Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

When would we have been expecting Froome to start riding competitively with the Giro in mind, if it wasn’t for this issue?

Algarve? Tirreno-Adriatic?

The article on cyclingnews says mid Feb.
La Gazzetta dello Sport has claimed that Froome, who has not been provisionally suspended, will race for the first time at the Ruta del Sol in Spain from February 14-19. g

Interesting to speculate (cos speculation is what this thread is all about) where he would start racing, after a 6 month, back dated holiday.

By my reckoning, Tirreno-Adriatico starts the day after it would end.
Or there is his recent race of choice, Catalunya 10 days or so later.
With this in mind, I reckon he would grab a 6 month sabbatical, IF he could keep his Vuelta title, which he can't.
I reckon the UCI would love to settle with 6 months too, but face the same stumbling block....

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

With this in mind, I reckon he would grab a 6 month sabbatical, IF he could keep his Vuelta title, which he can't.
I reckon the UCI would love to settle with 6 months too, but face the same stumbling block....

As I've suggested, take a backdated six months now, serve it, come back in Catalunya, and then take it to CAS to decide if he actually deserved it.

joelsim

Fellas. Why would it be 6 months rather than 9 months when there has been an extremely similar case?

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey yesterday 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.

Merckx had to bail on a Giro because he tested positive; it'll be fine.

blazing_saddles

Joelsim wrote:

Fellas. Why would it be 6 months rather than 9 months when there has been an extremely similar case?

Cos the UCI is a thing of beauty.
Who knows, Joel?
As I said, it's just musings and wondering just how badly, or not, other parties want him at the Giro.
I don't buy into 9 months being a cert, either, just because it's what Ullissi got.
Could be 2 years, or nothing at all, for all we know.

kingstongraham

If it's all innocent, and he didn't take more than he was supposed to, then he's likely to have further adverse test findings in the future, isn't he?

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

Fellas. Why would it be 6 months rather than 9 months when there has been an extremely similar case?

1. Because Froome has better lawyers than Ulissi

2. Because it took them seven months to rule on the Ulissi case, so they couldn't really give him six months

Matthewfalle

KingstonGraham wrote:

If it's all innocent, and he didn't take more than he was supposed to, then he's likely to have further adverse test findings in the future, isn't he?

I hope not because I think that none of us could face going through all of this again.

RichN95.

KingstonGraham wrote:

If it's all innocent, and he didn't take more than he was supposed to, then he's likely to have further adverse test findings in the future, isn't he?

Not really. It would have been a particular combination of circumstances which caused it which are unlikely to be repeated. For example, he has said he took a lot more than his usual dosage that day.

Matthewfalle

Wife and manager give him advice to take ban.

Wife and manager? Seriously?

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If it's all innocent, and he didn't take more than he was supposed to, then he's likely to have further adverse test findings in the future, isn't he?

Not really. It would have been a particular combination of circumstances which caused it which are unlikely to be repeated. For example, he has said he took a lot more than his usual dosage that day.

RichN95.

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Fellas. Why would it be 6 months rather than 9 months when there has been an extremely similar case?

1. Because Froome has better lawyers than Ulissi

2. Because it took them seven months to rule on the Ulissi case, so they couldn't really give him six months

It's also a mistake to use Ulissi as the only precedent as he is from the same sport. You can find examples of athletes getting anything from a warning to two years for this.

Dorset_Boy

Matthewfalle wrote:

Wife and manager give him advice to take ban.

Wife and manager? Seriously?

Are you single Matthew?

Anyway, as you know, CF has said the article is BS.

Matthewfalle

Dorset Boy wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Wife and manager give him advice to take ban.

Wife and manager? Seriously?

Are you single Matthew?

Anyway, as you know, CF has said the article is BS.

No - my wife and I have been married for 16 years and know not to be each other's manager. Are you single or does your wife manage you?

Turns out it wasn't true after all as DB (Dorset Boy, not Brailsford who has been very quiet over all this and all things doping related since the last pantomime). This is turning into a bigger farce than before ......

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... untrue-sky

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - my wife and I have been married for 16 years and know not to be each other's manager. Are you single or does your wife manage you?

Most sportsmen have managers/agents. Most regular people don't.

cycleclinic

I think all pro riders should go on strike and not race in protest against the silly test. That wouldget UCI to sit up and think how can we test and not falsley acuse riders of doping. Even the riders who believe they are clean may actually be falling fowl of some daft test for something which confers no real world advantage.

Everyone has got there kickers in a twist over doping. Doping is bad but taking asthma medication is not bad if you have asthma. This is really one of those things if you step back you wonder what all the fuss is about. If you dont agree you have not stepped back.

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - my wife and I have been married for 16 years and know not to be each other's manager. Are you single or does your wife manage you?

Most sportsmen have managers/agents. Most regular people don't.

And many have managers, coaches or other back room staff who are their spouses.

slowbike

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - my wife and I have been married for 16 years and know not to be each other's manager. Are you single or does your wife manage you?

Newly married then ...

most of us realise that sometimes we don't think straight and the best person to trust to give us the best advice is the person we married. Although I'm not sure that when my wife said "You're a dope" that I was supposed to put my hands up to doping offences ... still - nobody noticed me putting my hands up, so I took them back down again ... apparently I'm still a dope ... just not enough of one to go fast enough

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - my wife and I have been married for 16 years and know not to be each other's manager. Are you single or does your wife manage you?

Most sportsmen have managers/agents. Most regular people don't.

Most people know not to mix business and pleasure.

shirley_basso

Matthew must be taking the piss.

Given how strong his views were in other threads where the rules/laws allowed some areas of grey to interpret them as loosely as your advisor thinks they can get away with, to take such a stubborn, self righteous view on this when he's been told multiple times what the actual rules are, and doesn't even think to engage brain before considering that a sportsperson's wife might also act as their agent/manager either means he's deliberately being obtuse, is actually a lot thicker than he likes to let on, or is trolling for the benefit of the bottom bracketeers.

Matthewfalle

thecycleclinic wrote:

I think all pro riders should go on strike and not race in protest against the silly test. That wouldget UCI to sit up and think how can we test and not falsley acuse riders of doping. Even the riders who believe they are clean may actually be falling fowl of some daft test for something which confers no real world advantage.

Everyone has got there kickers in a twist over doping. Doping is bad but taking asthma medication is not bad if you have asthma. This is really one of those things if you step back you wonder what all the fuss is about. If you dont agree you have not stepped back.

So you want everyone top go n strike because of some dude who either a)can't manage his own medication or b) is a doper (see - both schools of thought covered there).

Errrrr, no.

RichN95.

thecycleclinic wrote:

I think all pro riders should go on strike and not race in protest against the silly test. That wouldget UCI to sit up and think how can we test and not falsley acuse riders of doping. Even the riders who believe they are clean may actually be falling fowl of some daft test for something which confers no real world advantage.

Everyone has got there kickers in a twist over doping. Doping is bad but taking asthma medication is not bad if you have asthma. This is really one of those things if you step back you wonder what all the fuss is about. If you dont agree you have not stepped back.

I think the WADA approach to salbutamol could be revised. Lower the threshold but only sanction a rider if he goes over it three times in a particular period (12 months, 18?), like the whereabouts system. No excuses for going over the limit, although a TUE can be applied for but the rider must withdraw from competition for eight days. Three times and it's an instant ban (six months, nine?)

Matthewfalle

Bizarrely, just found this while looking for something work related.


β2-Agonists: terbutaline, salbutamol, and clenbuterol

β2-Agonists are well-known therapeutic agents used primarily for their bronchodilating effect. Some β2-agonists such as clenbuterol and fenoterol have additional anabolic effects thought to be mediated via β2-receptors, although the exact mechanism is unclear. There is some evidence that long-term high-dose oral salbutamol can also improve muscle strength and endurance performance.6 Owing to these perceived benefits, abuse is common and all β2-agonists are banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency with the exception of inhaled salbutamol and salmeterol when used for therapeutic purposes.


https://academic.oup.com/bjaed/article/16/7/247/2196387

Chuck in some Xenon and ......................

Matthewfalle

Shirley Basso wrote:

Matthew must be taking the wee-wee.

Given how strong his views were in other threads where the rules/laws allowed some areas of grey to interpret them as loosely as your advisor thinks they can get away with, to take such a stubborn, self righteous view on this when he's been told multiple times what the actual rules are, and doesn't even think to engage brain before considering that a sportsperson's wife might also act as their agent/manager either means he's deliberately being obtuse, is actually a lot thicker than he likes to let on, or is trolling for the benefit of the bottom bracketeers.

'Fraid you're wrong on all counts dude. Sorry.

And they are The Bracketeers, not the bottom bracketeers.

mamil314

Matthewfalle wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If it's all innocent, and he didn't take more than he was supposed to, then he's likely to have further adverse test findings in the future, isn't he?

I hope not because I think that none of us could face going through all of this again.

My goodness, talk about whipping up a storm.. in a tea cup. I don't even know what to suggest. Maybe change your circle of friends and expand your interests? Look up what bias and media conditioning is and who your behaviour is useful to when you become like that. Now, i can't claim to be any better, trying to keep checking with reality and objectivity is fucking difficult. How can you not see that 'going through all of this' you mention in your post above is just you thrashing about for nothing, being enabled by a few similar sufferers?
In due time, investigators will make their announcement, and if Froome is found guilty, he will face consequences. It's quite simple, really. Why not wait until then?

RichN95.

mamil314 wrote:

In due time, investigators will make their announcement, and if Froome is found guilty, he will face consequences. It's quite simple, really. Why not wait until then?

It's becoming clear that many of the people on social media who are angry at Froome aren't angry at him taking salbutamol but are angry that he isn't giving them a soap opera to talk about.

Matthewfalle

no - they're angry at yet another cyclist who says they cleaner than clean being grayer than grey and letting them down again ...

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

mamil314 wrote:

In due time, investigators will make their announcement, and if Froome is found guilty, he will face consequences. It's quite simple, really. Why not wait until then?

It's becoming clear that many of the people on social media are angry

Ftfy

dish_dash

Matthewfalle wrote:

no - they're angry at yet another cyclist who says they cleaner than clean being grayer than grey and letting them down again ...

If someone feels that Chris Froome has let them down then they're an idiot.

Matthewfalle

why? because yet another cyclist has been caught cheating?