Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

timoid.

Above The Cows wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

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.

You've got this backwards. If a team like Rabobank could do the right thing, then surely Sky with its much vaunted high ethics policy should be expected to at least behave as well as that dubious outfit?

Sky thinks it's bigger than the sport. It is not.

timoid.

Above The Cows wrote:

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

Why the unecessary snark? bobmcstuff already pointed out the same in a more civilised manner and I accepted it.

Legal opinion on this is not clear. According to Jack Anderson, Professor of Sports Law at the University of Melbourne:

"The situation is unclear but it seems if Froome gets a ban, then he will definitely lose the Vuelta title from September 2017 , as that was when the tests showed his [salbutamol levels were too high]. If, as he could have done under the UCI rules, he opted to “self provisionally suspend” after the Vuelta, and remained self-suspended while this legal process was ongoing, he could then have used his period of self-suspension to get any sanction backdated to the date of the adverse test (September 7). He didn’t do that as he wanted to ride and win in the World Champs, Giro etc.

UCI anti-doping rules state [ed. see 10.11 here] if the case against Froome is proven, he is banned from the date of the UCI anti-doping hearing. The independent arbitrator also however appears to have the power [ed. under 10.8], “unless fairness requires otherwise”, to render void all competitive results that the rider has obtained from the date of the positive sample to the date of ineligibility.

This possibly puts Froome’s World and Giro titles into play. Whether the UCI independent arbitrator would do this is a matter for him. Precedent on backdating bans in cycling exists and notably Contador’s case at CAS in 2012. One of the arbitrators on that case was Ulrich Haas, who is the UCI independent arbitrator in the Froome case.

So according to the above he could be stripped of the Vuelta, Giro and World's podium after winning the Tour. ASO must be thrilled.

RichN95.

Timoid. wrote:

So according to the above he could be stripped of the Vuelta, Giro and World's podium after winning the Tour. ASO must be thrilled.

He won't be stripped of anything other than the Vuelta. Firstly, the "fairness" clause unequivocally applies to Froome and everyone else in his position has kept their results. It's really quite clear.

The fact that that Professor is comparing Froome's case to Contador's shows he has very little familiarity with the case.

timoid.

RichN95 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

So according to the above he could be stripped of the Vuelta, Giro and World's podium after winning the Tour. ASO must be thrilled.

He won't be stripped of anything other than the Vuelta. Firstly, the "fairness" clause unequivocally applies to Froome and everyone else in his position has kept their results. It's really quite clear.

The fact that that Professor is comparing Froome's case to Contador's shows he has very little familiarity with the case.

So don't read Law at the University of Melbourne then? Gotcha.

above_the_cows

Timoid. wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

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

Why the unecessary snark? bobmcstuff already pointed out the same in a more civilised manner and I accepted it.

Legal opinion on this is not clear. According to Jack Anderson, Professor of Sports Law at the University of Melbourne:

"The situation is unclear but it seems if Froome gets a ban, then he will definitely lose the Vuelta title from September 2017 , as that was when the tests showed his [salbutamol levels were too high]. If, as he could have done under the UCI rules, he opted to “self provisionally suspend” after the Vuelta, and remained self-suspended while this legal process was ongoing, he could then have used his period of self-suspension to get any sanction backdated to the date of the adverse test (September 7). He didn’t do that as he wanted to ride and win in the World Champs, Giro etc.

UCI anti-doping rules state [ed. see 10.11 here] if the case against Froome is proven, he is banned from the date of the UCI anti-doping hearing. The independent arbitrator also however appears to have the power [ed. under 10.8], “unless fairness requires otherwise”, to render void all competitive results that the rider has obtained from the date of the positive sample to the date of ineligibility.

This possibly puts Froome’s World and Giro titles into play. Whether the UCI independent arbitrator would do this is a matter for him. Precedent on backdating bans in cycling exists and notably Contador’s case at CAS in 2012. One of the arbitrators on that case was Ulrich Haas, who is the UCI independent arbitrator in the Froome case.

So according to the above he could be stripped of the Vuelta, Giro and World's podium after winning the Tour. ASO must be thrilled.

This might come as a bit of a shock but sometimes academics like to spout gubbins as an attempt at self-promotion. It happens all the time. I know, I am an expert on the practices of academics. I am one and I work with these kinds of people every day.

Timoid. wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

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.

You've got this backwards. If a team like Rabobank could do the right thing, then surely Sky with its much vaunted high ethics policy should be expected to at least behave as well as that dubious outfit?

Sky thinks it's bigger than the sport. It is not.

Sky is following the rules. Without the rules there is no sport.

Rabobank chose to pull Rasmussen from the Tour when the rules said nothing either way while continuing to flout the rules and have a team full of dopers. As I said to try and use Rabobank as a marker for ethical behaviour in cycling based on one particular choice they made is laughable and shows that you are quite desperate to somehow show that Sky following the rules is under your own made up code of ethics wrong.

carbonclem

Froome could have self suspended. Sky could have sidelined him. Neither happened as clearly, they are absolutely certain they can come out of this with a clear name. How and why? No idea, no one has, despite the random clicky new stories. If he doesn't clear his name it will be messy, but based on actions to date, I predict exoneration.

In the meantime, again, Froome and Sky are abiding by the rules in place. The rules the outspoken are so keen to enforce, sometimes.

RichN95.

Timoid. wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

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.

You've got this backwards. If a team like Rabobank could do the right thing, then surely Sky with its much vaunted high ethics policy should be expected to at least behave as well as that dubious outfit?

Sky thinks it's bigger than the sport. It is not.

The difference is that Rabobank knew full well that Rasmussen was doping, while Sky believe that Froome wasn't.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

So according to the above he could be stripped of the Vuelta, Giro and World's podium after winning the Tour. ASO must be thrilled.

He won't be stripped of anything other than the Vuelta. Firstly, the "fairness" clause unequivocally applies to Froome and everyone else in his position has kept their results. It's really quite clear.

The fact that that Professor is comparing Froome's case to Contador's shows he has very little familiarity with the case.

Yet again you spout off like you're the final arbiter in this. What a joy you must be at dinner, in fact I'm surprised you aren't Froomes first choice of defence. Oh hang, on you're just some bloke on the internet which is in fact the only thing that is "really quite clear"

These things are complex, which is one of the reasons CAS exists.

RichN95.

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Yet again you spout off like you're the final arbiter in this. What a joy you must be at dinner, in fact I'm surprised you aren't Froomes first choice of defence. Oh hang, on you're just some bloke on the internet which is in fact the only thing that is "really quite clear"

These things are complex, which is one of the reasons CAS exists.

You don't have to be an expert to know that if a particular decision has been reached every single time in equivalent cases without exception, then it is almost certain to be reached again.

(And I've got enough legal experience to be able to read and understand rules, guidelines and precedents)

bobmcstuff

Timoid. wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

So according to the above he could be stripped of the Vuelta, Giro and World's podium after winning the Tour. ASO must be thrilled.

He won't be stripped of anything other than the Vuelta. Firstly, the "fairness" clause unequivocally applies to Froome and everyone else in his position has kept their results. It's really quite clear.

The fact that that Professor is comparing Froome's case to Contador's shows he has very little familiarity with the case.

So don't read Law at the University of Melbourne then? Gotcha.

The difference is clenbuterol is a banned substance, salbutamol isn't (it is a specified substance).

Nobody else with a similar salbutamol issue has had results stripped.

So if they did try to strip the other results Froome would take them to CAS and almost certainly win because he would be being treated differently to others in the same position.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Yet again you spout off like you're the final arbiter in this. What a joy you must be at dinner, in fact I'm surprised you aren't Froomes first choice of defence. Oh hang, on you're just some bloke on the internet which is in fact the only thing that is "really quite clear"

These things are complex, which is one of the reasons CAS exists.

You don't have to be an expert to know that if a particular decision has been reached every single time in equivalent cases without exception, then it is almost certain to be reached again.

(And I've got enough legal experience to be able to read and understand rules, guidelines and precedents)

adequately demonstrating your minimal grasp.

timoid.

Above The Cows wrote:

Sky is following the rules. Without the rules there is no sport.

Rabobank chose to pull Rasmussen from the Tour when the rules said nothing either way while continuing to flout the rules and have a team full of dopers. As I said to try and use Rabobank as a marker for ethical behaviour in cycling based on one particular choice they made is laughable and shows that you are quite desperate to somehow show that Sky following the rules is under your own made up code of ethics wrong.

Here we go again, why project what you think I might be thinking and base your argument on that. I have no particular love or hatred for Sky. It's just one of many teams in the peloton. And my opion of Rabobank is not high. I like the sport and I want what is best for it.

I do have issue with the hypocrasy of this forum. Go back (a long way I admit) to Petacchi's (or Ashma Jet as he was dubbed) salbutamol positive and see how the forum reacted. Or to a lesser extent Ulissi.

Froome has a vanishing chance of proving that his adverse finding is due to something other than conuming too much of a controlled substance. His legal team has manage to spin this out longer that anyone imagined and he is now doing harm to a sport whose public perception is already handing by a very fine thread.

shirley_basso

His legal team has manage to spin this out longer that anyone imagined


How do you know this?

timoid.

bobmcstuff wrote:

The difference is clenbuterol is a banned substance, salbutamol isn't (it is a specified substance).

Nobody else with a similar salbutamol issue has had results stripped.

So if they did try to strip the other results Froome would take them to CAS and almost certainly win because he would be being treated differently to others in the same position.

Petacchi was stripped of his results after a salbutomal positive, even though CAS admitted he was not trying to cheat. So there's that.

Pross

Timoid. wrote:

His legal team has manage to spin this out longer that anyone imagined and he is now doing harm to a sport whose public perception is already handing by a very fine thread.

What was that about jumping to conclusions? Do you know for a fact that his legal team didn't submit his defence months ago and that the UCI or WADA are now having that evidence reviewed to come to a fair decision (or alternatively, unreasonably dragging their heals)? It may or may not be the case but I doubt you know that your assumption above is, indeed, what is happening.

redvision

Shirley Basso wrote:

His legal team has manage to spin this out longer that anyone imagined


How do you know this?

It's a fair assumption to make, given Lappartient comments that froomes defence has submitted mountains of data which has made the case one of the most complex.

timoid.

Shirley Basso wrote:

His legal team has manage to spin this out longer that anyone imagined


How do you know this?

1. Compare to other salbutamol positives. Petacchi ruling was within 5 months (this was subsequently appealed by CONI and went to CAS). Ulissi's process was 7 months end to end and included him trying to repeat the adverse findings

2. Announcments by various cycling bodies - weren't we guaranteed this would be settled by the start of the Giro?

3. Reading the views of cycling journalists and pundits (e.g. Inner ring) on how long they expect it to take

shirley_basso

Well it is complex, especially given the output from the AAF has been reduced, which I don't really get.

I will admit that I'm a bit biased in this case, but I think it's reasonable to double check that the grounds for prosecution are adequate.

In honesty, I don't think I'd be saying that if an Astana rider was done for the same, but logically, the whole case still doesn't make sense (over use an inhaler when you're way ahead and definitely gonna get tested).

timoid.

Pross wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

His legal team has manage to spin this out longer that anyone imagined and he is now doing harm to a sport whose public perception is already handing by a very fine thread.

What was that about jumping to conclusions? Do you know for a fact that his legal team didn't submit his defence months ago and that the UCI or WADA are now having that evidence reviewed to come to a fair decision (or alternatively, unreasonably dragging their heals)? It may or may not be the case but I doubt you know that your assumption above is, indeed, what is happening.

Give me one good reason why this has taken longer than the Ulissi case, other than his team have made it longer. The people on the other side are the same. The situation is the same.

Only difference is the defence.

Pross

redvision wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

His legal team has manage to spin this out longer that anyone imagined


How do you know this?

It's a fair assumption to make, given Lappartient comments that froomes defence has submitted mountains of data which has made the case one of the most complex.

So he shouldn't be allowed to mount a thorough defence? It's up to the UCI / WADA to put sufficient resources in place to review the data in a timely manner, after all they are ones who started the clock ticking in public by leaking the original results.

Pross

Timoid. wrote:

Pross wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

His legal team has manage to spin this out longer that anyone imagined and he is now doing harm to a sport whose public perception is already handing by a very fine thread.

What was that about jumping to conclusions? Do you know for a fact that his legal team didn't submit his defence months ago and that the UCI or WADA are now having that evidence reviewed to come to a fair decision (or alternatively, unreasonably dragging their heals)? It may or may not be the case but I doubt you know that your assumption above is, indeed, what is happening.

Give me one good reason why this has taken longer than the Ulissi case, other than his team have made it longer. The people on the other side are the same. The situation is the same.

Only difference is the defence.

That's pretty obvious, Sky have collated a more thorough case that took longer to put together and longer again to review.

Why do you think putting together a thorough case is such a bad thing?

bobmcstuff

Timoid. wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

The difference is clenbuterol is a banned substance, salbutamol isn't (it is a specified substance).

Nobody else with a similar salbutamol issue has had results stripped.

So if they did try to strip the other results Froome would take them to CAS and almost certainly win because he would be being treated differently to others in the same position.

Petacchi was stripped of his results after a salbutomal positive, even though CAS admitted he was not trying to cheat. So there's that.

He was stripped of the Giro results for exceeding the salbutamol limit during the Giro. Like how Froome would lose the Vuelta. Petacchi's ban was backdated because he had already suspended from racing for a period in between, Froome hasn't.

Cycling podcast did a good review of all this ages ago, their consensus was if Froome does get banned he'll most likely lose the Vuelta and get a ban from the time of the decision, not a backdated ban.

Probably it is true that Sky/Froome have submitted mountains of information, but wouldn't you expect that if they wanted to prove he didn't exceed the dose limit?

There was a rumour a while back that Sky were deliberately playing it out till after the Tour so the ban would start after the Tour.

RichN95.

Timoid. wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

The difference is clenbuterol is a banned substance, salbutamol isn't (it is a specified substance).

Nobody else with a similar salbutamol issue has had results stripped.

So if they did try to strip the other results Froome would take them to CAS and almost certainly win because he would be being treated differently to others in the same position.

Petacchi was stripped of his results after a salbutomal positive, even though CAS admitted he was not trying to cheat. So there's that.

No he wasn't. He lost his results from the Giro were he tested positive, but kept everything from the rest of that season - including a Paris-Tours victory and two Vuelta stages. He lost some from the next season due to backdating (which included the off season), but he had to apply for that.

RichN95.

Timoid. wrote:

Give me one good reason why this has taken longer than the Ulissi case, other than his team have made it longer.

Ulissi's case was heard by the Swiss Olympic committee, while Petacchi's was heard by the Italian Olympic committee. Both these have permanant disciplinary boards in place.

Since then the UCI has taken the hearings of the elite riders away from national interests to their own disciplinary boards. However, they have no permanant lawyers. It is outsourced to a legal company as and when they are needed. Unlike the Olympic committees, these lawyers are not permenant staff and and have to fit the UCI in around their other work.

Hence why the cases of Andre Cardoso (positive June 18 2017) and Samuel Sanchez (August 9) also haven't been resolved.

Dorset_Boy

The Badger won't be culled:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4953/froo ... acks-again

blazing_saddles

Dorset Boy wrote:

The Badger won't be culled:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4953/froo ... acks-again

Since the Celtic spelling works better than the English.
The Badger, fast becoming, The Tadger.

timoid.

RichN95 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Give me one good reason why this has taken longer than the Ulissi case, other than his team have made it longer.

Ulissi's case was heard by the Swiss Olympic committee, while Petacchi's was heard by the Italian Olympic committee. Both these have permanant disciplinary boards in place.

Since then the UCI has taken the hearings of the elite riders away from national interests to their own disciplinary boards. However, they have no permanant lawyers. It is outsourced to a legal company as and when they are needed. Unlike the Olympic committees, these lawyers are not permenant staff and and have to fit the UCI in around their other work.

Hence why the cases of Andre Cardoso (positive June 18 2017) and Samuel Sanchez (August 9) also haven't been resolved.

Different cases (banned not controlled substances) and both exceptions rather than the rule.

Cardoso is a weird one, I don't even know the basis for the hold up.

Sanchez retired, so I assume his case is frozen or at least pushed to the bottom of the pile.

blazing_saddles

Timoid. wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Give me one good reason why this has taken longer than the Ulissi case, other than his team have made it longer.

Ulissi's case was heard by the Swiss Olympic committee, while Petacchi's was heard by the Italian Olympic committee. Both these have permanant disciplinary boards in place.

Since then the UCI has taken the hearings of the elite riders away from national interests to their own disciplinary boards. However, they have no permanant lawyers. It is outsourced to a legal company as and when they are needed. Unlike the Olympic committees, these lawyers are not permenant staff and and have to fit the UCI in around their other work.

Hence why the cases of Andre Cardoso (positive June 18 2017) and Samuel Sanchez (August 9) also haven't been resolved.

Cardoso is a weird one, I don't even know the basis for the hold up.

It is an odd one with CADF sticking to their guns after an "inconclusive" B sample test.

LADS is currently reviewing the case and Cardoso has time until mid Juli to bring up arguments in his defense. The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal may then come to a conclusion

RichN95.

Timoid. wrote:

Different cases (banned not controlled substances) and both exceptions rather than the rule.

Exceptions to what rule?
The Bardini riders from last year's Giro took eight months to process. There's a Russian track rider whose ban has been in the appeal stage so long that she actually finished her two year ban and returned to racing. Alexandre Pliushcin's salbutamol case took eight months.

larkim

Petacchi is distinguishable from Froome's situation as at the time salbutamol was a banned substance requiring a TUE, the categorisation has changed so I wouldn't be confident in using his case as a comparable example.

Ulissi is different, but the narrative around his crash causing the issue seems to me as giving the potential for some pseudo innocent explanation in front of the tribunal (which the proceedings were not made public I don't think) which might have said something along the lines of "I took a couple of puffs as the crash gave me some breathing issues so I thought it would help. I may have inadvertently taken more puffs because of the situation" as I think part of the initial public defence was that the crash on the same day had some impact. That's pure speculation on my part, btw, might be utter balearics.