Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

tim000

Matthewfalle wrote:

why? because yet another cyclist has been caught cheating?

because a stranger they havn`t met and don't know has cheated . must lead a pretty sad life if you are upset by froome cheating (unless you know him and he is a good friend)

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

why? because yet another cyclist has been caught cheating?

No. He's been caught taking a drug that we already knew he was taking and is taken by many cyclists. He may have taken too much, but that's about it.

blazing_saddles

The twitterati are not just angry, but frustrated.
They appoint themselves as judge and jurists, (the anger bit) but are unable to sentence, after they pass collective judgement. ( the frustration bit)

Anyhow, if nothing else, this latest episode should serve to highlight to those who treat "source" claims from the press as fact, that they are equally likely to be fiction.

No_Ta_Doctor

Matthewfalle wrote:

why? because yet another cyclist has been caught cheating?

He hasn't been caught cheating. He's been caught with an amount of Salbutamol in his urine that is taken as a strong indication that he has inhaled too much and has an opportunity to provide evidence that this isn't the case.

Your troll specialty appears to be remaining ignorant despite repeated efforts to enlighten you. Not the sharpest knife in the draw, are you? Possibly not even the sharpest spoon.

CuthbertC

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The twitterati are not just angry, but frustrated.
They appoint themselves as judge and jurists, (the anger bit) but are unable to sentence, after they pass collective judgement. ( the frustration bit)

Anyhow, if nothing else, this latest episode should serve to highlight to those who treat "source" claims from the press as fact, that they are equally likely to be fiction.

Because Froome's word is gospel?

joelsim

No tA Doctor wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

why? because yet another cyclist has been caught cheating?

He hasn't been caught cheating. He's been caught with an amount of Salbutamol in his urine that is taken as a strong indication that he has inhaled too much and has an opportunity to provide evidence that this isn't the case.

Your troll specialty appears to be remaining ignorant despite repeated efforts to enlighten you. Not the sharpest knife in the draw, are you? Possibly not even the sharpest spoon.

*drawer

Richmond Racer 2

Joelsim wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

why? because yet another cyclist has been caught cheating?

He hasn't been caught cheating. He's been caught with an amount of Salbutamol in his urine that is taken as a strong indication that he has inhaled too much and has an opportunity to provide evidence that this isn't the case.

Your troll specialty appears to be remaining ignorant despite repeated efforts to enlighten you. Not the sharpest knife in the draw, are you? Possibly not even the sharpest spoon.

*drawer

fork off :P

blazing_saddles

CuthbertC wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The twitterati are not just angry, but frustrated.
They appoint themselves as judge and jurists, (the anger bit) but are unable to sentence, after they pass collective judgement. ( the frustration bit)

Anyhow, if nothing else, this latest episode should serve to highlight to those who treat "source" claims from the press as fact, that they are equally likely to be fiction.

Because Froome's word is gospel?

No, because an anonymous source isn't gospel.
Any claim could be true or not, but isn't a fact until proven. That's all I'm pointing out.

If you accept the claim but choose to reject Froome's rebuttal, then selectively believing what makes print in a newspaper column is surely confirmation bias.

tim000

really hope froome get off with this . not really a fan . but there will be so many pi$$ed off people on the internet . could lead to a complete meltdown.

CuthbertC

Blazing Saddles wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The twitterati are not just angry, but frustrated.
They appoint themselves as judge and jurists, (the anger bit) but are unable to sentence, after they pass collective judgement. ( the frustration bit)

Anyhow, if nothing else, this latest episode should serve to highlight to those who treat "source" claims from the press as fact, that they are equally likely to be fiction.

Because Froome's word is gospel?

No, because an anonymous source isn't gospel.
Any claim could be true or not, but isn't a fact until proven. That's all I'm pointing out.

If you accept the claim but choose to reject Froome's rebuttal, then selectively believing what makes print in a newspaper column is surely confirmation bias.

It’s a question of credibility. L’Equipe and Corriere are reputable newspapers, they don’t fabricate stories out thin air. Froome has very little credibility for a variety of reasons. Not a difficult choice.

shipley

CuthbertC wrote:

It’s a question of credibility. L’Equipe and Corriere are reputable newspapers, they don’t fabricate stories out thin air. Froome has very little credibility for a variety of reasons. Not a difficult choice.

blazing_saddles

CuthbertC wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The twitterati are not just angry, but frustrated.
They appoint themselves as judge and jurists, (the anger bit) but are unable to sentence, after they pass collective judgement. ( the frustration bit)

Anyhow, if nothing else, this latest episode should serve to highlight to those who treat "source" claims from the press as fact, that they are equally likely to be fiction.

Because Froome's word is gospel?

No, because an anonymous source isn't gospel.
Any claim could be true or not, but isn't a fact until proven. That's all I'm pointing out.

If you accept the claim but choose to reject Froome's rebuttal, then selectively believing what makes print in a newspaper column is surely confirmation bias.

It’s a question of credibility. L’Equipe and Corriere are reputable newspapers, they don’t fabricate stories out thin air. Froome has very little credibility for a variety of reasons. Not a difficult choice.

The Guardian not a reputable newspaper?

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

The article suggested he would agree to an “acceptance of consequences” deal in order to avoid the case reaching an independent anti-doping trial.

It is understood he will not accept a ban of even one day in relation to his failed test at the Vuelta a España last September when double the permitted amount of a banned asthma drug, salbutamol, was found in his system.

It is understood Froome, his advisers at Team Sky and his lawyer, Mike Morgan, are still committed to finding a physiological reason to explain why he returned an adverse analytical finding to a urine test.

I don't choose to believe this version as fact, any more than Corriere.

darkhairedlord

tim000 wrote:

really hope froome get off with this . not really a fan . but there will be so many pi$$ed off people on the internet . could lead to a complete meltdown.

Expect the shit to hit fan on Dutch corner, but only if it misses froome.

twotyred

Froome is putting in a lot of long hard rides in S Africa in hot conditions. I wonder if this is normal winter training or is it part of some sort of test programme to try and replicate what might have happened in the Vuelta?

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

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?)

My god are you paid by BC or Chris Froome or some PR organisation to come out with that?

Bo Duke

Let's not forget people have been out to 'get' Froome for 2-3 seasons now because they're frustrated their own riders aren't good enough. The French hate him for that reason, pouring urine over him for heaven's sake. I added the comment in my signature 2-3 years ago and it still stands. 99% of the peloton have said nothing, only a few without knowing the facts have commented. Until proven wrong, Froome remains the consummate professional cyclist.

CuthbertC

From Corriere della Sera:

Le perizie conservate negli archivi del Tas di Losanna dimostrano che il compito dei consulenti legali dell’inglese di Sky sarà arduo. Nei laboratori antidoping internazionali vengono eseguiti in media 8/10 mila test per il salbutamolo l’anno: solo 2 superano i 1000 ng/ml, nessuno tocca i 2000. Ai Giochi di Torino 2006 ha assunto salbutamolo un partecipante su 100 e nessun campione di urina ha superato i 350 ng/ml. Se non scenderà a patti con la giustizia sportiva, Froome dovrà dimostrare per l’ennesima volta che il suo organismo è unico al mondo.

The appraisals kept in the CAS archives of Lausanne show that the task of Sky English counselors will be difficult. In international anti-doping laboratories an average of 8/10 thousand tests are performed for salbutamol per year: only 2 exceed 1000 ng / ml, none touches 2000. At the 2006 Turin Games, one participant in 100 salbutamol and no sample of urine exceeded 350 ng / ml. If he does not come to terms with sporting justice, Froome will have to prove for the umpteenth time that his body is unique in the world.

http://www.corriere.it/sport/18_gennaio ... 90d8.shtml

redvision

CuthbertC wrote:

From Corriere della Sera:

Le perizie conservate negli archivi del Tas di Losanna dimostrano che il compito dei consulenti legali dell’inglese di Sky sarà arduo. Nei laboratori antidoping internazionali vengono eseguiti in media 8/10 mila test per il salbutamolo l’anno: solo 2 superano i 1000 ng/ml, nessuno tocca i 2000. Ai Giochi di Torino 2006 ha assunto salbutamolo un partecipante su 100 e nessun campione di urina ha superato i 350 ng/ml. Se non scenderà a patti con la giustizia sportiva, Froome dovrà dimostrare per l’ennesima volta che il suo organismo è unico al mondo.

The appraisals kept in the CAS archives of Lausanne show that the task of Sky English counselors will be difficult. In international anti-doping laboratories an average of 8/10 thousand tests are performed for salbutamol per year: only 2 exceed 1000 ng / ml, none touches 2000. At the 2006 Turin Games, one participant in 100 salbutamol and no sample of urine exceeded 350 ng / ml. If he does not come to terms with sporting justice, Froome will have to prove for the umpteenth time that his body is unique in the world.

http://www.corriere.it/sport/18_gennaio ... 90d8.shtml

TBH it's data like this which means that Froome can't win this fight. Even if cleared it will still be argued that, as per the data above, he couldn't possibly have that much salbutamol in his system with a deliberate action (ie doping) and it will be classed as another coverup by the ruling/antidoping bodies. For this reason i feel genuinely sorry for the bloke.

One thing i want to know, was the inhaler or nebuliser delivered to froome in a jiffy bag??

blazing_saddles

CuthbertC wrote:

From Corriere della Sera:

Le perizie conservate negli archivi del Tas di Losanna dimostrano che il compito dei consulenti legali dell’inglese di Sky sarà arduo. Nei laboratori antidoping internazionali vengono eseguiti in media 8/10 mila test per il salbutamolo l’anno: solo 2 superano i 1000 ng/ml, nessuno tocca i 2000. Ai Giochi di Torino 2006 ha assunto salbutamolo un partecipante su 100 e nessun campione di urina ha superato i 350 ng/ml. Se non scenderà a patti con la giustizia sportiva, Froome dovrà dimostrare per l’ennesima volta che il suo organismo è unico al mondo.

The appraisals kept in the CAS archives of Lausanne show that the task of Sky English counselors will be difficult. In international anti-doping laboratories an average of 8/10 thousand tests are performed for salbutamol per year: only 2 exceed 1000 ng / ml, none touches 2000. At the 2006 Turin Games, one participant in 100 salbutamol and no sample of urine exceeded 350 ng / ml. If he does not come to terms with sporting justice, Froome will have to prove for the umpteenth time that his body is unique in the world.

http://www.corriere.it/sport/18_gennaio ... 90d8.shtml

Il Corriere’s scoop is notable for its lack of attribution

The World Anti-Doping Agency’s 2015 report (published in April 2017 and, therefore, the latest available) on ADRVs reveals that during that year there were 244 AAFs in cycling, of which 144 ultimately resulted in an ADRV.

In other words, 100 athletes had their case closed either for medical reasons (usually a TUE), because they had no case to answer or because no sanction was merited as they were exonerated or deemed to have committed no fault or negligence following a full disciplinary process.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/comme ... ack-367531

While that il Corriere's response does not contain any clue as to how they came by the 6 month settlement story, they now claim, again without attribution, that we will know the outcome within a few days.
I guess we wait a few days then......

Bo Duke

I think they mean they're going to make up the next installment in a few days....

CuthbertC

For completeness' sake:

As with L’Equipe’s story, Il Corriere’s scoop is notable for its lack of attribution – although this is alone is no reason to doubt it.

.

Some very vague statistics there from Cycling Weekly:

In other words, 100 athletes had their case closed either for medical reasons (usually a TUE), because they had no case to answer or because no sanction was merited as they were exonerated or deemed to have committed no fault or negligence following a full disciplinary process.

No idea of what substance each AAF relates to or the circumstances of each case, but apparently it is 'precedent'. You couldn't make this stuff up.

DeVlaeminck

If the CW interpretation of the rules that a ban can't be backdated is correct then that does raise the stakes - at a minimum any ban would now wipe out this season and if this drags on much longer a 12 month ban would start to affect races in 2019.

RichN95.

Most cycling journalists struggle to understand cycling, so I wouldn't rely on them for an understanding of law or physiology

mamba80

DeVlaeminck wrote:

If the CW interpretation of the rules that a ban can't be backdated is correct then that does raise the stakes - at a minimum any ban would now wipe out this season and if this drags on much longer a 12 month ban would start to affect races in 2019.

I ve wonder the same from the beginning, why not accept guilt from the out set, take a 6month ban and be able to ride the Giro etc
all that is happening now is its forever in the fan's eyes and eroding his rep, he could have just said "yeah guys sorry, in the heat of the moment i took too many puffs, no performance gain but i accept my guilt" he might have even kept his Veulta.

RichN95.

mamba80 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

If the CW interpretation of the rules that a ban can't be backdated is correct then that does raise the stakes - at a minimum any ban would now wipe out this season and if this drags on much longer a 12 month ban would start to affect races in 2019.

I ve wonder the same from the beginning, why not accept guilt from the out set, take a 6month ban and be able to ride the Giro etc
all that is happening now is its forever in the fan's eyes and eroding his rep, he could have just said "yeah guys sorry, in the heat of the moment i took too many puffs, no performance gain but i accept my guilt" he might have even kept his Veulta.

He clearly doesn't think that he has taken too much or done anything wrong. And no-one knows better than him what he's done.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

He clearly doesn't think that he has taken too much or done anything wrong. And no-one knows better than him what he's done.

Does any one who dopes?
I'm not saying Froome did but the majority of those charged with doping offences insist they did not do anything wrong.

blazing_saddles

CuthbertC wrote:

For completeness' sake:

As with L’Equipe’s story, Il Corriere’s scoop is notable for its lack of attribution – although this is alone is no reason to doubt it.

.

TBH, Like CW, I found less reason to doubt their article yesterday, than I do today, when this response failed to back up their assertion.
They don't claim to have a source.

I don't dismiss either articles statistical information. Both are interesting.

mamba80

RichN95 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

If the CW interpretation of the rules that a ban can't be backdated is correct then that does raise the stakes - at a minimum any ban would now wipe out this season and if this drags on much longer a 12 month ban would start to affect races in 2019.

I ve wonder the same from the beginning, why not accept guilt from the out set, take a 6month ban and be able to ride the Giro etc
all that is happening now is its forever in the fan's eyes and eroding his rep, he could have just said "yeah guys sorry, in the heat of the moment i took too many puffs, no performance gain but i accept my guilt" he might have even kept his Veulta.

He clearly doesn't think that he has taken too much or done anything wrong. And no-one knows better than him what he's done.

Yes i can understand this but unless he can prove that he ll get a ban in any case and potentially wreck his 2018 season.

time will tell if he has made the right decision.

larkim

Yes, but would you admit to doping of you know you hadn't? Just because the guilty would deny it doesn't remove the validity of an innocent individual denying it.

There's a reason why a guilty plea in a court generates a lower sentence - it reflects a view that you're not compounding the crime by denial in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The same is true in sporting sanctions. Admit it and you get a benefit. Deny it and you risk a more substantial punishment.

Froome's approach is high risk if he intentionally or unintentionally broke the rules. His approach however is the right one if he knows himself to be innocent.

specialgueststar

Can we have a factual summary please