Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

Matthewfalle

bloody italians. its italians like me that will cause the downfall of your country.

Matthewfalle

KingstonGraham wrote:

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.

its just a farce.

i suppose we should be used to it by now.

Matthewfalle

ooops - double post.

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

bloody italians. its italians like me that will cause the downfall of your country.

Although it was the Swiss who dealt with Ulissi (so much for the reputation for efficiency and good timekeeping)

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s not helping the spectacle.

The law doesn't give a sh!t about the spectacle

Besides, isn't drugs the spectacle for a large number these days - particularly in the media.

Doesn’t mean it’s not a ridiculous situation.

Ought to tweak the law to account for this undesirable circumstance.

inseine

say what you like about the guy, but wow......

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... ava-367378

inseine

motor paced, i assume

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

bloody italians. its italians like me that will cause the downfall of your country.

Although it was the Swiss who dealt with Ulissi (so much for the reputation for efficiency and good timekeeping)

bloody Swiss

DeVlaeminck

KingstonGraham wrote:

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.

Can you imagine if Froome had a full race programme preparing for the Tour, in June copped 9 months back dated, lost a couple of wins in 1 week stage race then straight into the Tour as if nothing had happened. I think that scenario has to be avoided.

Matthewfalle

DeVlaeminck wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

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.

Can you imagine if Froome had a full race programme preparing for the Tour, in June copped 9 months back dated, lost a couple of wins in 1 week stage race then straight into the Tour as if nothing had happened. I think that scenario has to be avoided.

i have a horrible feeling that is what will happen.

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

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.

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.

It does, but I'd say that any ban has to be from when the final decision is made with the rider free to race and keep their wins until any ban is handed down (minus the race where the infraction occurred, natch).

What happened with contador was farcical, and there was the case involving Gregory Bauge which was even worse if my memory serves me right.

Basically backdating bans is almost always a bad idea imo.

Matthewfalle

The_Boy wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

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.

It does, but I'd say that any ban has to be from when the final decision is made with the rider free to race and keep their wins until any ban is handed down (minus the race where the infraction occurred, natch).

What happened with contador was farcical, and there was the case involving Gregory Bauge which was even worse if my memory serves me right.

Basically backdating bans is almost always a bad idea imo.

this.

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

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.

its just a farce.

i suppose we should be used to it by now.

Now, this right here is common ground.
It is and we should.

Been reading over on VR the strange case of Ezequiel Mosquera.
Busted in the 2010 Vuelta, took the UCI until April 2011 to return the case to the RFEC, after his "B" sample result.
Eventually suspended in November 2011: a full year after they made the announcement.

So, don't hold yer breath.

Matthewfalle wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Basically backdating bans is almost always a bad idea imo.

this.

So no point in self suspending, then.

Pross

Bo Duke wrote:

Whilst not expecting a rushed decision which would be bad for the sport in general, even I am starting to wonder why it's taking so long to process this fairly common situation (think how regularly olympic aspirants are processed for example). If nowt else there should be better communication.

Better communication to who? Maybe Froome / Sky and the UCI are talking daily about this. Outside of that no-one should even be aware that there has been adverse analytical finding, the problem lies in there being too much communication with someone letting out information that should not be known.

larkim

Does anyone seriously think by the way that Froome is conducting himself at the moment that he has any expectation of anything other than being given the "all clear" at the end of this process?

Also, ref those who have discussed the testing etc. WADA rules are quite prescriptive:-
"“The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000ng/ml or formoterol in excess of 40ng/ml is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.”

It seems to me that the PK study is the only standard route to be used to rebut the urine test conclusions.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

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)

Wasn't Ulissi's ban only 9 months because he admitted it was his mistake and he didn't contest it?
As Froome is challenging the test results i would expect him to receive a longer ban - IF he is unable to prove his innocence.

Reading the last few pages of repetition on here, one thing which no-one has mentioned yet, if Froome's defence is that the test is flawed, he did not take more than the permitted volume of salbutamol, and the level in his urine was due to dehydration etc, surely it would have happened to him before? He has completed (and won) how many GT's/races and must have completed stages equal in difficulty (and temperature) to that vuelta stage, so surely a similar test result would have been recorded at some point if the test was 'flawed'.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Basically backdating bans is almost always a bad idea imo.

this.

So no point in self suspending, then.

I think that backdating is fine if the athlete has not been competing since the B sample. But if a rider is allowed to compete they should be allowed to and keep their results. This all started with Contador who had been cleared initially and was free to ride. When they banned him he should have served the rest of his ban from that day.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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)

Wasn't Ulissi's ban only 9 months because he admitted it was his mistake and he didn't contest it?
As Froome is challenging the test results i would expect him to receive a longer ban - IF he is unable to prove his innocence.

Reading the last few pages of repetition on here, one thing which no-one has mentioned yet, if Froome's defence is that the test is flawed, he did not take more than the permitted volume of salbutamol, and the level in his urine was due to dehydration etc, surely it would have happened to him before? He has completed (and won) how many GT's/races and must have completed stages equal in difficulty (and temperature) to that vuelta stage, so surely a similar test result would have been recorded at some point if the test was 'flawed'.

Ulissi's decision was never made public, but he certainly contested it. He did the tests, said he only took two puffs and his lawyer blamed the readings on a crash.

And as for all the other times Froome has been tested - one of the few things he has said is that he had upped his dosage and taken more (and reportedly three puffs less than an hour before the fateful test)

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

Ulissi's decision was never made public, but he certainly contested it. He did the tests, said he only took two puffs and his lawyer blamed the readings on a crash.

You're right, he did contest it to start with but as soon as his own/team tests were completed and could not replicate the salbutamol levels he accepted the 9 month ban.

I still think there is far more to this than we know and i cannot understand how he could have the levels of salbutamol in his urine that was recorded, but one thing i will be annoyed about if he does end up getting banned is if it is backdated, essentially meaning he will miss zero racing. If this happens it makes a mockery of the fight against doping.

shirley_basso

Do you think the misuse of salbultamol makes a mockery of fight against doping? I think the fact it is being seen as such a big deal is the mockery.

That the fact this is dragging on over something pretty insignificant, that is to say the alleged potency of this so called PED rather than quantity found, is laughable.

rick_chasey

Shirley Basso wrote:

Do you think the misuse of salbultamol makes a mockery of fight against doping? I think the fact it is being seen as such a big deal is the mockery.

That the fact this is dragging on over something pretty insignificant, that is to say the alleged potency of this so called PED rather than quantity found, is laughable.

It's about whether the #1 GT rider in his generation misses some racing and loses a GT title.

That's about it.

tailwindhome

If he was informed of the result before the Worlds TT, raced and claimed a bronze he can't be considered to be under self suspension and there clearly is no 'time served'

Even if it was after the race he later took part in an ASO race.....

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Basically backdating bans is almost always a bad idea imo.

this.

So no point in self suspending, then.

I think that backdating is fine if the athlete has not been competing since the B sample. But if a rider is allowed to compete they should be allowed to and keep their results. This all started with Contador who had been cleared initially and was free to ride. When they banned him he should have served the rest of his ban from that day.

This is problematic, imo. Anyone getting pinged at the end of the season can mitigate time out by including the off season as time spent not racing. Likewise anyone building their season around, say, a giro-vuelta double could count the mid-season or someone with a long-term injury.

Much fairer imo to just carry on until a decision has been made and count any ban as starting from then. If that happens to fall in the off-season so be it.

kingstongraham

The_Boy wrote:

Much fairer imo to just carry on until a decision has been made and count any ban as starting from then. If that happens to fall in the off-season so be it.

And allow results that they might actually have gained some benefit from the drugs to stand?

The_Boy

Incidentally, I assume I'm right in thinking that contesting the result is really the only way of heading for anyone in this sitch?

i.e. one can't just go " oh, I'll have the 9 months pls, kthxbai"? The pk test, medical data etc are part of the process of establishing that 9 months is more suitable than 2 years, right?

Bo Duke

Pross wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Whilst not expecting a rushed decision which would be bad for the sport in general, even I am starting to wonder why it's taking so long to process this fairly common situation (think how regularly olympic aspirants are processed for example). If nowt else there should be better communication.

Better communication to who? Maybe Froome / Sky and the UCI are talking daily about this. Outside of that no-one should even be aware that there has been adverse analytical finding, the problem lies in there being too much communication with someone letting out information that should not be known.

Well I guess its a question of whether UCI wants transparency, potential manipulated opinion or the appearance of orchestrating a cover up.

There's no point going round in circles, we know the danger of not handling this properly and more importantly, being seen to handle it properly.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

If he was informed of the result before the Worlds TT, raced and claimed a bronze he can't be considered to be under self suspension and there clearly is no 'time served'

Even if it was after the race he later took part in an ASO race.....

Can do it the day he stopped racing, no?

The_Boy

KingstonGraham wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Much fairer imo to just carry on until a decision has been made and count any ban as starting from then. If that happens to fall in the off-season so be it.

And allow results that they might actually have gained some benefit from the drugs to stand?

If we're talking about genuine attempts to gain an increase in performance by cheating the you likely are doing so anyway by limiting the ban from the date of the positive.

Might as well try and avoid the farce of the cases mentioned previously by having a defined process of establishing when a ban has started.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

If he was informed of the result before the Worlds TT, raced and claimed a bronze he can't be considered to be under self suspension and there clearly is no 'time served'

He could be considered from the B sample though. And I'd think some time to consider the A sample would be allowable.

RichN95.

KingstonGraham wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Much fairer imo to just carry on until a decision has been made and count any ban as starting from then. If that happens to fall in the off-season so be it.

And allow results that they might actually have gained some benefit from the drugs to stand?

Most drugs have an automatic provisional suspension though.

And the short term PED effects of salbutamol are minimal, so I doubt there's much long term benefit.