Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem
Comments
-
CuthbertC wrote:RichN95 wrote:
How is that a 'fact'? Because no-one has told you?CuthbertC wrote:The logical time to conduct a study would have been as soon as practically possible after he was notified given that he would still have been in similar physical physical condition. The reality is that Froome has almost certainly undergone private testing in order to ascertain his chances of replicating 2000 ng/mL in an official study. The fact that he hasn’t undergone one is telling.
You have no idea what has and hasn't happened.
If he had undergone a study and been able to replicate 2000 ng/mL, he would have been cleared by now and it would have been made public. If he had undergone a study and hadn't been able to prove it was the consequence of a therapeutic dose, he would have been sanctioned already. Since he seems to have been training in South Africa since early January, any study would have been conducted prior to him going to South Africa. So, at least three weeks for the case to be resolved either way.
Your faith in the UCI's response time is touching.
Like the rest of us, you have no idea what has and hasn't happened."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Quite. Let's remember Samuel Sanchez's case is yet to be resolved - and that seems a much more simple case. (The UCI took nearly two months to test the B sample)Blazing Saddles wrote:
Your faith in the UCI's response time is touching.Twitter: @RichN950 -
This thread.
It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:CuthbertC wrote:RichN95 wrote:
How is that a 'fact'? Because no-one has told you?CuthbertC wrote:The logical time to conduct a study would have been as soon as practically possible after he was notified given that he would still have been in similar physical physical condition. The reality is that Froome has almost certainly undergone private testing in order to ascertain his chances of replicating 2000 ng/mL in an official study. The fact that he hasn’t undergone one is telling.
You have no idea what has and hasn't happened.
If he had undergone a study and been able to replicate 2000 ng/mL, he would have been cleared by now and it would have been made public. If he had undergone a study and hadn't been able to prove it was the consequence of a therapeutic dose, he would have been sanctioned already. Since he seems to have been training in South Africa since early January, any study would have been conducted prior to him going to South Africa. So, at least three weeks for the case to be resolved either way.
Your faith in the UCI's response time is touching.
Like the rest of us, you have no idea what has and hasn't happened.
January 16:According to L’Equipe, Froome’s legal team has ditched the argument that dehydration triggered the Salbutamol reading. It is also not considering pharmacokinetic testing to try to re-create similar readings via lab testing.
January 21:Froome’s legal team are preparing to explain these findings to the UCI’s legal anti-doping service, but there is no date in sight for the hearing and it could drag on for many months.
The Independent understands the case is still in the preliminary stage of assessing potential factors to have caused the test result and kidney malfunction – reported as Froome’s primary line of defence – is only one of a number of factors being examined.
So, one source clearly states Froome isn't even prepared to undergo a study, and another states the case is still in the preliminary stage i.e. a study hasn't been conducted. Yet you keep pretending that he could have undergone a study already.0 -
Actual quotes supporting any of this? None.CuthbertC wrote:
January 16:According to L’Equipe, Froome’s legal team has ditched the argument that dehydration triggered the Salbutamol reading. It is also not considering pharmacokinetic testing to try to re-create similar readings via lab testing.
January 21:Froome’s legal team are preparing to explain these findings to the UCI’s legal anti-doping service, but there is no date in sight for the hearing and it could drag on for many months.
The Independent understands the case is still in the preliminary stage of assessing potential factors to have caused the test result and kidney malfunction – reported as Froome’s primary line of defence – is only one of a number of factors being examined.
So, one source clearly states Froome isn't even prepared to undergo a study, and another states the case is still in the preliminary stage i.e. a study hasn't been conducted. Yet you keep pretending that he could have undergone a study already.
When a newspaper writes "The [name of paper] understands" it is code for 'this is a rumour we heard but don't have a source ourselves'
You're the only one claiming what has and hasn't happened. The rest of us say we don't know. And it looks like L'Equipe and The Independent don't know either.Twitter: @RichN950 -
We can only make educated guesses based on what's available. If it's true they've ditched the idea of what appears to go by the name of pharmacokinetic lab testing then chances are they've run those tests and they don't get Froome anywhere near the figures he needs.
If they do go down the kidney malfunction defence presumably there will be other markers in his urine which support or damage that case - the kidneys wont have selectively failed to process salbutamol.
I find the theory that theynare trying to recreate Vuelta levels of fatigue at the moment through ramping up his training interesting. On the one hand it would seem very difficult and hugely impactful on his season but the stakes are high, it would explain the delay and of course nothing impacts a season like a 9 month ban so he has nothing to lose.
One thing that does seem likely is that there is a reason for this delay - this is te biggest name Tour rider in arguably the highest profile team, it's in nobody's interests for this to drag on unnecessarily - so from that you conclude the delay must be necessary and that does point towards Sky's case being based on some kind of longitudinal study which is ongoing right now...maybe.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Take the ban, push for the ban to be retrospectively applied to the day after the last day of racing, get on with going for a 5th TdF.
Merckx had to bail on a Giro because he tested positive; it'll be fine.0 -
I've suggested that both sides agree to a quicky backdated ban of six months (expires March 20) and then take the whole thing to CAS to decide whether he deserved it or not.Rick Chasey wrote:Take the ban, push for the ban to be retrospectively applied to the day after the last day of racing, get on with going for a 5th TdF.
(Also remember CIRC? Riders got bans reduced for helping with that. Froome was the only unsanctioned rider know to have participated - maybe he can get a reduction)Twitter: @RichN950 -
Why is there no deadline to this?
That's the frustration.
What if the conclusion happens on stage 16 of the Giro with Froome in pink?
Ridiculous.0 -
How do you know there isn't? We are of no importance to this process. We will be told nothing.Rick Chasey wrote:Why is there no deadline to this?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Why is there no deadline to this?
That's the frustration.
What if the conclusion happens on stage 16 of the Giro with Froome in pink?
Ridiculous.
this exactly.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 -
RichN95 wrote:
How do you know there isn't? We are of no importance to this process. We will be told nothing.Rick Chasey wrote:Why is there no deadline to this?
Haha. Alright.
Once it leaked they ought to go public with deadlines.
Pre-leak, the guy could race, and it'd all be fine until they came to the result, right? We'd be none the wiser.
Say it came in stage 16 of the Giro, they could let him finish, hope he passes all the tests in that race and then ban him. Job done.
Now, you can't. The fans (and this is sport, not business; the entertainment piece is the whole point) won't be happy having a rider who may or may not be suspended racing.
It was annoying in the Giro with Contador, it's still annoying now.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Actual quotes supporting any of this? None.CuthbertC wrote:
January 16:According to L’Equipe, Froome’s legal team has ditched the argument that dehydration triggered the Salbutamol reading. It is also not considering pharmacokinetic testing to try to re-create similar readings via lab testing.
January 21:Froome’s legal team are preparing to explain these findings to the UCI’s legal anti-doping service, but there is no date in sight for the hearing and it could drag on for many months.
The Independent understands the case is still in the preliminary stage of assessing potential factors to have caused the test result and kidney malfunction – reported as Froome’s primary line of defence – is only one of a number of factors being examined.
So, one source clearly states Froome isn't even prepared to undergo a study, and another states the case is still in the preliminary stage i.e. a study hasn't been conducted. Yet you keep pretending that he could have undergone a study already.
When a newspaper writes "The [name of paper] understands" it is code for 'this is a rumour we heard but don't have a source ourselves'
You're the only one claiming what has and hasn't happened. The rest of us say we don't know. And it looks like L'Equipe and The Independent don't know either.
I've spelled out the obvious and provided sources, yet here we are, still in denial of reality. Classic flat earth society mindset.
What makes you say that 'L'Equipe and The Independent don't know'? You have contradictory information?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
I've suggested that both sides agree to a quicky backdated ban of six months (expires March 20) and then take the whole thing to CAS to decide whether he deserved it or not.Rick Chasey wrote:Take the ban, push for the ban to be retrospectively applied to the day after the last day of racing, get on with going for a 5th TdF.
(Also remember CIRC? Riders got bans reduced for helping with that. Froome was the only unsanctioned rider know to have participated - maybe he can get a reduction)
why should it be backdated? he's done nothing in the past 6 months so its no punishment at all.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 -
RichN95 wrote:
I've suggested that both sides agree to a quicky backdated ban of six months (expires March 20) and then take the whole thing to CAS to decide whether he deserved it or not.Rick Chasey wrote:Take the ban, push for the ban to be retrospectively applied to the day after the last day of racing, get on with going for a 5th TdF.
(Also remember CIRC? Riders got bans reduced for helping with that. Froome was the only unsanctioned rider know to have participated - maybe he can get a reduction)
why should it be backdated? he's done nothing in the past 6 months so its no punishment at all.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 -
We can be pretty sure that Froome didn't leak it. So why should he be penalised for someone else's wrong doing. The leak almost certainly came from within the UCI so they'll just have to eat the consequences.Rick Chasey wrote:
Haha. Alright.
Once it leaked they ought to go public with deadlines.
Pre-leak, the guy could race, and it'd all be fine until they came to the result, right? We'd be none the wiser.
Say it came in stage 16 of the Giro, they could let him finish, hope he passes all the tests in that race and then ban him. Job done.
Now, you can't. The fans (and this is sport, not business; the entertainment piece is the whole point) won't be happy having a rider who may or may not be suspended racing.
It was annoying in the Giro with Contador, it's still annoying now.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Why is there no deadline to this?
That's the frustration.
I think this is something we bemoaned on numerous occasion in the past and will probably do in the future.
Unquestionably, this buck stops at UCI HQ.
For all the speculation about delay and lack of transparency on Froome's side, who is to say that the UCI hasn't set a deadline for his defence to be submitted?
As for the UCI's response, we can be darned sure that they won't be constraining themselves to any time frame."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Precisely because he's done nothing. If he races again he should lose the backdated option.Matthewfalle wrote:RichN95 wrote:
I've suggested that both sides agree to a quicky backdated ban of six months (expires March 20) and then take the whole thing to CAS to decide whether he deserved it or not.Rick Chasey wrote:Take the ban, push for the ban to be retrospectively applied to the day after the last day of racing, get on with going for a 5th TdF.
(Also remember CIRC? Riders got bans reduced for helping with that. Froome was the only unsanctioned rider know to have participated - maybe he can get a reduction)
why should it be backdated? he's done nothing in the past 6 months so its no punishment at all.
As for no punishment, he'd lose the Vuelta.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
We can be pretty sure that Froome didn't leak it. So why should he be penalised for someone else's wrong doing. The leak almost certainly came from within the UCI so they'll just have to eat the consequences.Rick Chasey wrote:
Haha. Alright.
Once it leaked they ought to go public with deadlines.
Pre-leak, the guy could race, and it'd all be fine until they came to the result, right? We'd be none the wiser.
Say it came in stage 16 of the Giro, they could let him finish, hope he passes all the tests in that race and then ban him. Job done.
Now, you can't. The fans (and this is sport, not business; the entertainment piece is the whole point) won't be happy having a rider who may or may not be suspended racing.
It was annoying in the Giro with Contador, it's still annoying now.
Why does a deadline penalise Froome?
The only thing that suffers in this situation with the leak is the spectacle.
Now that it has been leaked, we should know the deadline. They probably ought to move the deadline forward head of any Froome racing.
Point is, once the leak happens, might as well let it all out in the open.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:
why should it be backdated? he's done nothing in the past 6 months so its no punishment at all.
So we can get on with the racing. 9 months backdated, it's was all an accident, too many puffs and a bit of dehydration thrown in, classic cycling compromise.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
....double post[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
What is the allegation of what this adverse finding could actually mean he has been doing, if it isn't just taking too much asthma medicine?0
-
It depends on the deadline.Rick Chasey wrote:
Why does a deadline penalise Froome?
The only thing that suffers in this situation with the leak is the spectacle.
Now that it has been leaked, we should know the deadline. They probably ought to move the deadline forward head of any Froome racing.
Point is, once the leak happens, might as well let it all out in the open.
But everything, publicly at least, should continue as if the leak had never happened. Froome could already argue that his case has been prejudiced (by UCI officials having their say*). It makes no sense to exacerbate that.
*And things such as the head of the UCI Road Commission retweeting media theories as to what Froome may have done.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Jeez, wouldn’t want you running my corporate comms!
It’s not helping the spectacle.
They both need to get on with it.
It’s been known since October?
I can get quicker examinations and test results at the NHS0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:
why should it be backdated? he's done nothing in the past 6 months so its no punishment at all.
So we can get on with the racing. 9 months backdated, it's was all an accident, too many puffs and a bit of dehydration thrown in, classic cycling compromise.
thats no punishment at all.
stripped of vuelta, 9 months from date of enforcement of ban. job jobbed, all fair, clean slate to start again.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 -
An infringement that happens at the end of the season has to be judged exactly the same as one at the beginning of the season. A rider's likely activity can't be brought into the equation.Matthewfalle wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:
why should it be backdated? he's done nothing in the past 6 months so its no punishment at all.
So we can get on with the racing. 9 months backdated, it's was all an accident, too many puffs and a bit of dehydration thrown in, classic cycling compromise.
thats no punishment at all.
stripped of vuelta, 9 months from date of enforcement of ban. job jobbed, all fair, clean slate to start again.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Precisely because he's done nothing. If he races again he should lose the backdated option.Matthewfalle wrote:RichN95 wrote:
I've suggested that both sides agree to a quicky backdated ban of six months (expires March 20) and then take the whole thing to CAS to decide whether he deserved it or not.Rick Chasey wrote:Take the ban, push for the ban to be retrospectively applied to the day after the last day of racing, get on with going for a 5th TdF.
(Also remember CIRC? Riders got bans reduced for helping with that. Froome was the only unsanctioned rider know to have participated - maybe he can get a reduction)
why should it be backdated? he's done nothing in the past 6 months so its no punishment at all.
As for no punishment, he'd lose the Vuelta.
and where did 6 months come from dude? i thought you and I agreed that it should be the same as Ulissi's ban - ie 9 months?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 -
The law doesn't give a sh!t about the spectacleRick Chasey wrote:It’s not helping the spectacle.
Besides, isn't drugs the spectacle for a large number these days - particularly in the media.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Gregory Bauge received a 12 month suspension in January 2012 for missed tests, backdated to December 2010. Missed precisely zero racing, and won the World Championships in April 2012. That's cycling for you.0
-
An Italian journalist had claimed that was what they were looking at. It's also in line with similar cases in other sports. I agreed it shouldn't be more than Ulissi (I think Ulissi might have got six months if it hadn't they taken then seven months to deal with it)Matthewfalle wrote:
and where did 6 months come from dude? i thought you and I agreed that it should be the same as Ulissi's ban - ie 9 months?Twitter: @RichN950
