Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

joelsim

joe2008 wrote:

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

Gary Glitter is.

Matthewfalle

Joelsim wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

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

Gary Glitter is.

Robbie Williams is. Hideous creature.

darkhairedlord

Matthewfalle wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

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

Gary Glitter is.

Robbie Williams is. Hideous creature.

at least he's honest about doping

joe2008

darkhairedlord wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

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

Gary Glitter is.

Robbie Williams is. Hideous creature.

at least he's honest about doping

True that

Matthewfalle

joe2008 wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

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

Gary Glitter is.

Robbie Williams is. Hideous creature.

at least he's honest about doping

True that

Someone is being dishonest about doping? Never! FAKE NEWS TROLL!

But just for sake of discussion, who would it be?

blazing_saddles

Have to say that the thread has provided good entertainment value through this bleak winter, off season.
Cyclingnews have now provided the missing comedy element:-

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/guimard ... f-cycling/

salsiccia1

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Have to say that the thread has provided good entertainment value through this bleak winter, off season.
Cyclingnews have now provided the missing comedy element:-

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/guimard ... f-cycling/

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DeVlaeminck

I see Sky are insisting it would be ok to race the Giro and the Tour even if the case isn't resolved by then.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I see Sky are insisting it would be ok to race the Giro and the Tour even if the case isn't resolved by then.

They're right. And any result Froome gets would stand even if he is later found guilty. It's become clear to me that his legal counsel has a better grasp of the WADA code than social media. Who knew?

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I see Sky are insisting it would be ok to race the Giro and the Tour even if the case isn't resolved by then.

They're right. And any result Froome gets would stand even if he is later found guilty. It's become clear to me that his legal counsel has a better grasp of the WADA code than social media. Who knew?

In fairness you're probably applying differing understandings of the word 'OK'

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I see Sky are insisting it would be ok to race the Giro and the Tour even if the case isn't resolved by then.

They're right. And any result Froome gets would stand even if he is later found guilty. It's become clear to me that his legal counsel has a better grasp of the WADA code than social media. Who knew?

In fairness you're probably applying differing understandings of the word 'OK'

Quite possibly. I tend to look at things from a legal POV.

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I see Sky are insisting it would be ok to race the Giro and the Tour even if the case isn't resolved by then.

They're right. And any result Froome gets would stand even if he is later found guilty. It's become clear to me that his legal counsel has a better grasp of the WADA code than social media. Who knew?

Article 10.8 of the WADA Code:

In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9, all other competitive results of the Athlete obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I see Sky are insisting it would be ok to race the Giro and the Tour even if the case isn't resolved by then.

They're right. And any result Froome gets would stand even if he is later found guilty. It's become clear to me that his legal counsel has a better grasp of the WADA code than social media. Who knew?

Article 10.8 of the WADA Code:

In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9, all other competitive results of the Athlete obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

I've underlined the key bit for you. He's legitimately allowed to ride and there are no unknown factors so fairness dictates that he keeps the results.

(And before you cite Contador, that was an appeal decision backdated to the original decision (and possibly incorrectly))

Generally that clause refers to results gained between the date of the test and the date of the test result being known a provisional suspension imposed

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I see Sky are insisting it would be ok to race the Giro and the Tour even if the case isn't resolved by then.

They're right. And any result Froome gets would stand even if he is later found guilty. It's become clear to me that his legal counsel has a better grasp of the WADA code than social media. Who knew?

Article 10.8 of the WADA Code:

In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9, all other competitive results of the Athlete obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

I've underlined the key bit for you. He's legitimately allowed to ride and there are no unknown factors so fairness dictates that he keeps the results.

(And before you cite Contador, that was an appeal decision backdated to the original decision (and possibly incorrectly))

Generally that clause refers to results gained between the date of the test and the date of the test result being known a provisional suspension imposed

It's more complicated than being 'legitimately allowed to ride'. Factors in assessing fairness:

- disqualification of results over a long period of time

- athlete's degree of fault

- unaffected sporting results

- significant consequences of the disqualification of the results

First factor can't be evaluated at the moment because the process is nowhere near finished.

Froome hasn't publicly admitted to any significant fault or negligence as far as I know. So if he is found guilty, this is likely to work against him.

'Unaffected sporting results' due to the nature of salbutamol may be in Froome's favour, although there is the recent study which supports the view that salbutamol is performance enhancing.

'Significant consequences' doesn't seem to apply to Froome. No Olympic results or attempt to qualify for a major championship.

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/artic ... g-offences

DeVlaeminck

I don't think we know enough to say if Sky are in the right in pressing ahead. It's possible they are gaming the system, delaying the process until after the Tour.

Personally I don't think it's satisfactory that a rider is competing in this situation, where the blame is shared is another matter.

larkim

Do you think it's right that cyclists should be forced into self suspension when a UCI official leaks a story to the press about a specified substance test?

Or do you think that the position should be that cyclists are suspended when they return a positive in a specified substance test like this?

It's one or the other - either the process is deliberately confidential, recognising that specified substance tests are generally intended to result in a fair opportunity to present a completely fault free perspective from a rider (and therefore its unfair to force them to abandon career opportunities or earning opportunities through self- or imposed-suspensions), or they should all be public and there should be no real distinction between a specified substance fail and a non-specified substance fail.

Froome is only in this situation (publicly) because of the leak. There could well be plenty of other riders in the top echelons who are under the same process but there's no questions being asked of their validity to ride because they are being processed under the rules as designed. Froome is having to operate under a situation where the rules have been subverted, and that is inherently unsatisfactory all round. If the UCI official who leaked it thought they were doing some good, I think on balance they were badly mistaken!

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

It's more complicated than being 'legitimately allowed to ride'. Factors in assessing fairness:

- disqualification of results over a long period of time

- athlete's degree of fault

- unaffected sporting results

- significant consequences of the disqualification of the results

These are grounds for not disqualifying results which occur between the date of a positive test and a provisional suspension (i.e. before the test result was known). It doesn't apply to Froome's situation. He's not suspended and the result of the test is known.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I don't think we know enough to say if Sky are in the right in pressing ahead. It's possible they are gaming the system, delaying the process until after the Tour.

I'm not sure that gaming the system or delaying is their plan. I think, like Contador in 2011, they have looked at the situation and concluded that this unlikely to be processed by the beginning of the Giro, but quite possibly will be by the beginning of the Tour and this is why Froome is doing the Giro. The Tour, like it was for Contador, would be a bonus.

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

It's more complicated than being 'legitimately allowed to ride'. Factors in assessing fairness:

- disqualification of results over a long period of time

- athlete's degree of fault

- unaffected sporting results

- significant consequences of the disqualification of the results

These are grounds for not disqualifying results which occur between the date of a positive test and a provisional suspension (i.e. before the test result was known). It doesn't apply to Froome's situation. He's not suspended and the result of the test is known.

Article 10.8 (again):

through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period

You seem incapable of comprehending a simple provision. We're talking about a hypothetical scenario in which Froome is banned ('ineligibility period'). Read the article again.

DeVlaeminck

larkim wrote:

Do you think it's right that cyclists should be forced into self suspension when a UCI official leaks a story to the press about a specified substance test?

Or do you think that the position should be that cyclists are suspended when they return a positive in a specified substance test like this?

It's one or the other - either the process is deliberately confidential, recognising that specified substance tests are generally intended to result in a fair opportunity to present a completely fault free perspective from a rider (and therefore its unfair to force them to abandon career opportunities or earning opportunities through self- or imposed-suspensions), or they should all be public and there should be no real distinction between a specified substance fail and a non-specified substance fail.

Froome is only in this situation (publicly) because of the leak. There could well be plenty of other riders in the top echelons who are under the same process but there's no questions being asked of their validity to ride because they are being processed under the rules as designed. Froome is having to operate under a situation where the rules have been subverted, and that is inherently unsatisfactory all round. If the UCI official who leaked it thought they were doing some good, I think on balance they were badly mistaken!

The leak is irrelevant, the point is he may have broken anti doping rules and there has been an unexplained delay in concluding whether that is the case. It's very hard to see why this has taken so long and whether that is the fault of the uci, SKY or both it is unsatisfactory that Froome rides major races with the possibility that he should be suspended, that he shouldn't be in the races at all. It would still be unsatisfactory if this had been kept from public knowledge.

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

It's more complicated than being 'legitimately allowed to ride'. Factors in assessing fairness:

- disqualification of results over a long period of time

- athlete's degree of fault

- unaffected sporting results

- significant consequences of the disqualification of the results

These are grounds for not disqualifying results which occur between the date of a positive test and a provisional suspension (i.e. before the test result was known). It doesn't apply to Froome's situation. He's not suspended and the result of the test is known.

Article 10.8 (again):

through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period

You seem incapable of comprehending a simple provision. We're talking about a hypothetical scenario in which Froome is banned ('ineligibility period'). Read the article again.

I have read. All of it. Not just the bit you get without signing up.

The only questions you need to ask are:

1. Are the test results known?

2. Is Froome free to ride?

Both are yes. And as a result removing any results gained at a future date could not in any way be construed as 'fair'. Therefore, the results will stand.

Have a read of Vegni's comments today. He's clearly been told the same.

ocdupalais

DeVlaeminck wrote:

larkim wrote:

Do you think it's right that cyclists should be forced into self suspension when a UCI official leaks a story to the press about a specified substance test?

Or do you think that the position should be that cyclists are suspended when they return a positive in a specified substance test like this?

It's one or the other - either the process is deliberately confidential, recognising that specified substance tests are generally intended to result in a fair opportunity to present a completely fault free perspective from a rider (and therefore its unfair to force them to abandon career opportunities or earning opportunities through self- or imposed-suspensions), or they should all be public and there should be no real distinction between a specified substance fail and a non-specified substance fail.

Froome is only in this situation (publicly) because of the leak. There could well be plenty of other riders in the top echelons who are under the same process but there's no questions being asked of their validity to ride because they are being processed under the rules as designed. Froome is having to operate under a situation where the rules have been subverted, and that is inherently unsatisfactory all round. If the UCI official who leaked it thought they were doing some good, I think on balance they were badly mistaken!

The leak is irrelevant, the point is he may have broken anti doping rules and there has been an unexplained delay in concluding whether that is the case. It's very hard to see why this has taken so long and whether that is the fault of the uci, SKY or both it is unsatisfactory that Froome rides major races with the possibility that he should be suspended, that he shouldn't be in the races at all. It would still be unsatisfactory if this had been kept from public knowledge.

The leak may be irrelevant to the Chris Froome case, but came at a suspiciously convenient post-Cookson point in the anti "British Takeover" talk at the UCI. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but if you read Cyclingnews.com, the Daily Mail and the BBC news websites, for example, it could appear that there are quite a few out there who'd like to take Sky down a peg or two...

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's very hard to see why this has taken so long and whether that is the fault of the uci, SKY or both

It's not taking particularly long. We're only four months in. Ulissi took seven months to conclude. Pliuschin took eight. Away from salbutamol, Cardoso's positive from June hasn't been resolved yet, neither has Sanchez's from August.

specialgueststar

UK cycling expert tweet! Great to hear Sir Froome is going to make his seasonal debut at the Ruta del Salbutamol. One of the great races on the Spanish pro professional cycling calendar.

larkim

DeVlaeminck wrote:

The leak is irrelevant, the point is he may have broken anti doping rules and there has been an unexplained delay in concluding whether that is the case. It's very hard to see why this has taken so long and whether that is the fault of the uci, SKY or both it is unsatisfactory that Froome rides major races with the possibility that he should be suspended, that he shouldn't be in the races at all. It would still be unsatisfactory if this had been kept from public knowledge.

Which then tends you towards saying that the rules need rewriting, which is not Froome's fault. The rules say when a specified substance test is triggered that the process is handled confidentially and there is no suspension.

I can follow a logic which says these rules are bad - that even in these situations there should be a mandatory suspension to maintain a whiter than white perspective. Just in the same way as if a member of staff at my work alleged something against me, the process would be a mandatory suspension on full pay with no fault allocated. The difference I suppose between that workplace situation (which innocent parties find unsatisfactory in any event, even if they are suspended on full pay) and pro cycling is that you can't compensate someone for being forced to sit out a major event, which they were legitimately targetting and had a chance of success at, just because a trigger value in relation to a relatively innocuous (but nonetheless tested for) substance that you are not banned from taking has been exceeded.

As I say, we don't know how many other pro cyclists are happily entering races at the moment who are in exactly the same situation as Froome, but for whom the rules are being applied as designed - with confidentiality as part of the process.

From my view, the leak is relevant as it has subverted the process and is demonstrating why the process was designed as it was.

redvision

I think Brailsford has once again made the situation worse with his recent comments.

If Froome does end up getting suspended how can Brailsford survive as the manager of team sky when he publically comments that Froome has done nothing wrong??

It is almost starting to look like arrogance from Sky.

For those who are defending them, consider Froomes rivals and those who have been in similar situations. How is it fair that he can continue riding with this hanging over him. Cycling wants to show the world it is clean yet this undermines that whole principle, let alone the individual races he enters.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

How is it fair that he can continue riding with this hanging over him.

Because they are rules. Keeping to the rules is by definition fair. You can argue that the rules are not fair and should be changed, but you can't argue that adhering to the rules as they stand is unfair.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

How is it fair that he can continue riding with this hanging over him.

Because they are rules. Keeping to the rules is by definition fair. You can argue that the rules are not fair and should be changed, but you can't argue that adhering to the rules as they stand is unfair.

It puts the integrity of the sport at risk though.
If Froome had any decency or respect for his rivals he would self suspend.

I will never consider sky a 'zero tolerance' team after this whole affair. Regardless of the outcome. If they genuinely were fighting for a clean sport they should not be allowing Froome to race until it's resolved.

jimmythecuckoo

OCDuPalais wrote:

but if you read Cyclingnews.com,

They could barely hide their delight on their "FROOME CRISIS SPECIAL" podcast the other week.

And who knows, they might be proved right when this concludes. But I didn't feel too comfortable listening to them dancing on his grave until its all over.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

It puts the integrity of the sport at risk though.

No it doesn't. Have the Men In Black wiped your mind of the past thirty years? Let's have some perspective.