Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

RichN95.

It's GROUNDHOG DAY!

Today Punxsutawney Phil emerges from his hibernation and if he sees an inhaler it means we will have six more months of this salbutamol story.

jimmythecuckoo

Froome could end this by taking his ban and we could all move on.

He is damaging the sport more by not holding his hands up and saying "I had too many puffs".

If Michelle is looking to plea bargain, I would urge the UCI to get on with the hearing.

RichN95.

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Froome could end this by taking his ban and we could all move on.

He is damaging the sport more by not holding his hands up and saying "I had too many puffs".

If Michelle is looking to plea bargain, I would urge the UCI to get on with the hearing.

He’s not damaging anything. And he has a right to defend himself as he sees fit.

jimmythecuckoo

All about opinions.

For me the longer this drags on the more stupid he looks.

blazing_saddles

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Froome could end this by taking his ban and we could all move on.

He is damaging the sport more by not holding his hands up and saying "I had too many puffs".

If Michelle is looking to plea bargain, I would urge the UCI to get on with the hearing.

I don't think it's that simple in any case.
The UCI can only hand out the maximum penalty for no defence, which saying, "I took too many puffs", is.
I cannot understand why some folks expect him simply to fall on his sword and exonerate the UCI for their failure to set a schedule.
After all, it's they that have the track record for drawing proceedings out.

Richmond Racer 2

This isnt helping Froome's reputation

This isnt helping Sky

This isnt helping the sport


All its helping is CN's click count

bobmcstuff

Blazing Saddles wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Froome could end this by taking his ban and we could all move on.

He is damaging the sport more by not holding his hands up and saying "I had too many puffs".

If Michelle is looking to plea bargain, I would urge the UCI to get on with the hearing.

I don't think it's that simple in any case.
The UCI can only hand out the maximum penalty for no defence, which saying, "I took too many puffs", is.
I cannot understand why some folks expect him simply to fall on his sword and exonerate the UCI for their failure to set a schedule.
After all, it's they that have the track record for drawing proceedings out.

The UCI isn't being any slower than normal is it, I'm not sure what people are expecting.

iainf72

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

All about opinions.

For me the longer this drags on the more stupid he looks.

What if he didn’t take too many puffs.? What if he just took a ban and then it happened again?

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

All about opinions.

For me the longer this drags on the more stupid he looks.

What if he didn’t take too many puffs.? What if he just took a ban and then it happened again?

TBH, the onus is now on him, and if he can't prove it, there's nout he can do.

I mean, the Petacchi case shows even if the local agency doesn't think you did it deliberately, it doesn't really matter.

DeVlaeminck

RichN95 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Froome could end this by taking his ban and we could all move on.

He is damaging the sport more by not holding his hands up and saying "I had too many puffs".

If Michelle is looking to plea bargain, I would urge the UCI to get on with the hearing.

He’s not damaging anything. And he has a right to defend himself as he sees fit.

Yes he has a right to do that within the rules but in the absence of any explanation for the salbutamol reading or even an update on the process of providing an explanation he has to accept that cycling fans and the general public, ultimately the people that make his talent worth a decent living, are going to interpret the situation for themselves.

In many people's eyes Sky have had long enough, if they aren't going to give us an explanation then the suspicion grows that they don't have one and in that case inevitably people will question his innocence.

jimmythecuckoo

iainf72 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

All about opinions.

For me the longer this drags on the more stupid he looks.

What if he didn’t take too many puffs.? What if he just took a ban and then it happened again?

The UCI needs to make some form of decision to put the burden of proof on to him. Or vice versa.

mamba80

iainf72 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

All about opinions.

For me the longer this drags on the more stupid he looks.

What if he didn’t take too many puffs.? What if he just took a ban and then it happened again?

Regardless of the outcome of this, perhaps he should go down the TUE route in future? its a perfectly legitimate way to control his Asthma, if its that bad? and will avoid this in future but you seem to saying is that the tests and TH 's are flawed.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes he has a right to do that within the rules but in the absence of any explanation for the salbutamol reading or even an update on the process of providing an explanation he has to accept that cycling fans and the general public, ultimately the people that make his talent worth a decent living, are going to interpret the situation for themselves.

In many people's eyes Sky have had long enough, if they aren't going to give us an explanation then the suspicion grows that they don't have one and in that case inevitably people will question his innocence.

It's not up to the 'people' to judge him. And most of them had made up their mind about his innocence long before they even heard about the failed test.

And he's not actually racing. He's pottering around South Africa. If or when he turns up to a race then people can talk about 'damaging the sport'.

larkim

mamba80 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

All about opinions.

For me the longer this drags on the more stupid he looks.

What if he didn’t take too many puffs.? What if he just took a ban and then it happened again?

Regardless of the outcome of this, perhaps he should go down the TUE route in future? its a perfectly legitimate way to control his Asthma, if its that bad? and will avoid this in future but you seem to saying is that the tests and TH 's are flawed.

That wouldn't work. The rules already state that the urine limit is meant to detect use of salbutamol above a therapeutic limit. Having a TUE to "allow" him to take Salbutamol wouldn't allow him access to any more salbutamol than he actually needs.

Unless you're suggesting he should have a TUE for another (banned) drug which would control the asthma in a different way? In which case the doctor authorising the TUE would have to be certifying that this drug wold be significantly more effective and be absolutely necessary for him, which I doubt would be certifiable.

jimmythecuckoo

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-f ... a-verdict/

Looks like the UCI want it ending...

Mad_Malx

larkim wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

All about opinions.

For me the longer this drags on the more stupid he looks.

What if he didn’t take too many puffs.? What if he just took a ban and then it happened again?

Regardless of the outcome of this, perhaps he should go down the TUE route in future? its a perfectly legitimate way to control his Asthma, if its that bad? and will avoid this in future but you seem to saying is that the tests and TH 's are flawed.

That wouldn't work. The rules already state that the urine limit is meant to detect use of salbutamol above a therapeutic limit. Having a TUE to "allow" him to take Salbutamol wouldn't allow him access to any more salbutamol than he actually needs.

Unless you're suggesting he should have a TUE for another (banned) drug which would control the asthma in a different way? In which case the doctor authorising the TUE would have to be certifying that this drug wold be significantly more effective and be absolutely necessary for him, which I doubt would be certifiable.

It's very well established that inhaled glucocorticoids reduce the doses of salbutamol needed. Sally alone should only be used for mild or occasional asthma episodes.

Vino'sGhost

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case-reportedly-moves-a-step-closer-towards-a-verdict/

Looks like the UCI want it ending...

Sounds like everyone wants end but they can’t agree what the end looks like.

The pantomime continues

Dorset_Boy

Does come across that a lot of people are peed off that they are not being kept in the loop on this even though none of them (or us) should know anything about it.

blazing_saddles

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case-reportedly-moves-a-step-closer-towards-a-verdict/

Looks like the UCI want it ending...

Cor, it's getting like someone let off a smoke bomb in a thick fog.
I wonder what assumptions will come of La Gazzetta dello Sport's source?
Yet more possible outcomes and the old timeline seemingly trashed.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

Unless you're suggesting he should have a TUE for another (banned) drug which would control the asthma in a different way? In which case the doctor authorising the TUE would have to be certifying that this drug wold be significantly more effective and be absolutely necessary for him, which I doubt would be certifiable.

Simon Yates has one.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

Unless you're suggesting he should have a TUE for another (banned) drug which would control the asthma in a different way? In which case the doctor authorising the TUE would have to be certifying that this drug wold be significantly more effective and be absolutely necessary for him, which I doubt would be certifiable.

Simon Yates has one.

That’s not a justification for anyone else to have one though

larkim

Yep, the clinical reasoning has to be that Yates (for example) would not be as healthy on Salbutamol alone. That may be the case for Froome, and he (on principle) declines the "advantage" that the TUE would give him. Or it may be that his type / level of asthma doesn't justify a more aggressive drug. I'm certainly not well informed when it comes to asthma medications etc, I'm not a doctor etc. so I might be talking billhooks, but I'm fairly sure that's the way the TUE system is supposed to operate.

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

All about opinions.

For me the longer this drags on the more stupid he looks.

What if he didn’t take too many puffs.? What if he just took a ban and then it happened again?

Regardless of the outcome of this, perhaps he should go down the TUE route in future? its a perfectly legitimate way to control his Asthma, if its that bad? and will avoid this in future but you seem to saying is that the tests and TH 's are flawed.

But then he'd lose his 'holier than thou' position over Wiggins.

DeVlaeminck

Dorset Boy wrote:

Does come across that a lot of people are peed off that they are not being kept in the loop on this even though none of them (or us) should know anything about it.

"Should" only according to UCI or anti doping rules, but when your business relies on public interest then you can't pick and choose which bits the public are interested in.

CuthbertC

Pross wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

All about opinions.

For me the longer this drags on the more stupid he looks.

What if he didn’t take too many puffs.? What if he just took a ban and then it happened again?

Regardless of the outcome of this, perhaps he should go down the TUE route in future? its a perfectly legitimate way to control his Asthma, if its that bad? and will avoid this in future but you seem to saying is that the tests and TH 's are flawed.

But then he'd lose his 'holier than thou' position over Wiggins.

Two prednisolone TUEs, he doesn't have anything over Wiggins.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes he has a right to do that within the rules but in the absence of any explanation for the salbutamol reading or even an update on the process of providing an explanation he has to accept that cycling fans and the general public, ultimately the people that make his talent worth a decent living, are going to interpret the situation for themselves.

In many people's eyes Sky have had long enough, if they aren't going to give us an explanation then the suspicion grows that they don't have one and in that case inevitably people will question his innocence.

It's not up to the 'people' to judge him. And some of them had made up their mind about his innocence long before they even heard about the failed test.

And he's not actually racing. He's pottering around South Africa. If or when he turns up to a race then people can talk about 'damaging the sport'.

FTFY

Richmond Racer 2

larkim wrote:

Yep, the clinical reasoning has to be that Yates (for example) would not be as healthy on Salbutamol alone. That may be the case for Froome, and he (on principle) declines the "advantage" that the TUE would give him. Or it may be that his type / level of asthma doesn't justify a more aggressive drug. I'm certainly not well informed when it comes to asthma medications etc, I'm not a doctor etc. so I might be talking billhooks, but I'm fairly sure that's the way the TUE system is supposed to operate.

Well, he only acquired this high-minded principle once the media ran with his 2014 Tour de Romandie TUE where according to reports he pushed the team doctor for the medication and the associated fast-tracked TUE

So..umm.

(I dont care a toot about TUEs personally. Just cant be doing with the holier-than-thou shoot)

larkim

I don't know enough about the TUE at Romandie other than that that was in response to a one-off condition (whether it was pushed for on a fast tracked basis or not) rather than the inhaler which is a persistent presence due to the persistent condition.

Froome certainly wouldn't refuse all TUEs on principle - that would be madness, as it could mean you get busted for having XYZ drug in your system when its been administered as part of a complex medical process which saved your life.

The problem with TUEs is that they are specifically there to allow riders to race (and train) in the face of a medical need for an otherwise banned substance, and by definition you would perform less well without it.

tim000

well the sooner this is cleared up the sooner we can move on and start complaining about the sentence , or lack of .

Matthewfalle

tim000 wrote:

well the sooner this is cleared up the sooner we can move on and start complaining about the sentence , or lack of .

and the sooner i can start eating my way through a mountain of chips and curry sauce