Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

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.

I can be pretty sure why Ulissi (and all the salbutamol people) kept his results. It’s because he wasn’t suspended. If the WADA rules didn't see the continued participation as 'fair' they would be.

DeVlaeminck

bobmcstuff wrote:

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.

It is unexplained because nobody has offered an explanation. It is unsatisfactory because we have the dominant grand tour rider possibly going into two grand tours with a doping case hanging over his head. Just because the uci has form for taking a long time doesn't make it ok.

DeVlaeminck

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.

The unsatisfactory bit is a rider competing for major victories who there is reason to suspect may have committed a doping offence in what will be over 6 months previously. That would be unsatisfactory whether it was leaked or not.

I have already said I don't know if the blame is shared by Sky/Froome or not - if he's guilty (he can be guilty without being proven guilty) or if they are delaying to get the Tour in first yes I'd say they do share the blame. I don't think that is particularly hard anti-Froome line.

top_bhoy

RichN95 wrote:

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

Why unlikely and how can it be an inhaler issue? Currently the facts and evidence point to Froome having infringed the doping regulations and is the one who now has to demonstrate that the doping test or process was flawed or there were physiological reasons for the adverse results. Calling it an inhaler issue is too simplistic.

Froome has used an inhaler enough times to know (or should know) how much he requires during a race. It was used for either a more sinister reason or simply, he tried to circumvent the rules knowing he would not have survived the race without using it as much as he did. If the latter, should he have been racing and where was the duty of care from his team and organisers?

blazing_saddles

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Why unlikely and how can it be an inhaler issue? Currently the facts and evidence point to Froome having infringed the doping regulations and is the one who now has to demonstrate that the doping test or process was flawed or there were physiological reasons for the adverse results. Calling it an inhaler issue is too simplistic.

Froome has used an inhaler enough times to know (or should know) how much he requires during a race. It was used for either a more sinister reason or simply, he tried to circumvent the rules knowing he would not have survived the race without using it as much as he did. If the latter, should he have been racing and where was the duty of care from his team and organisers?

So, knowing his limit, knowing how easy Sal is to detect with testing and that he was going to be tested he simply said feck it and went full retard with his puffer?

An inhaller issue is far more plausible and far less simplistic, as you put it, than this.

Bet the outcome, if ever made public, will be so complex, it will cause another firestorm of keyboard activity.

tailwindhome

Having checked his diary Froome has cleared a 9 month window between TDF 2018 and Romandie 2019
UCI, that good for you?

bigmat

Shame to miss the hilly worlds though - maybe stretch it out until late September?!

larkim

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

It was used for either a more sinister reason or simply, he tried to circumvent the rules knowing he would not have survived the race without using it as much as he did.

So, knowing his limit, knowing how easy Sal is to detect with testing and that he was going to be tested he simply said feck it and went full idiot mode [edited for word I don't want to repeat] with his puffer?

This is it in a nutshell for me.

You've got one camp saying it is either "more sinister" or "circumventing the rules" as being the two simple explanations.

Traded off against the almost 100% certainty of being caught and having to battle to clear his name.

It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, even if we accept there might be a small but measurable performance enhancement with a large dose, that a rider in Froome's position would choose this drug to cheat with.

There is "something else" at play. Physiology, faulty inhaler, some sort of (possibly unlawful) complex drugs regime that went wrong, testing flaw, hydration. All of those are possibilities. But taking a few extra tokes on the inhaler to try to eke out an advantage the next day seems to me the least plausible of all of the possibilities.

Matthewfalle

Whatever the arguments, the reality is he’ll get off scott free.

Plus sa change

FocusZing

Yesterday.

salsiccia1

Matthewfalle wrote:

Whatever the arguments, the reality is he’ll get off scott free.

Plus sa change

How do you know that? I don't think he will.

But if he does, because he can prove that the reading might be due to something other than taking too many puffs of salbutamol, wouldn't 'getting off scot-free' be the right outcome?

haydenm

Top_Bhoy wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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

Why unlikely and how can it be an inhaler issue? Currently the facts and evidence point to Froome having infringed the doping regulations and is the one who now has to demonstrate that the doping test or process was flawed or there were physiological reasons for the adverse results. Calling it an inhaler issue is too simplistic.

Froome has used an inhaler enough times to know (or should know) how much he requires during a race. It was used for either a more sinister reason or simply, he tried to circumvent the rules knowing he would not have survived the race without using it as much as he did. If the latter, should he have been racing and where was the duty of care from his team and organisers?

This was covered in the first few pages of the debate. There is no PE effect unless taken in high quantities daily which he would definitely be caught for, it was extremely hot that day and they did loads of climbing. The amount that comes out in your urine is highly variable and strongly affected by dehydration.

It's poor management. As you say, should he have been racing? He might have normally got away with a certain amount but been caught out that day. That or he took more to get him through the race, in which case he must have known he was going to get caught

DeVlaeminck

It wasn't classified as a mountain day and was it actually unusually hot - I don't think the evidence is there for unusual dehydration - Froome did well and said after the stage he felt good. The limits set must take account of the fact that riders are being tested after grand tour stages - hot weather and tough days are par for the course - I don't think this stage was extreme on either count.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It wasn't classified as a mountain day and was it actually unusually hot - I don't think the evidence is there for unusual dehydration - Froome did well and said after the stage he felt good. The limits set must take account of the fact that riders are being tested after grand tour stages - hot weather and tough days are par for the course - I don't think this stage was extreme on either count.

But dehydration is going to be more of a factor for a cyclist riding though demanding terrain in Spain for several hours than, say, for a long jumper in Brussels or a rugby player in Dublin. The limits are there for all sports not just cycling.

Fortunately to address this WADA have introduced new rules which allow for recallibration according to the level of dehydration.

DeVlaeminck

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It wasn't classified as a mountain day and was it actually unusually hot - I don't think the evidence is there for unusual dehydration - Froome did well and said after the stage he felt good. The limits set must take account of the fact that riders are being tested after grand tour stages - hot weather and tough days are par for the course - I don't think this stage was extreme on either count.

But dehydration is going to be more of a factor for a cyclist riding though demanding terrain in Spain for several hours than, say, for a long jumper in Brussels or a rugby player in Dublin. The limits are there for all sports not just cycling.

Fortunately to address this WADA have introduced new rules which allow for recallibration according to the level of dehydration.

But there are enough cyclists with asthma who would have cycled tougher stages in hotter conditions with fewer domestiques to hand up fluids. I'm not saying dehydration wasn't a factor but I do think the post above was almost presenting it as too easy an explanation.

No_Ta_Doctor

Delete: double post. Beer may have been involvededededved.

No_Ta_Doctor

Apologies for the rant. Had to get that off my chest. Stop making this a scandal, it's clearly not.

A scandal is the entire peloton, lead by now dead but lionised doper Pantani, sitting down on the road because it was unfair police were looking at them for using fuck loads of EPO.

I don't even like Froome. Brailsford is a twat. I like some Sky riders, but I'm not exactly a fan-boy.

sloppyschleckonds

RichN95 wrote:

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

Reposting opinion and untruths just makes you look an idiot.

tim000

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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

Reposting opinion and untruths just makes you look an idiot.

posting makes you look at idiot

No_Ta_Doctor

tim000 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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

Reposting opinion and untruths just makes you look an idiot.

posting makes you look at idiot

+1

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It wasn't classified as a mountain day and was it actually unusually hot - I don't think the evidence is there for unusual dehydration - Froome did well and said after the stage he felt good. The limits set must take account of the fact that riders are being tested after grand tour stages - hot weather and tough days are par for the course - I don't think this stage was extreme on either count.

But dehydration is going to be more of a factor for a cyclist riding though demanding terrain in Spain for several hours than, say, for a long jumper in Brussels or a rugby player in Dublin. The limits are there for all sports not just cycling.

Fortunately to address this WADA have introduced new rules which allow for recallibration according to the level of dehydration.

But there are enough cyclists with asthma who would have cycled tougher stages in hotter conditions with fewer domestiques to hand up fluids. I'm not saying dehydration wasn't a factor but I do think the post above was almost presenting it as too easy an explanation.

But then it comes down to a question of probability. To have the same circumstances said rider would have to be tested on a day when they had a sufficiently big problem to take a much larger dosage than usual.

Dehydration is not the only factor, of course, but it's a significant one. So much so that WADA will be recallibrating results soon.

No_Ta_Doctor

For those convinced Froome was doping long before this blew up it's the equivalent of Al Capone being busted for tax evasion. They don't care, as long as he gets nailed. He deserves it, if not for this, but for whatever dodgyness they think he's done in the past.

Revisiting the narrative of this case, we start with "COVER UP!!!!" because it was leaked, and nobody had told us there was an issue before (as per standard process). At this point we've already got people buying into some sort of nefarious action just because they weren't told, and we hear a load of moaning about transparency...

Next we have the theorisors. Blood bag (nope, he'd have to be 50% Salbutamol to give that reading from taking a blood bag), nebuliser (a bit pointless and stupid, he could have got a TUE for it if he did), weight loss in pill format (come ******* on, up your game, morons), masking agent (right, it's not known to be a masking agent, and it's routinely tested for, and Froome was going to get tested)

Then we have the scandlizers "It's a scandal!!!" "Image of the sport!!!" "Dragging the sport into the gutter!!!" "He should self-suspend!!!" These are all people that are doing far, far more damage to the image of the sport than Froome getting popped for going over the limit on a not-really-a-PED substance. Yes, it's a pain in the ars* not knowing what results he might keep, but blowing it up as a doping story is ******* ridiculous, and effectively slanders our sport. The general public don't know better, of course, but when cycling fans, managers and pros are on this track it's only reinforcing the idea that some seriously nefarious shite has gone down, which is nothing short of preposterous.

We're all pissed off this hasn't been sorted. We all accept that if Froome/Sky can't prove innocence he'll get a ban (9 months seems to be the standard), but hatred of Froome/Sky and belief that they're serious dopers is exciting idiots into blowing this well out of proportion. So a huge thanks to all the twats that mean I have to explain, again, that cycling isn't actually all that bad wrt PEDs, thanks for making our sport look dirty as fark in the eyes of the general public (they didn't need much convincing)... Your ******* hobby horses are ******* our sport over.

Yes, I'm looking at some posters here. And I'm looking at arseholes like Vaughters, Guimard etc. And yes, Tony Martin as well, with his half-hearted backtrack when he found out what the rules really were....

Way to f@cking go in shooting our sport in the foot, knobmoomins.

shipley

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughte ... ble-thing/

Glad it’s not just me who sees the bigger picture.

Vino'sGhost

He wouldn’t do such a thing there’s no Benifit He conquered cancer why would he risk himself.

The denials are all merging into one.

r0bh

Shipley wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-chris-froome-should-do-the-honourable-thing/

Glad it’s not just me who sees the bigger picture.

Lol, you can trust old Vaughters to come out with some media friendly holier than thou sound bites. What a hypocrite, how many riders did he allow to keep on racing for years whilst knowing they'd done shed loads of EPO!

RichN95.

Shipley wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-chris-froome-should-do-the-honourable-thing/

Glad it’s not just me who sees the bigger picture.

From that article:

Vaughters warned that the case will drag on and on, explaining that even in the event of the ban it would surely be appealed in the Court of Arbitration for Sport – by Froome if it’s a long ban or WADA if it’s a short one

So he's working from an assumption of guilt then. That's not very honourable.

tailwindhome

Day 57 of the siege.

shipley

You’re all missing the point -we’re here because we love our sport. Vaughters (and others’) point is the impact on the sport.

Silence is not a strategy that limits damage to the sport as a whole. I don’t give a sh1t about Froome, it’s the sport I don’t want to see damaged.

RichN95.

Shipley wrote:

You’re all missing the point -we’re here because we love our sport. Vaughters (and others’) point is the impact on the sport.

Silence is not a strategy that limits damage to the sport as a whole. I don’t give a sh1t about Froome, it’s the sport I don’t want to see damaged.

This sport got through Festina, Cofidis, Puerto , T-Mobile, Rabobank, US Postal, Saunier Duval, Vinokourov, Landis, Contador, etc. It doubt an asthma inhaler will be it's undoing.

shipley

It’s nothing to do with an inhaler, it’s the publicity SKY generate in the UK media, and the reduced investment from advertisers / investors that will be its undoing. There’s a spotlight on the (and other) sport which is greater than ever before and ‘doping’ is now frowned upon more than ever. Froome’s innocence or guilt is irrelevant, the sport will be further damaged the longer this drags out.

There has to be a better way to resolve this scenario than the current shambles.