Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

r0bh

Froome is going to race at Ruta del Sol (per Sky's twitter)

That should be good for another 10 pages

joelsim

r0bh wrote:

Froome is going to race at Ruta del Sol (per Sky's twitter)

That should be good for another 10 pages

That should provide a bit of impetus for the UCI to get moving. They can't ban him even though the rules say they can, it wouldn't stand up in court and they'd end up paying damages. Clearly without Sky self-suspending the only route is to try to expedite the verdict and hope it sticks.

slowbike

Joelsim wrote:

r0bh wrote:

Froome is going to race at Ruta del Sol (per Sky's twitter)

That should be good for another 10 pages

That should provide a bit of impetus for the UCI to get moving. They can't ban him even though the rules say they can, it wouldn't stand up in court and they'd end up paying damages. Clearly without Sky self-suspending the only route is to try to expedite the verdict and hope it sticks.

We/You'd like to think so - but really - are they going to get their arses in gear to get this case resolved? Somehow I doubt it...

larkim

It wouldn't surprise me if there was something more concrete coming out in the next few days before that race starts.

But at least the race organisers and their sponsors will get a boost through increased profile from this decision, one way or another!

joelsim

Slowbike wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

r0bh wrote:

Froome is going to race at Ruta del Sol (per Sky's twitter)

That should be good for another 10 pages

That should provide a bit of impetus for the UCI to get moving. They can't ban him even though the rules say they can, it wouldn't stand up in court and they'd end up paying damages. Clearly without Sky self-suspending the only route is to try to expedite the verdict and hope it sticks.

We/You'd like to think so - but really - are they going to get their arses in gear to get this case resolved? Somehow I doubt it...

Well. I would.

Of course that doesn't mean they will.

I also think Sky are being stupid, any ban likely to then start from the day of the verdict rather than last September.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

I also think Sky are being stupid, any ban likely to then start from the day of the verdict rather than last September.

Unless he's confident of being cleared. In which case it's the right tactic.

From the notable positives from last year, the Bardiani Two took seven months to deal with, Cardoso's from June still isn't resolved and neither is Sanchez's from August.

DeVlaeminck

r0bh wrote:

Froome is going to race at Ruta del Sol (per Sky's twitter)

That should be good for another 10 pages

Good news, this thread was in danger of slipping off the front page.

I've no idea where the Ruta del Sol is other than it sounds Spanish but how dare Dave Brailsford make a farce out of this historic race.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I've no idea where the Ruta del Sol is other than it sounds Spanish but how dare Dave Brailsford make a farce out of this historic race.

Andalucia, where the local hero is a man who rode for four years with an unresolved doping case hanging over him.

joelsim

DeVlaeminck wrote:

but how dare Dave Brailsford make a farce out of this historic race.

Whether you are a Sky fan or not, this is unfortunately the case.

Unlike the other doping cases you've mentioned Rich, which are definite bans you would think, and they are suspended, the Froome case threatens far more damage to the sport and the races in which he rides.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

but how dare Dave Brailsford make a farce out of this historic race.

Whether you are a Sky fan or not, this is unfortunately the case.

Unlike the other doping cases you've mentioned Rich, which are definite bans you would think, and they are suspended, the Froome case threatens far more damage to the sport and the races in which he rides.

Damage caused by someone at the UCI leaking confidential information. And why do doping cases routinely take 6-12 months to process? How is that fair?

Ulissi's case dragged on for so long he unsuspended himself.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

but how dare Dave Brailsford make a farce out of this historic race.

Whether you are a Sky fan or not, this is unfortunately the case.

Unlike the other doping cases you've mentioned Rich, which are definite bans you would think, and they are suspended, the Froome case threatens far more damage to the sport and the races in which he rides.

Damage caused by someone at the UCI leaking confidential information. And why do doping cases routinely take 6-12 months to process? How is that fair?

Do we know who leaked the information? It could've been me or Cath Wiggins for all you know!

slowbike

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

but how dare Dave Brailsford make a farce out of this historic race.

Whether you are a Sky fan or not, this is unfortunately the case.

Unlike the other doping cases you've mentioned Rich, which are definite bans you would think, and they are suspended, the Froome case threatens far more damage to the sport and the races in which he rides.

Damage caused by someone at the UCI leaking confidential information. And why do doping cases routinely take 6-12 months to process? How is that fair?

Ulissi's case dragged on for so long he unsuspended himself.

I can understand when the rider requests time to carry out tests/investigation - but even that should be given a time limit.
Surely there can't be that many cases that can't be resolved within 2 months of the adverse finding reading being presented to the rider/team?
But then - we don't know if there's been a date set or time limit given - it's just open ended...

gsk82

I really wish he wasn't racing. It brings unnecessary attention and uncertainty.

On the other hand is he supposed to twiddle his fingers awaiting a decision, by which time his season could be all but written off? That obviously wouldn't be a problem if he gets a ban, but to lose the best part of a season only to be cleared would be foolish.

redvision

I would be livid if I was Sergio Henao.
Granted Froome is the sky leader but they clearly back him unequivocally whilst Henao was sent home, essentially suspended from racing for 8 weeks, when he returned suspect test results.

I assume that sky and Froome are very confident that he will be cleared, but if they do have genuine support and dedication to zero tolerance on doping then Froome should not be considered for racing until the case is heard.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

I would be livid if I was Sergio Henao.
Granted Froome is the sky leader but they clearly back him unequivocally whilst Henao was sent home, essentially suspended from racing for 8 weeks, when he returned suspect test results.

One difference is that Henao actually had to go back to Colombia for a prolonged period to show that it was the altitude that had caused the problem.

tailwindhome

...or win the Giro the 5th Tour and just walk away....

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

One difference is that Henao actually had to go back to Colombia for a prolonged period to show that it was the altitude that had caused the problem.

Maybe, but sky used the Henao situation to boost their reputation as the leading anti doping protagonist, claiming they would never allow a rider to race if he had any on going doping investigation.

With allowing Froome to race whilst his test results are still being investigated it makes a mockery of this stance and, imo, completely undermines the races he enters and the sport.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

One difference is that Henao actually had to go back to Colombia for a prolonged period to show that it was the altitude that had caused the problem.

Maybe, but sky used the Henao situation to boost their reputation as the leading anti doping protagonist, claiming they would never allow a rider to race if he had any on going doping investigation.

Sky said nothing about it until Henao's agent accidentally let the cat out of the bag.

ademort

I feel that the UCI should amend the rules and give riders a maximum number of days or even a date to prove their innocence. I also feel the riders should be suspended as a matter of course. Lets be honest Team SKY and Chris Froome have made no friends in the handling of this case and there,s still no end in sight. The longer it goes on the more you sense that Froome and Brailsford are going to pull a rabbit out of the bag and Froome,s off the hook.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

One difference is that Henao actually had to go back to Colombia for a prolonged period to show that it was the altitude that had caused the problem.

Maybe, but sky used the Henao situation to boost their reputation as the leading anti doping protagonist, claiming they would never allow a rider to race if he had any on going doping investigation.

Sky said nothing about it until Henao's agent accidentally let the cat out of the bag.

SirDaveN95.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

One difference is that Henao actually had to go back to Colombia for a prolonged period to show that it was the altitude that had caused the problem.

Maybe, but sky used the Henao situation to boost their reputation as the leading anti doping protagonist, claiming they would never allow a rider to race if he had any on going doping investigation.

Sky said nothing about it until Henao's agent accidentally let the cat out of the bag.

Yes but then they did. And they used it to their advantage to demonstrate they have zero tolerance.

There is no difference with Froome. It was, wrongly, leaked but now it's out there and until there is a conclusion sky should not be allowing him to race... after all, they have zero tolerance :roll:

RichN95.

ademort wrote:

I feel that the UCI should amend the rules and give riders a maximum number of days or even a date to prove their innocence. I also feel the riders should be suspended as a matter of course.

Why do you assume it's the riders who cause the delays and not the UCI? All cases take months to process and there's only one common factor between them.

Pross

Does anyone actually know that Sky haven't completed the necessary testing or even that they haven't submitted the results to the UCI? Maybe they have and putting Froome in to start a race is either because they know they have the evidence to avoid the case going forward or because they are worried the UCI will stall and delay his return to racing. It would be an odd tactic otherwise. Would Froome normally ride the Ruta del Sol? I know he's got an earlier target than usual but I can't recall him doing it in recent years but my memory of details is poor. Most people seem to just be assuming nothing has happened over the last few months.

tailwindhome

Pross wrote:

Does anyone actually know.

No

redvision

Pross wrote:

Does anyone actually know that Sky haven't completed the necessary testing or even that they haven't submitted the results to the UCI? Maybe they have and putting Froome in to start a race is either because they know they have the evidence to avoid the case going forward or because they are worried the UCI will stall and delay his return to racing. It would be an odd tactic otherwise. Would Froome normally ride the Ruta del Sol? I know he's got an earlier target than usual but I can't recall him doing it in recent years but my memory of details is poor. Most people seem to just be assuming nothing has happened over the last few months.

If they had presented data to clear Froome it would have surely been broadcast by now as it's in the sports best interest.

They clearly believe he will be cleared but unless an announcement is imminent the decision to let him race completely undermines the sport and the race.

The whole situation has been handled terribly. The leak should never have occurred but once it had Froome should have self suspended.

larkim

I suspect Sky can distinguish between a potential ABP issue and Salbutamol as an AAF, though I would agree that unless the position is absolutely clearcut from Sky's perspective they are treating him differently to Henao:-

""We believe in Sergio. He has just come back to full fitness after spending eight months recovering from a potentially career ending crash. But we respect the CADF process and will apply our team policy in the circumstances.”"

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

If they had presented data to clear Froome it would have surely been broadcast by now as it's in the sports best interest.

They clearly believe he will be cleared but unless an announcement is imminent the decision to let him race completely undermines the sport and the race.

The whole situation has been handled terribly. The leak should never have occurred but once it had Froome should have self suspended.

If he self-suspended he would have lost the leverage he has to get this sorted quickly.

People need to stop thinking the UCI are efficient at dealing with these cases. They aren't. Left to their own devices they are hopelessly slow. It took them a year to decide to drop Kreuziger's case, by which time he'd missed three Grand Tours. Cardoso is still waiting for his case from June to be dealt with.

inseine

RichN95 wrote:

ademort wrote:

I feel that the UCI should amend the rules and give riders a maximum number of days or even a date to prove their innocence. I also feel the riders should be suspended as a matter of course.

Why do you assume it's the riders who cause the delays and not the UCI? All cases take months to process and there's only one common factor between them.

I was going to say the same thing. surely it's in the UCIs court? I'd like to think there was something going on behind the scenes but these things go on for ages. The UCI are worried they'll get sued to the hilt if the wrongly convict.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

If he self-suspended he would have lost the leverage he has to get this sorted quickly.

People need to stop thinking the UCI are efficient at dealing with these cases. They aren't. Left to their own devices they are hopelessly slow. It took them a year to decide to drop Kreuziger's case, by which time he'd missed three Grand Tours. Cardoso is still waiting for his case from June to be dealt with.

With all due respect but Froome is much higher profile and his case is capable of sending shockwaves through the sport - dare I say it ... its arguably the biggest doping case since Armstrong.

Also, why should Froome be treated any different? Sky set a precedent with Henao and completely contradicted it with Froome. Again I reiterate, if they are clean and have absolutely zero tolerance then he should have self suspended.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

If he self-suspended he would have lost the leverage he has to get this sorted quickly.

People need to stop thinking the UCI are efficient at dealing with these cases. They aren't. Left to their own devices they are hopelessly slow. It took them a year to decide to drop Kreuziger's case, by which time he'd missed three Grand Tours. Cardoso is still waiting for his case from June to be dealt with.

With all due respect but Froome is much higher profile and his case is capable of sending shockwaves through the sport - dare I say it ... its arguably the biggest doping case since Armstrong.

Also, why should Froome be treated any different? Sky set a precedent with Henao and completely contradicted it with Froome. Again I reiterate, if they are clean and have absolutely zero tolerance then he should have self suspended.

Then it's up to the UCI to deal with it promptly, for once. Why do they get a free pass on a long, long record of tardiness?

Henao's case was completely different. There wasn't a case against him at the time so Sky were free to reintroduce him into racing whenever they pleased, which they did.