took too much (otherwise he would have been suspended immediately).

The onus is now on Froome to prove that he did not break the dosage limit. If he can't, then he'll be banned, same as Ulissi.

Not pedantic, just correct. Mind-boggling though that it needs to be re-stated so often, to people that already know it.

Dorset_Boy

But hatred and bigotry can blind logic....

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

Whoa there, steady with latin lawyering in italics talk sonny.

Sorry Sir, won't do it again Sir, mea culpa.