Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

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?

Has Froome submitted his defence?
What can the UCI do to move this forward if he hasn't?

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Has Froome submitted his defence?
What can the UCI do to move this forward if he hasn't?

Who knows. But everyone seems to be assuming that delays are all down to Froome and not the UCI despite the latter's constant history from taking ages to make a decision.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

Who knows. But everyone seems to be assuming that delays are all down to Froome and not the UCI despite the latter's constant history from taking ages to make a decision.

The UCI should be pushing for a quick resolution but with all the legal parameters it inevitably will take time.

However the teams should help any doping situation and suspend or even put on gardening leave any rider under suspicion of doping. Especially a team which claims to be leading the fight against doping and having absolutely zero tolerance.

ademort

In a story on the HLN.BE website Froome says that he is working very hard with the team to find out what happened and understands that the situation has caused veel contoversy as it,s a high profile case but Froome is unable to say anymore as the case and investigation is still ongoing. Froome also says he hopes that there is a breakthrough in the case sooner rather than later . https://www.hln.be/sport/wielrennen/fro ... 2#comments

RichN95.

ademort wrote:

In a story on the HLN.BE website Froome says that he is working very hard with the team to find out what happened and understands that the situation has caused veel contoversy as it,s a high profile case but Froome is unable to say anymore as the case and investigation is still ongoing. Froome also says he hopes that there is a breakthrough in the case sooner rather than later . https://www.hln.be/sport/wielrennen/fro ... 2#comments

That's all just copied from the press release

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

However the teams should help any doping situation and suspend or even put on gardening leave any rider under suspicion of doping. Especially a team which claims to be leading the fight against doping and having absolutely zero tolerance.

The teams should help the doping situation by adhering the the laws set out by WADA that they all signed up to, not making up their own.

If a rider is artificially kept from racing and then subsequently cleared, justice has not been served.

Doping isn't a moral issue, or health issue or even a sporting one, it is a legal one. Al

salsiccia1

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. 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.

No-one knows how long this will take, or who is responsible for it not being sorted yet; there's no way you can put a fixed time limit on this being dealt with. It's not a 'normal' doping case (if it is doping). Either way, Froome is entitled to race as per the rules, and whilst I can see that it might be better that he didn't race, he might not be able to ride competitively for who knows how long if he waits.

As for not making friends: Sky and Froome don't have any friends anyway. Sky have been given shite continually, from the set up of the team to date. They've been abused and accused of who knows how many misdemeanours with no proof coming to light, just a lot of tittle-tattle and innuendo. They don't owe anyone anything.

larkim

redvision wrote:

However the teams should help any doping situation and suspend or even put on gardening leave any rider under suspicion of doping. Especially a team which claims to be leading the fight against doping and having absolutely zero tolerance.

The UCI's rules and process for when things are made public and when suspensions are automatic (even before fault is proven) are clear enough. In Froome's situation, it was never envisaged that having tested for a "specified substance" an athlete should be provisionally suspended, but it was also envisaged that the whole process should be confidential until such time as there was a case to answer.

This is uncharted waters as someone (and it must be someone within UCI) decided to leak the story, for one reason or another.

I can see why an athlete with an anomalous ABP should self suspend, if it has hit a certain warning threshold. I can see why an athlete with a non-specified substance finding against them should be suspended. I just fail to see why an athlete should self suspend when the only reason anyone is paying the issue any attention at all is because some numpty in the UCI decided to shortcut the policy by leaking news to the press.

redvision

larkim wrote:

I just fail to see why an athlete should self suspend when the only reason anyone is paying the issue any attention at all is because some numpty in the UCI decided to shortcut the policy by leaking news to the press.

Because he had always claimed to be whiter than white and rides for a team with zero tolerance.

The leak should not have come out but it did. However it isn't the first time that this had happened...Henao. And as I keep pointing out, sky choose not to let him race until it was resolved.
Same should happen with Froome.

salsiccia1

redvision wrote:

larkim wrote:

I just fail to see why an athlete should self suspend when the only reason anyone is paying the issue any attention at all is because some numpty in the UCI decided to shortcut the policy by leaking news to the press.

Because he had always claimed to be whiter than white and rides for a team with zero tolerance.

The leak should not have come out but it did. However it isn't the first time that this had happened...Henao. And as I keep pointing out, sky choose not to let him race until it was resolved.
Same should happen with Froome.

Blood passport anomalies are a very different thing. They point to possible blood doping or other banned substance use. And even then Henao was cleared. There's an argument for saying that Henao should have been allowed to race.

It's not black or white in Froome's case, as much as some people want it to be.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

The leak should not have come out but it did. However it isn't the first time that this had happened...Henao. And as I keep pointing out, sky choose not to let him race until it was resolved.
Same should happen with Froome.

And as I keep pointing out.

1. Henao missed racing because he had to go to Colombia for testing for a period of time

2. There was no case at the time to be resolved. It was an entirely internal matter. Sky could return him to racing any time they liked.

redvision

Salsiccia1 wrote:

redvision wrote:

larkim wrote:

I just fail to see why an athlete should self suspend when the only reason anyone is paying the issue any attention at all is because some numpty in the UCI decided to shortcut the policy by leaking news to the press.

Because he had always claimed to be whiter than white and rides for a team with zero tolerance.

The leak should not have come out but it did. However it isn't the first time that this had happened...Henao. And as I keep pointing out, sky choose not to let him race until it was resolved.
Same should happen with Froome.

Blood passport anomalies are a very different thing. They point to possible blood doping or other banned substance use. And even then Henao was cleared. There's an argument for saying that Henao should have been allowed to race.

It's not black or white in Froome's case, as much as some people want it to be.

But you're missing the point.
Team sky claim to be leading the fight against doping. They claim to be completely clean with zero tolerance. Yet they have a rider who has returned a suspect sample. Regardless of the fact that salbutamol does not carry an automatic suspension once the b sample is confirmed, the fact is unless Froome can explain the findings he will receive a ban.
How can a team who advocate clean riding allow a rider to continue to compete during an investigation?

Also it makes a mockery of the races he enters as know one knows if his results will stand or not.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

There was no case at the time to be resolved. It was an entirely internal matter. Sky could return him to racing any time they liked.

But it wasn't just an internal matter. Sky were pretty much pushed in to investigating his bio passport anomalies. He was in effect suspended by the team as they would not let him race until they could answer the UCIs queries.

The substance/ investigation may be different but sky's values shouldn't be!

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

But you're missing the point.
Team sky claim to be leading the fight against doping. They claim to be completely clean with zero tolerance. Yet they have a rider who has returned a suspect sample. Regardless of the fact that salbutamol does not carry an automatic suspension once the b sample is confirmed, the fact is unless Froome can explain the findings he will receive a ban.
How can a team who advocate clean riding allow a rider to continue to compete during an investigation?

Do they say all of these things though? Or is it something misrepresented to beat them with. For example the 'zero tolerance' thing only ever applied to not recruiting known dopers, nothing more.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There was no case at the time to be resolved. It was an entirely internal matter. Sky could return him to racing any time they liked.

But it wasn't just an internal matter. Sky were pretty much pushed in to investigating his bio passport anomalies. He was in effect suspended by the team as they would not let him race until they could answer the UCIs queries.

The substance/ investigation may be different but sky's values shouldn't be!

But no case had been opened against him. There was no UCI verdict to wait for.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

But you're missing the point.
Team sky claim to be leading the fight against doping. They claim to be completely clean with zero tolerance. Yet they have a rider who has returned a suspect sample. Regardless of the fact that salbutamol does not carry an automatic suspension once the b sample is confirmed, the fact is unless Froome can explain the findings he will receive a ban.
How can a team who advocate clean riding allow a rider to continue to compete during an investigation?

Do they say all of these things though? Or is it something misrepresented to beat them with. For example the 'zero tolerance' thing only ever applied to not recruiting known dopers, nothing more.

Yes they do say those things
Quote from Dave Brailsford in 2011 and repeated during the Wiggins jiffy bag case
"There's no place for drugs in the sport and we like to think that, with a few other teams, we're at the forefront of trying to promote clean cycling. That philosophy will always stay. If we thought it wasn't possible then I'd be out," he told The Guardian newspaper.

larkim

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

There was no case at the time to be resolved. It was an entirely internal matter. Sky could return him to racing any time they liked.

But it wasn't just an internal matter. Sky were pretty much pushed in to investigating his bio passport anomalies. He was in effect suspended by the team as they would not let him race until they could answer the UCIs queries.

The substance/ investigation may be different but sky's values shouldn't be!

But no case had been opened against him. There was no UCI verdict to wait for.

This link suggests a case was opened - in fact it says it explicity - http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-ope ... gio-henao/

he Cycling Anti Doping Foundation (CADF), the anti-doping arm of the UCI, has opened a biological passport case against Sergio Henao, who as a result has been temporarily withdrawn from racing by Team Sky for the second time in his career.

Of course, that may be journalistic error in terms of the way it is described.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

Yes they do say those things
Quote from Dave Brailsford in 2011 and repeated during the Wiggins jiffy bag case
"There's no place for drugs in the sport and we like to think that, with a few other teams, we're at the forefront of trying to promote clean cycling. That philosophy will always stay. If we thought it wasn't possible then I'd be out," he told The Guardian newspaper.

So all they've said is that they won't dope. Surely that's the bare minimum.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

This link suggests a case was opened - in fact it says it explicity - http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-ope ... gio-henao/

he Cycling Anti Doping Foundation (CADF), the anti-doping arm of the UCI, has opened a biological passport case against Sergio Henao, who as a result has been temporarily withdrawn from racing by Team Sky for the second time in his career.

Of course, that may be journalistic error in terms of the way it is described.

That was later. I think an ABP case has an automatic provisional suspension. Certainly Kreuziger took the UCI to CAS to try to get his lifted.

larkim

Reading http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/anti-doping/ it suggests that the following happened:-
Initial (one expert) analysis indicated a potential issue
CADF provided additional details to APMU
APMU provides additional details to original expert plus two others
All three experts agreed there was a potential violation
Adverse Passport Finding issued and dossier passed to LADS
LADS informs Henao and he is given the opportunity to provide additional info, following which the experts were satisfied that there was no case required

So whether you view that as being "no case opened" or not, there is a fairly chunky process to have gone through before the rider themselves are notified in a ABP case I think.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

Reading http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/anti-doping/ it suggests that the following happened:-
Initial (one expert) analysis indicated a potential issue
CADF provided additional details to APMU
APMU provides additional details to original expert plus two others
All three experts agreed there was a potential violation
Adverse Passport Finding issued and dossier passed to LADS
LADS informs Henao and he is given the opportunity to provide additional info, following which the experts were satisfied that there was no case required

So whether you view that as being "no case opened" or not, there is a fairly chunky process to have gone through before the rider themselves are notified in a ABP case I think.

But Sky returned him to racing the first time around once he had finished doing the testing in Colombia. There was no resolution to the case - the UCI hadn't dropped the matter and it would be over two years until they did (having opened a case).

larkim

I was just showing the process that was (likely) followed prior to the decision to send him to Columbia to get info to help him demonstrate the ABP anomalies. Depending on your definition of a "case", there was at least a process being followed that was personal to him.

larkim

Or am I getting the 2014 and 2016 scenarios confused? Entirely possible!

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

Yes they do say those things
Quote from Dave Brailsford in 2011 and repeated during the Wiggins jiffy bag case
"There's no place for drugs in the sport and we like to think that, with a few other teams, we're at the forefront of trying to promote clean cycling. That philosophy will always stay. If we thought it wasn't possible then I'd be out," he told The Guardian newspaper.

So all they've said is that they won't dope. Surely that's the bare minimum.

And an anomalous reading for Salbutamol does not definitely equal doping, like an anomalous reading for EPO/Blood doping/Testosterone would, for example.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

Or am I getting the 2014 and 2016 scenarios confused? Entirely possible!

2014: Anti-doping ask for information relating to Henao. Sky withdraw him from racing and send him back to Colombia to do two months of testing. Once the testing is over he returns to racing - anti-doping take no action, until....

2016: Anti-doping open a more formal against Henao. He is automatically provisionally suspended (I think). Due to prior evidence he is quickly cleared at which point he returns to racing.

The point is that in 2014 he returned to racing once he had completed testing, not due to a decision by the anti-doping.


It's entirely possible that this experience of losing Henao for large amounts of time only for him to be cleared lead them to believe self-suspending was worthless.

shipley

Whatever the outcome I don’t think ‘Mr Puffer’ will be welcomed by the Spanish crowd, and less so in France

pblakeney

Shipley wrote:

Whatever the outcome I don’t think ‘Mr Puffer’ will be welcomed by the Spanish crowd, and less so in France

He will be hoping for a rainy Tour.
The only way he will keep clean on the outside. Not to be condoned, but expected.

Pross

Shipley wrote:

Whatever the outcome I don’t think ‘Mr Puffer’ will be welcomed by the Spanish crowd, and less so in France

I seriously doubt the Spanish public will give a toss. The French only bother as they are smarting at not winning their home Tour for 30 odd years.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Whatever the outcome I don’t think ‘Mr Puffer’ will be welcomed by the Spanish crowd, and less so in France

I seriously doubt the Spanish public will give a toss. The French only bother as they are smarting at not winning their home Tour for 30 odd years.

You just have to see the way the French crowds treat female tennis players at the French Open when they're playing a French player. Or they're a Williams.

It reminds me of a tour guide at La Scala in Milan. She said 'The Milanese often like to boo the singers. And do you know why this is? It's because they are horrible people'

joe2008

RichN95 wrote:

It reminds me of a tour guide at La Scala in Milan. She said 'The Milanese often like to boo the singers. And do you know why this is? It's because they are horrible people'

Not all singers are horrible