Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

CuthbertC

Blazing Saddles wrote:

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.

You don't need to 'claim' a source when it's self-evident.

What's interesting about the WADA statistics? For all you know, none of them relate to salbutamol. I thought you only concerned yourself with facts.

RichN95.

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

Can we have a factual summary please

There is no news

mamba80

larkim wrote:

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.

the facts are he has returned a reading of double the permissible amount, thats undeniable.

Sometimes in life, you have to be pragmatic, its going to be very hard to prove his innocence and he is just heading for a longer ban, damaging his rep and the sport the longer this drags on.

DeVlaeminck

RichN95 wrote:

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

Agreed, despite what CW say I would still have a backdated ban as most likely outcome, in fact knowing cycling even if someone showed me the rule book where it says no ban can be backdated I still wouldn't rule that out as the eventual outcome.

Re. whether he should have taken the ban, maybe there was a middle option of accepting a short ban without accepting guilt - saying I wont contest the ban but maybe even doing some tests and presenting the findings to prove an alternative explanation.

larkim

mamba80 wrote:

larkim wrote:

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.

the facts are he has returned a reading of double the permissible amount, thats undeniable.

Sometimes in life, you have to be pragmatic, its going to be very hard to prove his innocence and he is just heading for a longer ban, damaging his rep and the sport the longer this drags on.

Hypothetically, if I was him and I was innocent, would I want to be pragmatic and have the tag "doper" around my neck for the rest of my competing days, just for the sake of pragmatism?

I would not, I would fight tooth and nail to prevent a finding of guilt against me. And I suggest so would everyone else.

The facts are that he has returned a reading double the amount written into the rules to indicate likely non-therapeutic use. That's all.

In a vast majority of times that would be a direct consequence of having ingested too much. But just because that is the vast majority of times that doesn't 100% mean that this has happened this time.

I'm as curious as anyone to see how Froome attempts to prove his innocence, but for the time being I'll accept his flat denials at face value and await the outcome of the hearings / investigations with an open mind. When that defence gets presented, that will be the time to consider whether it stands up to scrutiny.

blazing_saddles

CuthbertC wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

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.

You don't need to 'claim' a source when it's self-evident.

What's interesting about the WADA statistics? For all you know, none of them relate to salbutamol. I thought you only concerned yourself with facts.

You have to be joking.

Their original (translated) claim was:-
That is why, on the advice of his wife-manager Michelle Cound, Froome would have embarked on the "Acceptance of Consequences", the plea bargaining of negligence provided by federal legal services to avoid the long and risky trial before the Independent Anti-Doping Court.

So, according to Il Corriere, his wife leaked the story.
How is that self-evident, unless she told you?
All righty.

As far as the WADA figures go, they only relate to the process. Both sets are factual.
Just to reiterate. I'm not arguing here that Froome won't get a ban. I have said all along that he will.
I'm arguing that stories emanating from newspapers that are unattributed cannot be simply assumed to be fact.
Especially one that supposedly stemmed from one partner and has been denied by the other.

Richmond Racer 2

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.

Meh. He's a cold-blooded creature. As cold-blooded as those pet python he used to feed his school mates pet rabbits to

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Meh. He's a cold-blooded creature. As cold-blooded as those pet python he used to feed his school mates pet rabbits to

I imagine the starting fee for the Giro is a decent carrot too, no?

CuthbertC

Blazing Saddles wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

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.

You don't need to 'claim' a source when it's self-evident.

What's interesting about the WADA statistics? For all you know, none of them relate to salbutamol. I thought you only concerned yourself with facts.

You have to be joking.

Their original (translated) claim was:-
That is why, on the advice of his wife-manager Michelle Cound, Froome would have embarked on the "Acceptance of Consequences", the plea bargaining of negligence provided by federal legal services to avoid the long and risky trial before the Independent Anti-Doping Court.

So, according to Il Corriere, his wife leaked the story.
How is that self-evident, unless she told you?
All righty.

As far as the WADA figures go, they only relate to the process. Both sets are factual.
Just to reiterate. I'm not arguing here that Froome won't get a ban. I have said all along that he will.
I'm arguing that stories emanating from newspapers that are unattributed cannot be simply assumed to be fact.
Especially one that supposedly stemmed from one partner and has been denied by the other.

Someone from Froome's side, probably Michelle, raises the hypothetical possibility of an 'Acceptance of Consequences' with the UCI (LADS). Corriere has a UCI source, probably within LADS. Source relays what Michelle/whoever has discussed with them. There is nothing outlandish about enquiring about a plea deal, particularly when you have haven't undergone a study more than four months down the line.

kingstongraham

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Meh. He's a cold-blooded creature. As cold-blooded as those pet python he used to feed his school mates pet rabbits to

They weren't his school mates pets - they were rabbits stolen from the local kindergarten.

ocdupalais

KingstonGraham wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Meh. He's a cold-blooded creature. As cold-blooded as those pet python he used to feed his school mates pet rabbits to

They weren't his school mates pets - they were rabbits stolen from the local kindergarten.

I heard it was an orphanage for the blind with learning difficulties.

bompington

OCDuPalais wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Meh. He's a cold-blooded creature. As cold-blooded as those pet python he used to feed his school mates pet rabbits to

They weren't his school mates pets - they were rabbits stolen from the local kindergarten.

I heard it was an orphanage for the blind with learning difficulties.

And it's not true that he fed them to his python, Corriere said he ripped them apart with his bare hands and drank their blood.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Meh. He's a cold-blooded creature. As cold-blooded as those pet python he used to feed his school mates pet rabbits to

I imagine the starting fee for the Giro is a decent carrot too, no?

The snakes aren't going to eat carrots

DeVlaeminck

larkim wrote:

[


Hypothetically, if I was him and I was innocent, would I want to be pragmatic and have the tag "doper" around my neck for the rest of my competing days, just for the sake of pragmatism?

I would not, I would fight tooth and nail to prevent a finding of guilt against me. And I suggest so would everyone else.

y.

Not sure he would be seen as a doper, sure some would see it as proof but some already do see him as a drugs cheat. I think most would think it was probably a case of too many puffs or else accept whatever explanation he came up with after the event was at least possible. Serving a short ban would not preclude him from presenting evidence as to his innocence.

Richmond Racer 2

KingstonGraham wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Meh. He's a cold-blooded creature. As cold-blooded as those pet python he used to feed his school mates pet rabbits to

They weren't his school mates pets - they were rabbits stolen from the local kindergarten.

Even worse

Cold as a brat, cold as an adult

Bo Duke

mamba80 wrote:

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.

This is typical modern approach that its easier to accept guilt than defend innocence?
No wonder people like Trump are voted into power....... say whatever people want to hear.....

larkim

DeVlaeminck wrote:

larkim wrote:

[


Hypothetically, if I was him and I was innocent, would I want to be pragmatic and have the tag "doper" around my neck for the rest of my competing days, just for the sake of pragmatism?

I would not, I would fight tooth and nail to prevent a finding of guilt against me. And I suggest so would everyone else.

y.

Not sure he would be seen as a doper, sure some would see it as proof but some already do see him as a drugs cheat. I think most would think it was probably a case of too many puffs or else accept whatever explanation he came up with after the event was at least possible. Serving a short ban would not preclude him from presenting evidence as to his innocence.

I'm not so sure that would wash - once you've had a finding against you, the great unwashed don't forget. Especially if it is someone as high profile as Froome. I can accept that the cycling fraternity might not have such an issue with him as they'll perhaps be more aware of the situation (providing it does appear to be accidental or unintentional rather than part of a wider programme), but your average Sun or Daily Mail reader will label him a drugs cheat - especially as he doesn't seem to generate too much public sympathy and warmth in any event.

mamba80

Bo Duke wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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.

This is typical modern approach that its easier to accept guilt than defend innocence?
No wonder people like Trump are voted into power....... say whatever people want to hear.....

not at all, he has failed the test (so is not "innocent") by a considerable margin, so unless he can come up with a suitable excuse... which i think we can safely say he hasnt so far, then the chances are he ll get a ban and one that will wreck his 2018 season and/or cast a shadow over the events he competes in.

i just happen to think that had he accepted his guilt in a grown up manner, he may well have got a little more respect, a shorter ban and moved on.

the avg Sun/Mail reader doesnt give a shitte who Froome is or what he may have done.

iainf72

mamba80 wrote:

not at all, he has failed the test (so is not "innocent") by a considerable margin, so unless he can come up with a suitable excuse... which i think we can safely say he hasnt so far, then the chances are he ll get a ban and one that will wreck his 2018 season and/or cast a shadow over the events he competes in.

Assume he didn’t take too much salbutomol - If you were in same circumstances, what would you do? Would you just take a ban?

What happens if he did that, and then 12 months later has the same result in a test?

The fact the results of the test are a proxy for “may have taken too much” does indicate it’s not a certaintity.

DeVlaeminck

If I had been in his position, let's assume he genuinely believes he stayed within the limits as far as inhaled salbutamol goes, I think I'd start by consulting experts as to the chances of me being able to avoid a ban, and if those chances were slim I'd probably take 6-9 months if it was offered.

I'd then conduct some tests, talk to some more experts and come up with some kind of excuse, real or BS, that I thought had the best chance of clearing my name, a PR job if you like.

mamba80

iainf72 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

not at all, he has failed the test (so is not "innocent") by a considerable margin, so unless he can come up with a suitable excuse... which i think we can safely say he hasnt so far, then the chances are he ll get a ban and one that will wreck his 2018 season and/or cast a shadow over the events he competes in.

Assume he didn’t take too much salbutomol - If you were in same circumstances, what would you do? Would you just take a ban?

What happens if he did that, and then 12 months later has the same result in a test?

The fact the results of the test are a proxy for “may have taken too much” does indicate it’s not a certaintity.

you seem to be arguing the test is an ill thought out one? if a genuine asthmatic using an inhaler as prescribed, can fail these tests with regularity, then we d have far greater numbers and bans, we dont.

My point is, that if he has no realistic defence, then taking the ban early, might have been the wisest course of action, sure if he has a kidney issue etc etc then he can present this and he was correct to fight it but surely that would have happened by now?

fwiw i dont think anyone exceeding a TH of a drug that has no PED effect, in a one off dose, should be banned, there should be another sanction but thats not where we are.

RichN95.

mamba80 wrote:

you seem to be arguing the test is an ill thought out one? if a genuine asthmatic using an inhaler as prescribed, can fail these tests with regularity, then we d have far greater numbers and bans, we dont.

First of all we don't know what numbers there have been.

Secondly, the athletes that have been tested are generally ones that have won that day, or been close to winning. So even the asthmatics won't have had need to inhale large amounts. Those with problems would most likely just drop out of their event (we're not just talking about cycling here). It's unlikely Froome would have been tested that day if he wasn't winning.

The chances of someone who has needed to take an unusual dose being tested that same day is really very small.

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

not at all, he has failed the test (so is not "innocent") by a considerable margin, so unless he can come up with a suitable excuse... which i think we can safely say he hasnt so far, then the chances are he ll get a ban and one that will wreck his 2018 season and/or cast a shadow over the events he competes in.

Assume he didn’t take too much salbutomol - If you were in same circumstances, what would you do? Would you just take a ban?

What happens if he did that, and then 12 months later has the same result in a test?

The fact the results of the test are a proxy for “may have taken too much” does indicate it’s not a certaintity.

Can I prove that the output reading can be 'achieved' by me while still staying below the input quantity?

If I can't, can I identify failings in the test or testing procedures?

If I can't, can I identify a reason why it happened on that day and provide evidence to prove this?

If I can't, can I construct a story as to why it happened and support this story with evidence to convince LADS (?)?


If the answer to these 4 questions is no then even if I'm innocent the only pragmatic course of action is to attempt a negotiated settlement
This of course is due to the burden of proof being shifted to me

larkim

I would need some serious convincing if I was the completely innocent individual who despite that could still not provide a satisfactory level of evidence of my innocence to avoid a punishment. There are plenty of high profile cases involving long incarcerations of individuals who refuse to admit guilt even for a lower tariff sentence or early parole because it was more important to them to maintain their position of asserting 100% innocence.

I'm not saying there's no place for pragmatism, and in the cold light of day a pragmatic acceptance of a punishment with an implicit acceptance of some form of guilt might win in some minds when weighed up against future earnings, ability to carry on doing your job etc etc. But I'd like to think the principled route of asserting innocence and refusing to do anything which implies any level of guilt is the route that I'd take in that situation.

larkim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_ ... 7s_dilemma lists some of those principled positions.

Froome may not be innocent. And he may not be as principled as I am suggesting. But it is a valid scenario.

ocdupalais

DeVlaeminck wrote:

If I had been in his position, let's assume he genuinely believes he stayed within the limits as far as inhaled salbutamol goes, I think I'd start by consulting experts as to the chances of me being able to avoid a ban, and if those chances were slim I'd probably take 6-9 months if it was offered.

I'd then conduct some tests, talk to some more experts and come up with some kind of excuse, real or BS, that I thought had the best chance of clearing my name, a PR job if you like.

We’re in a dark and cynical place when hypothetical and imagined situations are best remedied with “some kind of excuse” AFTER pursuing correct channels...
We’re it you, and you knew without question that you inhaled as prescribed, then there has to be a scientific basis for the AAF, no?
Previous testing has shown that Froome is a freak and an outlier in other areas: I’d not be overly surprised if Cath Wiggins (or RR2) wasn’t so off the mark and that DNA tests show Froome shares more genetic material with a monitor lizard than an ape. Has anyone tested Salbutamol on reptiles?

ocdupalais

In my hypothetical and imagined scenario, after spending a few months warming himself on rocks, Froome has his internal organs displaced to the outside of his body and strapped over his back (obviously, there’d need to be some uncomfortable marketing/rights conversations regarding jersey branding, etc, yadda yadda) where they can be monitored by a drone camera/scanner linked up to a 24hr broadcasted feed (that also monitors his whereabouts). At the base of his spine - just above his scaly tail (that has been secretly tethered down all this time... and people believed the ”internal organ fat” excuse for his high fat % :roll: ) - would be a digital read out that shows his competitors what percentage he’s operating at as he disappears up the road to yet another Tour victory....

mamba80

larkim wrote:

I would need some serious convincing if I was the completely innocent individual who despite that could still not provide a satisfactory level of evidence of my innocence to avoid a punishment. There are plenty of high profile cases involving long incarcerations of individuals who refuse to admit guilt even for a lower tariff sentence or early parole because it was more important to them to maintain their position of asserting 100% innocence.

I'm not saying there's no place for pragmatism, and in the cold light of day a pragmatic acceptance of a punishment with an implicit acceptance of some form of guilt might win in some minds when weighed up against future earnings, ability to carry on doing your job etc etc. But I'd like to think the principled route of asserting innocence and refusing to do anything which implies any level of guilt is the route that I'd take in that situation.

this is pro cycling, what ever Froome may have done or not, he aint going to jail, a sense of perspective here!

Sure i can accept principals but Froomes reading is super high, its not just a bit over and precedent says that avoiding a ban with that level of fail, will be very very difficult and the longer this drags on, the longer it drags cycling through the dirt, damaging cycling, his team and his season.

shipley

mamba80 wrote:

Sure i can accept principals but Froomes reading is super high, its not just a bit over and precedent says that avoiding a ban with that level of fail, will be very very difficult and the longer this drags on, the longer it drags cycling through the dirt, damaging cycling, his team and his season.

I made this point about 20 pages ago but got shouted down by the Froome fanboys.

Can't wait to see the outcome, which is by now long overdue. This thread will explode if he 'gets off' or gets a ban and isn't fired by SKY as a result.

Now, where's my popcorn

Richmond Racer 2

OCDuPalais wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

If I had been in his position, let's assume he genuinely believes he stayed within the limits as far as inhaled salbutamol goes, I think I'd start by consulting experts as to the chances of me being able to avoid a ban, and if those chances were slim I'd probably take 6-9 months if it was offered.

I'd then conduct some tests, talk to some more experts and come up with some kind of excuse, real or BS, that I thought had the best chance of clearing my name, a PR job if you like.

We’re in a dark and cynical place when hypothetical and imagined situations are best remedied with “some kind of excuse” AFTER pursuing correct channels...
We’re it you, and you knew without question that you inhaled as prescribed, then there has to be a scientific basis for the AAF, no?
Previous testing has shown that Froome is a freak and an outlier in other areas: I’d not be overly surprised if Cath Wiggins (or RR2) wasn’t so off the mark and that DNA tests show Froome shares more genetic material with a monitor lizard than an ape. Has anyone tested Salbutamol on reptiles?

I deny I am Cath Wiggins!