From the Results Management, Hearings and Decisions Guidelines (p. 12):
Irrespective of the type of ADRV involved, any anti-doping organization (ADO) should be able to conclude the Results Management and hearing process within a maximum of six months of the date of the commission or discovery of the ADRV.
A footnote adds “For an ADRV resulting from an AAF, the date of commission is the date of the Sample Collection Session."
For Froome, that would mean early March, a couple of weeks from now. So assuming the Tribunal has begun, and he’s given fifteen days to submit his defense, the hearing would take place after about the recommended maximum length of time. Indeed, maybe WADA urged the parties to take it to CADF so that the hearing would be held within the six months period.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/wada_guidelines_results_management_hearings_decisions_2014_v1.0_en.pdf
Also, for anyone who still disputes this, an AAF is a positive:
An analytical ADRV refers to a violation of Code Article 2.1 (above) and is based on an adverse analytical finding (otherwise known as a positive result)
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/adrvs_report_qa_web.pdf
A key piece of information in the Froome case may be the results of the enantiomers test. While there has been no direct confirmation that Froome’s sample was submitted to this analysis, I regard it as virtually a foregone conclusion that it has been. As I’ve pointed out before, this test does not actually reliably distinguish between all inhaled and oral doses; the actual study on which the test is based only compared maximum allowed inhaled doses with much larger oral doses. Nevertheless, several previous cases indicate that the results are likely to be a key to the ruling.
In his article on beta2-agonists in the Olympics, Ken Fitch discussed two cases in which athletes tested over the limit, one in which the urine concentration was 1270 ng/ml, and another in which it was about 1650-1750 in the two samples. In both cases, the S/R ratio was relatively low, about 2.5 in the first case, and less than 2.0 in the second. The athlete in the first case got off. The athlete in the second case was initially given a two year ban, but on appeal it was reduced to three months.
Now contrast that with Petacchi’s case, in which the positive test was about 1350 ng/ml. The S/R value was not published, but Fitch, who was serving as a scientific expert for Petacchi, “did, however, admit that the enantiomer test results were still ‘a problem’ for Mr.Petacchi and ‘very difficult to answer’ and that he thought Mr. Petacchi must accidentally have swallowed some of his medicine.” If Petacchi’s own scientific advisor conceded that the enantiomer test result was a problem, we can be sure it was quite high, in the range usually associated with oral dosing. This was probably a major reason why Petacchi, though not far over the DL (and under the new rules taking into account USG, would have been exonerated) received a significant ban. Also significant in this CAS ruling is the recognition that one can’t tell how much salbutamol an athlete may have swallowed, an uncertainty that in effect allowed Petacchi to avoid a much longer ban that could have been applied if the panel concluded that he intentionally orally dosed.
So Froome’s S/R ratio is likely to be very important. If it’s below 3, it will be accepted, at a minimum, that he definitely did not orally dose, so that even if the judge concludes that he took more than the maximum, s/he will probably rule that it was a case of accidentally inhaling too much (or possibly, intentionally doing so because of a severe asthma attack). And a low ratio would also improve his chances of getting off completely, based on precedent. If his ratio is fairly high, OTOH, it will be very difficult for him to avoid some ban, and he may have to fall back on the Petacchi defense, arguing that he accidentally swallowed a relatively large amount of the dose.
My guess is that Froome's sample has a fairly low S/R ratio. I believe this because it seems to me only a low ratio would keep him in the game, given his very high urine level. If he has a high ratio, then combined with the 2000 ng/ml level, he would be virtually certain to get a ban, and while of course he would still dispute it, my guess is that LADS would have sent the Acceptance of Consequences letter sooner.
If he has a low ratio, then Morgan no doubt will be arguing strenuously on the basis of precedent. Also, recall Tucker's musings that Morgan aims to attack the DL, arguing that it's possible for a rider to exceed it without inhaling more than the allowed amount. To make that argument, at a very minimum, Froome has to have a S/R ratio compatible with inhaling. If his ratio is very high, he can't make that case at all.
In this situation, I can imagine something of a stalemate, in which LADS says that Froome still has to have a ban, while Morgan says absolutely not, and eventually, when it's clear no mutual agreement is possible, WADA steps in and says, take it to the judge.
My two cents.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram