Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

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.

No, but have they wiped yours of the efforts over the last few years to clean up the sport??
How does this not undermine those efforts? The apparent leading team (both on the road and fighting doping) have a rider who produced an adverse test result and yet they continue to allow him to race.

sloppyschleckonds

redvision wrote:

For those who are defending them,

Why on earth would people want to defend them

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

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.

You were ignorant as to the CAS precedent regarding 'fairness'. Due to your ignorance, you decided to make out that you knew what you were taking about by coming up with your own interpretation, which happens to be completely different to the established precedent.

Instead of having the decency to put your hand up and say you were wrong, you continue to pretend that 10.8 doesn't apply and that an article written by an attorney who also happens to be a CAS arbitrator is irrelevant.

darkhairedlord

CuthbertC wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

You were ignorant as to the CAS precedent regarding 'fairness'. Due to your ignorance, you decided to make out that you knew what you were taking about by coming up with your own interpretation, which happens to be completely different to the established precedent.

Instead of having the decency to put your hand up and say you were wrong, you continue to pretend that 10.8 doesn't apply and that an article written by an attorney who also happens to be a CAS arbitrator is irrelevant.

it's the french that write all the rules. This has all been set-up to finally knobble froome and sky.
Scenario:
Froome enters tour, gets piss thrown at him and heckled at every turn.
UCI wait until he is ridding down the champs elysee before finding him guilty just as he crosses the line.
Froome is dragged from the podium and publicly flogged while the rabid masses scream for him to be taken to the Bastille for execution. Bardet, promoted to tour winner after all other riders are disqualified, gets to drop the blade on the guillotine.

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

You were ignorant as to the CAS precedent regarding 'fairness'. Due to your ignorance, you decided to make out that you knew what you were taking about by coming up with your own interpretation, which happens to be completely different to the established precedent.

Instead of having the decency to put your hand up and say you were wrong, you continue to pretend that 10.8 doesn't apply and that an article written by an attorney who also happens to be a CAS arbitrator is irrelevant.

What CAS precedent would that be? All the case law mentioned in the article relates to ARDVs, as does the entire article. There is nothing about AAFs for specified substances

If you want a precedent, the only result Ulissi lost was the one on the day of the test. The next day he came second in a TT - it still stands.

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

No, but have they wiped yours of the efforts over the last few years to clean up the sport??
How does this not undermine those efforts? The apparent leading team (both on the road and fighting doping) have a rider who produced an adverse test result and yet they continue to allow him to race.

Eh? I don't think that the great unwashed see this situation in quite the same light as the cycling fan.
Who are the parties that have been responsible for improving the sport's image with the general public?
How would the voluntary suspension of the sport's most prominent rider play out with the press and general public, over the past and months still to come?
Cos that's who we are talking about, here.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

No, but have they wiped yours of the efforts over the last few years to clean up the sport??
How does this not undermine those efforts? The apparent leading team (both on the road and fighting doping) have a rider who produced an adverse test result and yet they continue to allow him to race.

It's just an issue with an asthma inhaler. It's not Operacion Puerto.

Continual BS about motors also undermines those efforts, but people seem to lap them up unquestioningly.

redvision

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Eh? I don't think that the great unwashed see this situation in quite the same light as the cycling fan.
Who are the parties that have been responsible for improving the sport's image with the general public?
How would the voluntary suspension of the sport's most prominent rider play out with the press and general public, over the past and months still to come?
Cos that's who we are talking about, here.

Precisely. The sport is still tainted by the Armstrong era/affair and the general public still view pro cycling with suspicion. What better example to set demonstrating that no doping will be permitted in the sport than to suspend (or put on gardening leave) the highest profile rider following his adverse test result?

Given the current domination of team sky and Froome, and following his test result, it is no wonder the wider population will view this as another Armstrongesque scandal given that Froome is seemingly free to continue competing.

larkim

redvision wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

No, but have they wiped yours of the efforts over the last few years to clean up the sport??
How does this not undermine those efforts? The apparent leading team (both on the road and fighting doping) have a rider who produced an adverse test result and yet they continue to allow him to race.

I don't think many of us are capable of seeing past our own prejudices (I include myself here).

If you're view is that Froome is inherently likely to be "clean" and whatever the outcome is you expect it to paint no real "doping" fault on Froome's part (irrespective of whether a sanction follows) then you take one view.

If you're view is that Froome is likely to be an intentional doper, even in a small way, you'll want him banned / suspended immediately in anticipation of the outcome.

The problem is that the SYSTEM assumes the former. Hence the position we're in.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

Precisely. The sport is still tainted by the Armstrong era/affair and the general public still view pro cycling with suspicion. What better example to set demonstrating that no doping will be permitted in the sport than to suspend (or put on gardening leave) the highest profile rider following his adverse test result?

Given the current domination of team sky and Froome, and following his test result, it is no wonder the wider population will view this as another Armstrongesque scandal given that Froome is seemingly free to continue competing.

It's unlikely he has doped though. It's an inhaler issue.

If the wider public views this as another Armstrongesque scandal, then it is because they have misinformed. Froome can't be held responsible for a clickbait media and an ignorant public.

Doping is purely a legal issue. You need to start viewing it though that prism rather than through the eyes of a internet justice warrior.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

The problem is that the SYSTEM assumes the former.

That's not a problem. It's a fundamental pillar of a just legal system.

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Eh? I don't think that the great unwashed see this situation in quite the same light as the cycling fan.
Who are the parties that have been responsible for improving the sport's image with the general public?
How would the voluntary suspension of the sport's most prominent rider play out with the press and general public, over the past and months still to come?
Cos that's who we are talking about, here.

Precisely. The sport is still tainted by the Armstrong era/affair and the general public still view pro cycling with suspicion. What better example to set demonstrating that no doping will be permitted in the sport than to suspend (or put on gardening leave) the highest profile rider following his adverse test result?

Given the current domination of team sky and Froome, and following his test result, it is no wonder the wider population will view this as another Armstrongesque scandal given that Froome is seemingly free to continue competing.

I think you give the media and GP far too much credit.
Give the press a voluntary suspension and it will quickly turn into a doping ban, with which the GP will find no distinction.
Et viola, your Armstrongesque scandal.

larkim

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

The problem is that the SYSTEM assumes the former.

That's not a problem. It's a fundamental pillar of a just legal system.

Agreed! I should have said "it's a problem for people like you (redvision) who think he should be banned or at the very least automatically suspended in the absence of a hearing or a prima facie conclusion"

DeVlaeminck

larkim wrote:

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.

I haven't said Froome is at fault, I've said he may be if they are using a delaying tactic or if he has actually taken too much salbutamol, but we don't have enough knowledge to know if either are the case. Sure if they are working at providing the evidence and this is just how long it takes or if they have made their case and await a uci decision then Froome is not to blame for this delay - it's still unsatisfactory though.

larkim

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I haven't said Froome is at fault, I've said he may be if they are using a delaying tactic or if he has actually taken too much salbutamol, but we don't have enough knowledge to know if either are the case. Sure if they are working at providing the evidence and this is just how long it takes or if they have made their case and await a uci decision then Froome is not to blame for this delay - it's still unsatisfactory though.

Yes, but which bit is unsatisfactory, and who do you hold to account? If we're going to root cause of the unsatisfactory position we're in, is it a) the UCI for the rules being written the way they are or b) the leaker for creating a public narrative which is in contravention of how the rules were supposed to be implemented?

If the rules are right, the cause of the lack of satisfaction is the leaker, yet it feels like Sky / Froome are the ones taking the flak.

If the rules are wrong (in your opinion - and I can see why someone might hold that position in a spirit of transparency and "best practice") then again its not Froome / Sky's mess.

Either way, in many ways Sky and Froome are blameless in this whole scenario - and yet that is not the way that this is presented in the media, or the general trend of the conversation here.

Clearly, if Froome had incontrovertible evidence which even the most stupid Daily Mail reader would understand which exonerated him, he would have the option to put this in the court of public opinion rather than follow the (already compromised) due process. But that's unlikely to be the case - so all he's left with is due process.

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

You were ignorant as to the CAS precedent regarding 'fairness'. Due to your ignorance, you decided to make out that you knew what you were taking about by coming up with your own interpretation, which happens to be completely different to the established precedent.

Instead of having the decency to put your hand up and say you were wrong, you continue to pretend that 10.8 doesn't apply and that an article written by an attorney who also happens to be a CAS arbitrator is irrelevant.

What CAS precedent would that be? All the case law mentioned in the article relates to ARDVs, as does the entire article. There is nothing about AAFs for specified substances

If you want a precedent, the only result Ulissi lost was the one on the day of the test. The next day he came second in a TT - it still stands.

There is nothing about AAFs for specified substances because there is no distinction between prohibited substances and specified substances for the purposes of Article 10. Article 4.2.2:

For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substances except substances in the classes of anabolic agents and hormones and those stimulants and hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited List.

Appendix Two, 'Examples of the Application of Article 10' also makes it clear that Article 10.8 applies in Froome's case.

Ulissi's case never made it to CAS and the judgment hasn't been made public as far as I know, so I don't know what the reasoning was.

By comparison, some of Petacchi's results were disqualified even though it was found that he bore no significant fault or negligence and he voluntarily excluded himself from some racing after the 2007 Giro.

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I haven't said Froome is at fault, I've said he may be if they are using a delaying tactic or if he has actually taken too much salbutamol, but we don't have enough knowledge to know if either are the case. Sure if they are working at providing the evidence and this is just how long it takes or if they have made their case and await a uci decision then Froome is not to blame for this delay - it's still unsatisfactory though.

Yes, but which bit is unsatisfactory, and who do you hold to account? If we're going to root cause of the unsatisfactory position we're in, is it a) the UCI for the rules being written the way they are or b) the leaker for creating a public narrative which is in contravention of how the rules were supposed to be implemented?

If the rules are right, the cause of the lack of satisfaction is the leaker, yet it feels like Sky / Froome are the ones taking the flak.

If the rules are wrong (in your opinion - and I can see why someone might hold that position in a spirit of transparency and "best practice") then again its not Froome / Sky's mess.

Either way, in many ways Sky and Froome are blameless in this whole scenario - and yet that is not the way that this is presented in the media, or the general trend of the conversation here.

Clearly, if Froome had incontrovertible evidence which even the most stupid Daily Mail reader would understand which exonerated him, he would have the option to put this in the court of public opinion rather than follow the (already compromised) due process. But that's unlikely to be the case - so all he's left with is due process.

Youre assuming he's innocent. At the moment he isn't but he has the opportunity to present a plausible reason why he shouldnt be sanctioned.

Wether the system sucks or not, wether there is any benefit from using this stuff is irrelevant, he has provided a sample which contains more than the permitted level. He already is guilty and there has been no suggestion that the sample he has given has been either tampered with, hasnt been handled properly or hasnt been tested properly.

It doesnt matter if its a minor infraction, or accidental borne of sloppy admin or just bad luck. He is currently guilty.

I suspect there may be some detailed legal arguments about the validity of rules that can be tested, its hardly unchartered territory, after all the Russian drug cheats have used that approach. It's a fair approach.

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

There is nothing about AAFs for specified substances because there is no distinction between prohibited substances and specified substances for the purposes of Article 10. Article 4.2.2:

For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substances except substances in the classes of anabolic agents and hormones and those stimulants and hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited List.

Appendix Two, 'Examples of the Application of Article 10' also makes it clear that Article 10.8 applies in Froome's case.

Ulissi's case never made it to CAS and the judgment hasn't been made public as far as I know, so I don't know what the reasoning was.

By comparison, some of Petacchi's results were disqualified even though it was found that he bore no significant fault or negligence and he voluntarily excluded himself from some racing after the 2007 Giro.

But there is a distinction between the rights of an athlete after the test though. The article you are referencing has no discussion with regard to athletes who are allowed to compete after the AAF is known.

Appendix Two has no examples of this either

We don't need to know the details of Ulissi's case. We just need to know the outcome - he lept those results.

Petacchi's case was under a very different WADA code - and he needed a TUE for his salbutamol. I don't think it has much relevance.

RichN95.

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Youre assuming he's innocent. At the moment he isn't but he has the opportunity to present a plausible reason why he shouldnt be sanctioned.

.....
He is currently guilty.

No. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. And for guilt to be proven a hearing must be held. Until one is he is innocent. Due process and all that.

What you mean is there is persuasive evidence that he is guilty. That isn't guilty though.

r0bh

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

There is nothing about AAFs for specified substances because there is no distinction between prohibited substances and specified substances for the purposes of Article 10. Article 4.2.2:

For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substances except substances in the classes of anabolic agents and hormones and those stimulants and hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited List.

Appendix Two, 'Examples of the Application of Article 10' also makes it clear that Article 10.8 applies in Froome's case.

Ulissi's case never made it to CAS and the judgment hasn't been made public as far as I know, so I don't know what the reasoning was.

By comparison, some of Petacchi's results were disqualified even though it was found that he bore no significant fault or negligence and he voluntarily excluded himself from some racing after the 2007 Giro.

But there is a distinction between the rights of an athlete after the test though. The article you are referencing has no discussion with regard to athletes who are allowed to compete after the AAF is known.

Appendix Two has no examples of this either

We don't need to know the details of Ulissi's case. We just need to know the outcome - he lept those results.

Petacchi's case was under a very different WADA code - and he needed a TUE for his salbutamol. I don't think it has much relevance.

Interesting reading the result of the Petacchi case:

Alessandro Petacchi "is not a cheat," the Court of Arbitration for Sport stated this week after ruling that the Italian must serve a one-year suspension. It found that his positive doping test during the 2007 Giro d'Italia was "the result of Mr. Petacchi simply, and, possibly, accidentally, taking too much Salbutamol on the day of the test, but that the overdose was not taken with the intention of enhancing his performance." Nevertheless, even though he was allowed by the UCI to use the drug, he was responsible for taking too much and the CAS decided that this warranted a sanction.

(from http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/innocently-guilty-the-petacchi-case/)

What chance of Froome being considered "not a cheat" by the Twitterati if he can't explain the high reading and has to serve a ban?

And other than requiring a TUE for Salbutamol back then I'm not sure the case is so different, the limit was the same 1000 ng/ml

larkim

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Wether the system sucks or not, wether there is any benefit from using this stuff is irrelevant, he has provided a sample which contains more than the permitted level. He already is guilty and there has been no suggestion that the sample he has given has been either tampered with, hasnt been handled properly or hasnt been tested properly.

There is currently no guilt or innocence, there is just the process.

The process for specified substances, even if a test result comes back showing levels beyond threshold, is that the rider is not sanctioned or suspended until they have had the opportunity to avail themselves of tests which may exonerate them

There is NO offence of having elevated levels of salbutamol above the threshold. The only offence is of consuming more than the 2 x 800mg doses in 24 hours.

There is a presumption that levels in urine above the 1000ng threshold may indicate excessive consumption, but this is a rebuttal presumption, and because that presumption can be rebutted there is a process to allow for a rider to continue to ride whilst the process of confirming or rebutting that presumption is ongoing.

You or I might view that as unsatisfactory, especially when the knowledge that that process is being undertaken is in the public domain. But that is the position currently - no guilt, no innocence.

RichN95.

r0bh wrote:

What chance of Froome being considered "not a cheat" by the Twitterati if he can't explain the high reading and has to serve a ban?

And other than requiring a TUE for Salbutamol back then I'm not sure the case is so different, the limit was the same 1000 ng/ml

The same chance as there was before any of this happened

Petacchi's actual case is very similar, but there didn't seem to be a distinction between specified and non-specified substances when it came to provision suspensions in the 2003 Code.

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

There is nothing about AAFs for specified substances because there is no distinction between prohibited substances and specified substances for the purposes of Article 10. Article 4.2.2:

For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances shall be Specified Substances except substances in the classes of anabolic agents and hormones and those stimulants and hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited List.

Appendix Two, 'Examples of the Application of Article 10' also makes it clear that Article 10.8 applies in Froome's case.

Ulissi's case never made it to CAS and the judgment hasn't been made public as far as I know, so I don't know what the reasoning was.

By comparison, some of Petacchi's results were disqualified even though it was found that he bore no significant fault or negligence and he voluntarily excluded himself from some racing after the 2007 Giro.

But there is a distinction between the rights of an athlete after the test though. The article you are referencing has no discussion with regard to athletes who are allowed to compete after the AAF is known.

Appendix Two has no examples of this either

We don't need to know the details of Ulissi's case. We just need to know the outcome - he lept those results.

Petacchi's case was under a very different WADA code - and he needed a TUE for his salbutamol. I don't think it has much relevance.

All the case law is relevant insofar as it provides an indication of the relevant factors in assessing fairness. Yes, Froome's case is distinct from most cases because he isn't provisionally suspended and is able to compete. That doesn't mean negligence or delays become irrelevant.

I see you haven't read the Petacchi judgment either. Sound familiar?

Article 274 of the ADR provides:

In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition pursuant to article 256, all other competitive results obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other doping violation occurred, through the commencement of any Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified.
Comment: it may be considered as unfair to disqualify the results which were not likely to have been affected by the Rider’s anti-doping rule violation.

It's essentially the same as Article 10.8, and therefore very relevant to Froome's case. All of Petacchi's 2008 results until the date of the hearing were disqualified.

I see two major differences between the Froome and Ulissi cases (as Froome's currently stands). Firstly, Ulissi underwent a pharmacokinetic study less than a month after he was notified of the AAF. Well over four months after Froome was notified, there is no indication Froome has undergone a study. Froome hasn't claimed he has, neither has the UCI or anyone in the media as far as I know. This makes it difficult for Froome to argue that his results shouldn't be disqualified because of the time taken to resolve the case.

Secondly, Ulissi was found to have been negligent (as opposed to intentional 'cheating'). Going by what Froome has publicly said, he doesn't seem to be willing to admit to some form of negligence/fault. This would work against him in terms of disqualification of results.

RichN95.

Petacchi was under the 2003 code. Go and read it and see if you can find anything about no provisional suspensions for specified substances. Incidentally Petacchi kept a lot of his results.

Ulissi's keeping his results was nothing to do with timeliness. It was because he wasn't suspended and free to ride - just like Froome. Similarly, Martin Sundby kept his results. There will be no fair reason to strip Froome of his results.

And how do you know what testing Froome has done. He's not obliged to tell you. And whatever he says publicly isn't his case. Ulissi had a defence too - something about a crash he'd had.

blazing_saddles

Easy to check out Petacchi on PCS.
He lost his 2007 Giro results, but kept his remaining 2007 results, including the Vuelta and his Paris-Tours win.
He then lost his February to April 2008 results, returning to competition in September of that year.

Ties in nicely with the case calendar.

Petacchi positive 23/05/2007
Petacchi heard by CONI over Salbutamol use, Cyclingnews.com, 27/06/2007
Petacchi set to return, UCI to investigate, Cyclingnews.com, 25/07/2007
Petacchi decision appealed, Cyclingnews.com, 27/07/2007
Petacchi suspended for one year, Cyclingnews.com, 06/05/2008
Petacchi banned until August 31, 2008


https://www.dopeology.org/people/Alessandro_Petacchi/

So, he most certainly kept some of his results from his back dated suspension.

bobmcstuff

DeVlaeminck wrote:

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.

How is the delay unexplained? At the moment it seems to be well within the UCI's normal timeframes.

If it had been cleared up by now that would be abnormally fast from the UCI, we still have simple AAFs for banned substances from the middle of last year which haven't been resolved.

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

Petacchi was under the 2003 code. Go and read it and see if you can find anything about no provisional suspensions for specified substances. Incidentally Petacchi kept a lot of his results.

Ulissi's keeping his results was nothing to do with timeliness. It was because he wasn't suspended and free to ride - just like Froome. Similarly, Martin Sundby kept his results. There will be no fair reason to strip Froome of his results.

And how do you know what testing Froome has done. He's not obliged to tell you. And whatever he says publicly isn't his case. Ulissi had a defence too - something about a crash he'd had.

No provisional suspension in Petacchi's case:

There was no provisional suspension pursuant to Articles 217-223 of the ADR imposed or voluntarily accepted in the present case.

Like Froome's case.

Petacchi kept a lot of his results because he was initially found not guilty and was free to race for most of 2007.

As I said before, no one can be sure about why Ulissi was allowed to keep some results unless they have access to the judgment. Not being suspended isn't a reason, as you already know.

gsk82

Inrng had said he'll keep all results except that single stage of the vuelta. I think I've chosen to believe him over internet forum people.

blazing_saddles

Also from the Petacchi case.
From the UCI appeal announcement to sentence being past = 10 months.

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Petacchi was under the 2003 code. Go and read it and see if you can find anything about no provisional suspensions for specified substances. Incidentally Petacchi kept a lot of his results.

Ulissi's keeping his results was nothing to do with timeliness. It was because he wasn't suspended and free to ride - just like Froome. Similarly, Martin Sundby kept his results. There will be no fair reason to strip Froome of his results.

And how do you know what testing Froome has done. He's not obliged to tell you. And whatever he says publicly isn't his case. Ulissi had a defence too - something about a crash he'd had.

No provisional suspension in Petacchi's case:

There was no provisional suspension pursuant to Articles 217-223 of the ADR imposed or voluntarily accepted in the present case.

Like Froome's case.

Petacchi kept a lot of his results because he was initially found not guilty and was free to race for most of 2007.

As I said before, no one can be sure about why Ulissi was allowed to keep some results unless they have access to the judgment. Not being suspended isn't a reason, as you already know.

Petacchi withdrew himself from racing, however he did two races between the Giro and knowing of his positive. He kept those results. There’s a pattern emerging.