Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

RichN95.

The one bit of evidence that Froome had that previous salbutamol defendants didn't have was tests for several days either side of the offending test. If there had been abnormal spikes of other subsatnces in that sample compared to others it would point to a biological explanation.

larkim

The UCI statements talks about this case being a specific set of circumstances it seems:-
"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."

darkhairedlord

Hopefully they have Hinault down to present the yellow jersey to Froome.
Kevin Keegan "would love it, just love it" to see Hinault squirm.

tackleberry

Even if Prudhomme went to the Sky bus to apologise for the "misunderstanding", after EVERY stage, it wouldn't be enough.

bobmcstuff

warrior4life wrote:

Where does that leave Petacchi and Ulissi?
Is Salbutimol nowtaken off the banned list?

Depends on what basis WADA have accepted Froomes argument doesn't it. If it's specific to Froome then it wouldn't affect Petacchi and Ulissi. But if it's something to do with the test itself then maybe it would. Don't know enough about it do we.

larkim

It seems there was something specific about the Froome situation (at least, that's what the UCI statement says):-
"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."

bobmcstuff

Then it probably leaves Ulissi and Petacchi exactly where they were before the case.

Pross

bobmcstuff wrote:

warrior4life wrote:

Where does that leave Petacchi and Ulissi?
Is Salbutimol nowtaken off the banned list?

Depends on what basis WADA have accepted Froomes argument doesn't it. If it's specific to Froome then it wouldn't affect Petacchi and Ulissi. But if it's something to do with the test itself then maybe it would. Don't know enough about it do we.

This (although you should never admit to a lack of knowledge on the Internet!!).

Pross

kingrollo wrote:

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 ?

I assume that, in general, they correlate but that there are factors that can affect the readings. That is why it was always classed as an AAF and not a failed test. It has been complicated by the leaking of the result as really no-one outside the relevant authorities should have ever been aware of the AAF unless Froome was unable to explain the discrepancy and was sanctioned. Someone should really be looking for the source of the leak if people are concerned about damage to the reputation of the sport.

larkim

Ulissi admitted being negligent with his salbutamol use, so (without him saying so explicitly) that tells me that he admitted to taking too many puffs, hence not relevant if the test is being called into doubt. And Petacchi was sanctioned when the drug needed a TUE, so again not relevant.

Pross

larkim wrote:

The UCI statements talks about this case being a specific set of circumstances it seems:-
"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."

So the UCI found out on 28 June and on 1 July ASO were reported to be banning Froome from starting? Anyone think they'd been told and decided to generate so publicity for themselves by acting tough knowing they'd be able to back down?

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

The one bit of evidence that Froome had that previous salbutamol defendants didn't have was tests for several days either side of the offending test. If there had been abnormal spikes of other subsatnces in that sample compared to others it would point to a biological explanation.

I thought that Froome would find it hard to prove how much he had ingested to back that up though. Presumably they have managed it.

salsiccia1

If I was Froome and made it to the Champs Elysees this year, I'd ride the length of it like

dolan_driver

darkhairedlord wrote:

Hopefully they have Hinault down to present the yellow jersey to Froome.
Kevin Keegan "would love it, just love it" to see Hinault squirm.

Yea, the podium presentation should be fun now if Froome gets into yellow. Hinualt will have to swallow his pride. It'll be interesting to see if he offers any kind of apology.

ASO look like a bunch of dicks too. Apology needed from them too. Hopefully the publicity caravan at Le Tour features a truck promoting humble pie because quite a few in ASO will need a daily dose.

RCS will feel their investment has been money well spent.

DD.

RichN95.

A new Sky doping scandal on the horizon. I'd like them to explain how this result happened in an Italian sportif at the weekend.

mrfpb

warrior4life wrote:

Where does that leave Petacchi and Ulissi?
Is Salbutimol nowtaken off the banned list?

It isn't on the banned list.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

larkim wrote:

The UCI statements talks about this case being a specific set of circumstances it seems:-
"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."

So the UCI found out on 28 June and on 1 July ASO were reported to be banning Froome from starting? Anyone think they'd been told and decided to generate so publicity for themselves by acting tough knowing they'd be able to back down?

Or Lapparient didn't tell Prudhomme and let him look like a clot in some sort of powerplay.

mamil314

Pross wrote:

larkim wrote:

The UCI statements talks about this case being a specific set of circumstances it seems:-
"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."

So the UCI found out on 28 June and on 1 July ASO were reported to be banning Froome from starting? Anyone think they'd been told and decided to generate so publicity for themselves by acting tough knowing they'd be able to back down?

It's possible that ASO went 'no bad publicity' and are just stirring up the hype. This, however, leaves a loose end in Hinault making a fool of himself. Not got the memo, probably?

RichN95.

Dolan Driver wrote:

Yea, the podium presentation should be fun now if Froome gets into yellow. Hinualt will have to swallow his pride. It'll be interesting to see if he offers any kind of apology.

Hinault isn't doing the podiums anymore. Thomas Voeckler's got that job now.

Pross

mamil314 wrote:

Pross wrote:

larkim wrote:

The UCI statements talks about this case being a specific set of circumstances it seems:-
"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."

So the UCI found out on 28 June and on 1 July ASO were reported to be banning Froome from starting? Anyone think they'd been told and decided to generate so publicity for themselves by acting tough knowing they'd be able to back down?

It's possible that ASO went 'no bad publicity' and are just stirring up the hype. This, however, leaves a loose end in Hinault making a fool of himself. Not got the memo, probably?

Nah, Hinault is just a typical ex-sportsman mouthing off and forgetting the sport has moved on since their time no matter how good they were back in the day.

andytee87

Pross wrote:

So the UCI found out on 28 June and on 1 July ASO were reported to be banning Froome from starting? Anyone think they'd been told and decided to generate so publicity for themselves by acting tough knowing they'd be able to back down?

Pretty much this isn't it- shows UCI are as leaky as a sieve. Gives them the publicity and more coverage on a weekend with big footy stories. Also allows them to go "we tried *Gallic shrug* mais c'est l'UCI" to all the drunken yobs on the side of the road and twitter.

Also find it funny how ASO referenced the fact the Giro had the shadow over it, not that it was only la Vuelta (an ASO race) which did and would be affected by any judgements... nice way to try and belittle RCS a bit more!

redvision

Well I never saw this coming but glad it's finally been resolved.

Have to trust the UCI investigation but hope they speed up the process in the future.

I hope Froome doesn't get the abuse he has at previous tours, and hopefully this outcome will help.

I also hope more is done by the UCI and Wada to help those with asthma, hopefully preventing similar issues in the future.

One thing I want to add, I never thought I would be saying this because I have criticised him so much for not self suspending after his aaf become public, but, whilst the sky pr team needs a great deal of work, you have to give Froome credit for the way he has handled all the criticism and everything through the process. Hats off to him for staying calm and professional. He deserves massive respect for that.

topper_harley

Woof woof...The dawg is innocent...some bitter tears today

imafatman

Well all the people who have been talking a lot of junk now have egg on their face.

They won't admit it though.

larkim

DB's quote in the Sky press release gives some insight into the details, though not enough to really discuss in depth. Seems the bottom line is that the testing is being demonstrated as being flawed though.

"We said at the outset that there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol. This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled. A review of all Chris’s 21 test results from the Vuelta revealed that the Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation and therefore consistent with him having taken a permitted dose of Salbutamol."

andyp

andytee87 wrote:

Pretty much this isn't it- shows UCI are as leaky as a sieve.

Eh? The first we knew there might be an announcement from the UCI was about an hour before they published the press release. The first we knew what the contents were, was about 2 minutes before.

I'd call that close to being watertight.

Pross

andyp wrote:

andytee87 wrote:

Pretty much this isn't it- shows UCI are as leaky as a sieve.

Eh? The first we knew there might be an announcement from the UCI was about an hour before they published the press release. The first we knew what the contents were, was about 2 minutes before.

I'd call that close to being watertight.

You don't think anyone could have tipped off ASO?

RichN95.

andyp wrote:

andytee87 wrote:

Pretty much this isn't it- shows UCI are as leaky as a sieve.

Eh? The first we knew there might be an announcement from the UCI was about an hour before they published the press release. The first we knew what the contents were, was about 2 minutes before.

I'd call that close to being watertight.

And the indications are that the leak to Gazzetta came from Sky, not UCI.

warrior4life

He's going to get a lot of piss and spit thrown at him at the tour, be surprised to see him making it through without getting some form of fan attack.

The full situation is just sad. Its all bad for cycling.

Dorset_Boy

Froome tested 21 times in 3 weeks - what would Serena Williams make of that?!