Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

1…1112141617…44

Comments

  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    so basically after 9 months of this dragging on, bloke with asmtha took his medication and it's all legal and above board.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,246
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    Twitterati crying foul.
    It's almost worth unblocking them all. Almost.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • smithy21
    smithy21 Posts: 2,204
    Boom. This will be 56 pages by the time the Tour starts. Thank god for the World Cup.
  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,169
    " On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome."

    So that means case closed & no-one will appeal, doesn't it?
  • jimmythecuckoo
    jimmythecuckoo Posts: 4,716
    RichN95 wrote:
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    Twitterati crying foul.
    It's almost worth unblocking them all. Almost.
    Its never worth it !
    http://fendrieneu.home.blog
    My blog and pod...
    Beers of Belgium Cycling Club UK
  • kleinstroker
    kleinstroker Posts: 2,133
    What a complete farce.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Ulissi and Petacchi in line for some compensation?
  • sniper68
    sniper68 Posts: 2,910
    Taken far too long IMO.
    Lynskey R480

  • Coach H
    Coach H Posts: 1,092
    Froome confirmed on Instagram
    Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')
  • twotoebenny
    twotoebenny Posts: 1,541
    Would love to be a fly on the wall in Le Blaireaus house this morning!
    ASO office would be fun too...
  • hanshotfirst
    hanshotfirst Posts: 397
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Ulissi and Petacchi in line for some compensation?

    Better get themselves some better lawyers.

    latest?cb=20130616172307
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,246
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Ulissi and Petacchi in line for some compensation?
    Probably not. Different cases, different rules (eg regarding dehydration). Their cases were heard properly.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,711
    I'd love to be a fly on the wall at ASO HQ right now.
    Social media sent into overdrive once again.
    Hopefully those who have been foolishly crying about self-suspension all along, will climb back into their boxes.


    Other than that........roll on Saturday and some actual racing.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,400
    ddraver wrote:
    BWAH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! HEEEEEEE he he he he he HEEEEEEE!

    Oh UCI that is epic trolling. All the chapeaus!!

    Oh good god Twitter is going to be epic today
    Hahahaha, brilliant!

    Just off to get an industrial sized sack of popcorn, brb...
  • kingrollo
    kingrollo Posts: 3,198
    No agenda to plug either way - but I just don't get it.

    If he submitted a sample with levels way above that allowed - how can there be no case to answer - was the the test result wrong ?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,292
    Yeah, but he should have self-suspended as all the forum experts were advising as it would have sorted all this out earlier and he wouldn't have a Giro and full house of current GTs to his name. Plus, he should still sit out the Tour in case the Frenchies refuse to accept this whitewash and are nasty to him. Anyone think the ASO knew this was coming and made their statement to try to create publicity and even try to claim some credit for the decision finally being made?
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Get the Sky defence lawyer on board
  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,169
    kingrollo wrote:
    No agenda to plug either way - but I just don't get it.

    If he submitted a sample with levels way above that allowed - how can there be no case to answer - was the the test result wrong ?

    There was a case to answer, and apparently it's been answered to the satisfaction of UCI and WADA, but maybe not the whole internet.
  • larkim
    larkim Posts: 2,485
    Did not see that coming. Intrigued to see more details, but (with all bias and prejudice that this confirms) delighted to see the outcome.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,292
    kingrollo wrote:
    No agenda to plug either way - but I just don't get it.

    If he submitted a sample with levels way above that allowed - how can there be no case to answer - was the the test result wrong ?

    Do people still not understand that the testing does not necessarily correlate output to input hence the opportunity to explain why the test result may not have shown he ingested too much? It's not a difficult concept FFS. He has submitted information that WADA have reviewed and presumably determined that it satisfactorily explains the raised test results.
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,424
    kingrollo wrote:
    No agenda to plug either way - but I just don't get it.

    If he submitted a sample with levels way above that allowed - how can there be no case to answer - was the the test result wrong ?

    The test, measuring the levels in his urine, is a proxy for the amount ingested. The limit is what is ingested, not what is peed out.
    WADA perhaps have recognised it is a flawed test.
  • carbonclem
    carbonclem Posts: 1,776
    edited July 2018
    RichN95 wrote:
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    Twitterati crying foul.
    It's almost worth unblocking them all. Almost.


    Dogger is like a child having a tantrum. Just blasting tweets without any rational thought whatsoever. :lol:

    So, it doesn’t seem to have affected him at all!
    2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner
  • kleinstroker
    kleinstroker Posts: 2,133
    kingrollo wrote:
    No agenda to plug either way - but I just don't get it.

    If he submitted a sample with levels way above that allowed - how can there be no case to answer - was the the test result wrong ?

    His level was readjusted to 1469mg/l because of dehydration, this would have been done in due course had the 2000mg/l initial reading not been leaked by some hoary French b*stared hoping to cause as much trouble as possible. The action level for AAF as set by UCI is 1200mg/l so Sky had to prove that the extra 269mg/l was the result of Froome's physiology and would have been done with a Pharmo-Kinetic study to back it up.

    But yes the test result was wrong
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,292
    Seems like WADA and the UCI have saved ASO from making massive fools of themselves by finally making their decision. It's probably too late for anyone to save Bernard from the same fate though.
  • larkim
    larkim Posts: 2,485
    I doubt it's as simple as the flawed test concept, otherwise there'd be a whole can of worms being opened up.

    There must be "something" else here. Hope to see a fuller statement at some point.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • kingrollo
    kingrollo Posts: 3,198
    Pross wrote:
    kingrollo wrote:
    No agenda to plug either way - but I just don't get it.

    If he submitted a sample with levels way above that allowed - how can there be no case to answer - was the the test result wrong ?

    Do people still not understand that the testing does not necessarily correlate output to input hence the opportunity to explain why the test result may not have shown he ingested too much? It's not a difficult concept FFS. He has submitted information that WADA have reviewed and presumably determined that it satisfactorily explains the raised test results.

    I am not pre judging it either way - but if the tests have no bearing on the amount of stuff he inhaled - then what is the point of the test ?
  • darkhairedlord
    darkhairedlord Posts: 7,180
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44679483
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,448
    The timing is hilarious, I wonder what the ASO are thinking right now.
  • slim_boy_fat
    slim_boy_fat Posts: 1,810
    UCI trolling ASO.

    What a complete mess.
  • warrior4life
    warrior4life Posts: 925
    Where does that leave Petacchi and Ulissi?
    Is Salbutimol nowtaken off the banned list?

Categories