I thought CAS decisions had to be made public? If the rider can choose not to have it made public, why would they allow it to go public when they lose the decision? What did Contador or Petacchi, e.g., have to gain by having everyone able to see how their arguments were rebutted?
I do see one possible scenario where Froome might try to keep the decision under wraps. This is complicated, so bear with me. Froome was notified of the positive on Sept. 20. I assume he would want to have the B sample tested as soon as possible, within a month. Once he knew that was positive, he would have started assembling his legal and scientific team. The first thing any science advisor would do is look at the laboratory report, and would certainly note the USG. At that time, the change in the rules hadn’t been made official, and maybe the scientist wasn’t aware of it. But s/he would be aware that if the USG were high, it would be a point worth raising, particularly if the case went to CAS. And once the new rules were published, on Nov. 15, the scientist certainly should have known about it.
So I’ve been thinking, if the USG were high enough to get Froome off, wouldn’t the scientist realize that, point it out, and have the AAF removed? In fact, wouldn’t the AAF have been removed before the media found out about it, so that the leak never would have happened? And since the leak did happen, doesn’t this mean that the USG isn’t high enough, that that avenue has been closed off?
Except that the new rules don’t officially go into effect until March 2018. So technically, I don’t think that even if the USG is high enough, Froome’s AAF can be reversed before then. Froome could, of course, announce the situation, and tell everyone that he will be exonerated, and explain why. But to do that would be to admit that he’s getting off on what seems like a technicality, a rule that wasn’t in effect when his sample was taken and tested.
So possibly, Froome is just biding his time until March, at which point he will announce that his AAF has been reversed. When the media ask him how this came about, he will simply reply, truthfully, that he demonstrated to UCI/WADA’s satisfaction that his high level was the result of an allowed inhalation of salbutamol. He can even add that this became clear when dehydration was taken into account, since this issue has already been raised as possibly relevant by several scientists. What he doesn’t have to say is that his argument was only accepted because of the new rule. Thus avoiding a lot of bad PR.
This is a possibility. If it is the case, it means that Froome has basically been acting when he says this is a horrible result, that he doesn’t yet know how it happened, but he’s getting together all his records, and working on the solution. It’s all for show, so that people won’t realize when he announces his exoneration that it has anything to do with a rule change.
Would Froome really go to this much trouble in an attempt to hide the fact that he’s the beneficiary of a rule that wasn’t in effect when he tested positive? Would he allow this process, which makes him look bad as long as the case isn’t resolved, drag out two more months, when he could reassure everyone right now? Would his ploy even work, given that some of us do know about the rule change already? Maybe, I don’t know. But the main reason I take this possibility seriously is that the alternative—that his USG isn’t high enough—also has a problem.
If his science advisor, upon seeing the USG value, realized immediately it wouldn’t help Froome enough, there would remain only one other possibility to exonerate him: pass the lab test. But it was reported about a week ago that he hadn’t, and if he had, and passed, he would be announcing his exoneration, whereas if he had and failed, he would be suspended, and that would have to be made public.
If Froome were going to take the lab test, the time to have done it would have been last October or November, after the worlds, when he had free time. Now he’s in training camp, and really shouldn’t be messing around with high levels of salbutamol. He must have realized that before, so if he hasn’t taken the test yet, it seems to mean he isn’t going to. Which makes sense, because he almost certainly couldn’t pass it.
So here’s the problem. If his USG isn’t high enough to get him off, and if he’s not going to take the lab test, he has to take the case to CAS, now. There’s no other avenue open to him. If he makes that request, they can, if they push, probably finish the process and have a decision before the Giro, so he doesn’t have to race under a cloud. The longer he delays, the more likely it is that the CAS decision won’t be reached before the start of the Giro.
So why has he not announced that he’s taking it to CAS? Could he do this without its being made public? But even if he could, wouldn’t he want to tell everyone, so he won’t be thought to be stalling or delaying, so he can say he’s doing everything he can to get the case resolved before the Giro?
I do see one possible scenario where Froome might try to keep the decision under wraps. This is complicated, so bear with me. Froome was notified of the positive on Sept. 20. I assume he would want to have the B sample tested as soon as possible, within a month. Once he knew that was positive, he would have started assembling his legal and scientific team. The first thing any science advisor would do is look at the laboratory report, and would certainly note the USG. At that time, the change in the rules hadn’t been made official, and maybe the scientist wasn’t aware of it. But s/he would be aware that if the USG were high, it would be a point worth raising, particularly if the case went to CAS. And once the new rules were published, on Nov. 15, the scientist certainly should have known about it.
So I’ve been thinking, if the USG were high enough to get Froome off, wouldn’t the scientist realize that, point it out, and have the AAF removed? In fact, wouldn’t the AAF have been removed before the media found out about it, so that the leak never would have happened? And since the leak did happen, doesn’t this mean that the USG isn’t high enough, that that avenue has been closed off?
Except that the new rules don’t officially go into effect until March 2018. So technically, I don’t think that even if the USG is high enough, Froome’s AAF can be reversed before then. Froome could, of course, announce the situation, and tell everyone that he will be exonerated, and explain why. But to do that would be to admit that he’s getting off on what seems like a technicality, a rule that wasn’t in effect when his sample was taken and tested.
So possibly, Froome is just biding his time until March, at which point he will announce that his AAF has been reversed. When the media ask him how this came about, he will simply reply, truthfully, that he demonstrated to UCI/WADA’s satisfaction that his high level was the result of an allowed inhalation of salbutamol. He can even add that this became clear when dehydration was taken into account, since this issue has already been raised as possibly relevant by several scientists. What he doesn’t have to say is that his argument was only accepted because of the new rule. Thus avoiding a lot of bad PR.
This is a possibility. If it is the case, it means that Froome has basically been acting when he says this is a horrible result, that he doesn’t yet know how it happened, but he’s getting together all his records, and working on the solution. It’s all for show, so that people won’t realize when he announces his exoneration that it has anything to do with a rule change.
Would Froome really go to this much trouble in an attempt to hide the fact that he’s the beneficiary of a rule that wasn’t in effect when he tested positive? Would he allow this process, which makes him look bad as long as the case isn’t resolved, drag out two more months, when he could reassure everyone right now? Would his ploy even work, given that some of us do know about the rule change already? Maybe, I don’t know. But the main reason I take this possibility seriously is that the alternative—that his USG isn’t high enough—also has a problem.
If his science advisor, upon seeing the USG value, realized immediately it wouldn’t help Froome enough, there would remain only one other possibility to exonerate him: pass the lab test. But it was reported about a week ago that he hadn’t, and if he had, and passed, he would be announcing his exoneration, whereas if he had and failed, he would be suspended, and that would have to be made public.
If Froome were going to take the lab test, the time to have done it would have been last October or November, after the worlds, when he had free time. Now he’s in training camp, and really shouldn’t be messing around with high levels of salbutamol. He must have realized that before, so if he hasn’t taken the test yet, it seems to mean he isn’t going to. Which makes sense, because he almost certainly couldn’t pass it.
So here’s the problem. If his USG isn’t high enough to get him off, and if he’s not going to take the lab test, he has to take the case to CAS, now. There’s no other avenue open to him. If he makes that request, they can, if they push, probably finish the process and have a decision before the Giro, so he doesn’t have to race under a cloud. The longer he delays, the more likely it is that the CAS decision won’t be reached before the start of the Giro.
So why has he not announced that he’s taking it to CAS? Could he do this without its being made public? But even if he could, wouldn’t he want to tell everyone, so he won’t be thought to be stalling or delaying, so he can say he’s doing everything he can to get the case resolved before the Giro?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram