Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

kleinstroker

bobmcstuff wrote:

Hinault doesn't understand the rules clearly... as they do not say he should be suspended at this stage.

Also comparing it to Contadors case doesn't make sense as clenbuterol is a banned substance.

It would be good of they could get the decision done and dusted before the tour starts though.

Exactly. He as much says the Salbutamol probably had no effect but that Froome should still be banned, as he thinks it is the same level as Clenbuterol

DeVlaeminck

Graeme_S wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

If people were honest with themselves, Froome starting the Tour with his case still not resolved does not sit right.

You mean "Froome starting the tour with his case which we only know about because it was leaked to the press still not resolved does not sit right"?

We've no idea how many riders have started GTs and the TDF with adverse analytical findings hanging over them.

Come on why does it matter it was leaked and do you actually believe that any other rider has had a case such as this hanging over them for 10 months or so without it being made public?

DeadCalm

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

Pross

DeadCalm wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

How many of them have asthma?

kingstonian

DeadCalm wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

How do you know? I’m not insinuating they have, but we just don’t know.

takethehighroad

pottssteve wrote:

Sky have issued a press release:

A Team Sky Spokesperson said:

'It is disappointing that Bernard Hinault has, once again, repeated factually incorrect comments about a case he clearly does not understand.

‘His comments are irresponsible and ill-informed. Chris has not had a positive test, rather an adverse analytical finding for a prescribed asthma medication. As an ex-rider himself, Bernard will appreciate the need for fairness for each and every athlete. And at the current time, Chris is entitled to race.

‘This process would normally be confidential to protect the athlete and establish the facts. Unfortunately, it was leaked. However, both Chris and the team are following the process that has been put in place by the UCI.

‘It is clearly a difficult situation which no one wants resolved more quickly than Chris and the team.

‘Chris and Team Sky are fully-focused on the upcoming Tour de France and won’t let these uneducated comments affect our preparation for the greatest race in the world.’

Sky pulling no punches, just like le blaireau back in the day

salsiccia1

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

If people were honest with themselves, Froome starting the Tour with his case still not resolved does not sit right.

You mean "Froome starting the tour with his case which we only know about because it was leaked to the press still not resolved does not sit right"?

We've no idea how many riders have started GTs and the TDF with adverse analytical findings hanging over them.

Come on why does it matter it was leaked and do you actually believe that any other rider has had a case such as this hanging over them for 10 months or so without it being made public?

Of course it matters that it was leaked. It's unfair on everyone involved in the process, not least, but not just the rider. Just look at the shite going on now, it puts undue pressure on the investigation and if Froome ends up being cleared then all the negativity will have been damaging for no good reason and can't be undone. If this process had stayed confidential and Froome isn't cleared then due process, as per the rules would have been followed.

DeadCalm

Kingstonian wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It would be interesting if someone leaked all the other AAFs both outstanding and settled so that there is a better understanding of this issue. By that I mean if there are a lot of prominent riders who have or are under an AAF then Froone's AAF would amount to just another one and its significance would possibly get diluted so that those who only bang on about it because its Froome and sky will shut up and let due process run its course. My pint is half full not half empty!

Sagan doesn't have one. Doumoulin doesn't. Bardet doesn't. Cavendish doesn't. Pinot doesn't. Benoot doesn't. Oh and Team Sky's David Lopez doesn't have one either.

How do you know? I’m not insinuating they have, but we just don’t know.

With those riders we do know. Apart from Lopez, they are all on teams who have committed, as part of their MPCC membership, to withdrawing from competition any rider who incurs an AAF. Lopez's team obviously isn't a member but interestingly, Lopez has apparently joined as an individual.

timoid.

PBlakeney wrote:

Would it be churlish to suggest that he is probably more concerned that someone may top his palmares?
I don't care. I'm suggesting it anyway.

Bwahhaha. Froome's palmares are nowhere near Hinault's.

Come back to me when he is a multiple monument winner and world champion.

Hinault is worried about the reputation of Le Tour being trashed as people look at Froome and (rightly or wrongly) see a doper.

timoid.

Above The Cows wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

f people were honest with themselves, Froome starting the Tour with his case still not resolved does not sit right.

But them's the rules. He's allowed to compete under the current rules. Your issue is with the rules (and the ideals on which they are based) of innocent until proven guilty, not with Froome.

No my issue is with what is good for the sport. There is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right.

Rabobank didn't have to pull the Chicken from the Tour in 07, but they did. And it was the right thing to do.

slowmart

Timoid. wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Would it be churlish to suggest that he is probably more concerned that someone may top his palmares?
I don't care. I'm suggesting it anyway.

Bwahhaha. Froome's palmares are nowhere near Hinault's.

Come back to me when he is a multiple monument winner and world champion.

Hinault is worried about the reputation of Le Tour being trashed as people look at Froome and (rightly or wrongly) see a doper.

er didn't Hinault refuse a drugs test in 1982? https://www.dopeology.org/people/Bernard_Hinault/

And I doubt the reason for Hinault's comments stem from his concern for the reputation of the Tour since there's a cloud of suspicion over every winner since Armstrong.

shipley

Timoid. wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

f people were honest with themselves, Froome starting the Tour with his case still not resolved does not sit right.

But them's the rules. He's allowed to compete under the current rules. Your issue is with the rules (and the ideals on which they are based) of innocent until proven guilty, not with Froome.

No my issue is with what is good for the sport. There is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right.

Rabobank didn't have to pull the Chicken from the Tour in 07, but they did. And it was the right thing to do.

I couldn’t agree more.

timoid.

Slowmart wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Would it be churlish to suggest that he is probably more concerned that someone may top his palmares?
I don't care. I'm suggesting it anyway.

Bwahhaha. Froome's palmares are nowhere near Hinault's.

Come back to me when he is a multiple monument winner and world champion.

Hinault is worried about the reputation of Le Tour being trashed as people look at Froome and (rightly or wrongly) see a doper.

er didn't Hinault refuse a drugs test in 1982? https://www.dopeology.org/people/Bernard_Hinault/

And I doubt the reason for Hinault's comments stem from his concern for the reputation of the Tour since there's a cloud of suspicion over every winner since Armstrong.

Yes he did. He paid his dues (which wasn't much back then) and got on with it. The Tour was not affected.

Hinault will always rush to the defence of the Tour. Even though he is not helping to run it now.

If it was my event, I would not want Froome there.

DeadCalm

Timoid. wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

f people were honest with themselves, Froome starting the Tour with his case still not resolved does not sit right.

But them's the rules. He's allowed to compete under the current rules. Your issue is with the rules (and the ideals on which they are based) of innocent until proven guilty, not with Froome.

No my issue is with what is good for the sport. There is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right.

Rabobank didn't have to pull the Chicken from the Tour in 07, but they did. And it was the right thing to do.

Agreed. Also, 'Innocent until proven guilty' is a smokescreen. There are countless examples in real life of a person charged with something being prevented from carrying on as normal because it is deemed to be for the greater good.

timoid.

For those defending Froome, can you imagine the clusterfck if he is found guilty and potentially has to hand back all three GT titles?

Cycling will be a laughingstock.

bobmcstuff

Timoid. wrote:

For those defending Froome, can you imagine the clusterfck if he is found guilty and potentially has to hand back all three GT titles?

Cycling will be a laughingstock.

I thought consensus was that this was an extremely unlikely outcome though, despite it being talked up on Twitter - if found guilty he would lose the result on the stage of the test (and presumably the Vuelta), but the ban would only start from the date of the decision.

It's not a banned substance where all results are stripped (unless he exceeded the limit during other races as well).

shipley

Timoid. wrote:

For those defending Froome, can you imagine the clusterfck if he is found guilty and potentially has to hand back all three GT titles?

Cycling will be a laughingstock.

Can you imagine the danger the team will put him under if they permit him to ride given how partisan the French are ? It’s a disaster waiting to happen. SKY missed their chance to sort this out and now refuse to act in the interest of the sport, the race and their rider.

timoid.

bobmcstuff wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

For those defending Froome, can you imagine the clusterfck if he is found guilty and potentially has to hand back all three GT titles?

Cycling will be a laughingstock.

I thought consensus was that this was an extremely unlikely outcome though, despite it being talked up on Twitter - if found guilty he would lose the result on the stage of the test (and presumably the Vuelta), but the ban would only start from the date of the decision.

It's not a banned substance where all results are stripped (unless he exceeded the limit during other races as well).

Ok. Didn't realise. Still not a good look for the Tour winner to start a ban after.

It's a Caesar's wife situation

slowbike

Timoid. wrote:

For those defending Froome, can you imagine the clusterfck if he is found guilty and potentially has to hand back all three GT titles?

Cycling will be a laughingstock.

Nope - disagree - there will be a lot of disappointed and perhaps angry (ex)supporters - a few apologists too - but until that point he's operating within the rules (as far as we know). The rules are quite clear that he can race - otherwise, what's the option? Effectively ban him from racing - so he's being punished for something he may not be guilty of.

You either follow due process or you don't - it's quite clear that someone decided the story was worth more than following due process and leaked it. What should be cleared up is the time it takes or is allowed for either side to present their case and for the matter to be decided on.

And if you think I'm a Froome supporter - you're mistaken - I don't warm to his public personality, but that doesn't mean I want to see him banned from racing - not unless it's proven that he's broken the rules.

As for Hinault ... what a d!ck. But then he's probably got a high sense of self importance - so what else should we expect.

inseine

Hinault was a great rider but, like many greats, he always comes across as a bit naive and self obsessed (read his book, or rather, don't).

above_the_cows

Timoid. wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

f people were honest with themselves, Froome starting the Tour with his case still not resolved does not sit right.

But them's the rules. He's allowed to compete under the current rules. Your issue is with the rules (and the ideals on which they are based) of innocent until proven guilty, not with Froome.

No my issue is with what is good for the sport. There is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right.

Rabobank didn't have to pull the Chicken from the Tour in 07, but they did. And it was the right thing to do.

Did you just hold Rabobank up as some sort of ethical barometer for behaviour in pro-cycling?

Excuse me while I just retrieve my sides.

above_the_cows

bobmcstuff wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

For those defending Froome, can you imagine the clusterfck if he is found guilty and potentially has to hand back all three GT titles?

Cycling will be a laughingstock.

I thought consensus was that this was an extremely unlikely outcome though, despite it being talked up on Twitter - if found guilty he would lose the result on the stage of the test (and presumably the Vuelta), but the ban would only start from the date of the decision.

It's not a banned substance where all results are stripped (unless he exceeded the limit during other races as well).

Like Monsieur, I refused a drugs test, Hinault, Timoid is 'repeating factually incorrect comments about a case they clearly do not understand.'

above_the_cows

Shipley wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

For those defending Froome, can you imagine the clusterfck if he is found guilty and potentially has to hand back all three GT titles?

Cycling will be a laughingstock.

Can you imagine the danger the team will put him under if they permit him to ride given how partisan the French are ? It’s a disaster waiting to happen. SKY missed their chance to sort this out and now refuse to act in the interest of the sport, the race and their rider.

So Sky should give up the chance of winning the Tour because some French fans don't know how to behave themselves? Do you blame all victims of violence for the behaviour of their attackers or are you selective in your victim blaming?

And what do you mean Sky have missed their chance? They are going through the due process of the procedure which none of us would even know about if it hadn't been leaked.

FFS the stupid it hurts!

shipley

Well we’ll wait and see shall we.

Which is more important, SKY or the sport ?

.... only an idiot would believe this will be resolved satisfactorily. Either way Froome will be plagued with suspicion, and in the meantime puts himself at risk from spoilers in the Tour.

I’ve already stated how SKY could have sorted it earlier, but they missed their chance, and despite those worshipping at their altar, the recent accusations are irreparable (whether true or false).

shirley_basso

What chance? They are following due process.

Vino'sGhost

Hinaults opinion is his opinion, it carries weight because of the past but he’s not calling for anti Froome vigilante action.

That’s just bedwetter reaction. Ffs get a grip, he didn’t call for bottles of piss to be thrown and yet that happened. I fear for the world sometimes.

shirley_basso

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

Vino'sGhost

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should of manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

mamil314

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should have manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

The culmination and resolution will be when final announcement/decision of authorities is made.

shipley

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Yes but with the French being particularly poor losers and added to it being on their own turf, it doesn’t bode well with someone respected speaking out.

It might not bode well but this is the culmination of a lot of things, it’s unrealistic to expect people to completely divorce the aaf from Jiffy bags, dishonest tue and all the rest.

Froome has grown on me over the last few years but my view is he should have manned up and taken his punishment. It would have blown over and he’d be in a better place.

Exactly !