Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[python]

still catching up with the froome news...sounds similar to the xc skiing case of sundby who was, like froome, an unquestionable leader of the sport. the same substance too, cept the fis - the skiing international fed- tried to keep the case covered up and secret which got wada launch an appeal...

while there are many interesting technical details to discuss, the gist of the issue as i recall it, was (and still is) the increasing abuse of the semi-legal meds under the cover of a tue in the face of the relaxing wada asthma med use guidance.

i never trusted froome anyway. but it was a purely intuitive hunch. seems a hunch needs a revision

 

[heart_attack_man]

Re: Re:

Panache

Virenque, Jaja, Pirata, Diablo etc got it in spades that's why you (we) still like them

Not Wiggo or Dawg. Panachless

Good point. Being the devil's advocate, I would argue that for a Brit, '13 Ventoux or '15 PSM are glorious. It's in the eyes of each of us. And the running man episode still showed in highlights, although it never happened since Portal went whining to the officials and results were "adjusted". Now for Wiggo...I can't find a glorious moment . Or maybe him trying to chase Froome . Now that was courage.

The best panache that Wiggo ever displayed was his sychronised bike parking when he threw his bike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YKC_hDg2Zg

The best summary of Wiggo's panache came from his own missus:

“All this panache business – they can kiss my arse, these people. Who’s got panache? These people that go on stupid pointless attacks? I don’t like panache.“

Though to be fair to him, he looks like Bertie in comparison to Froome.

 

[Merckx index]

Looking ahead…

If Froome fails the lab test, he will be suspended immediately. There’s speculation that he might get a ban of between 6-12 months, as well as losing the Vuelta and worlds results. If the ban is backdated, he might or might not miss the Giro or the TDF, depending on how long the ban is. A nine month ban, as Ulissi got, would take the Giro out of play. He would return in early June, in time for the TDF, but with very little time to prepare for it.

If he does fail the lab test, it’s possible he might challenge the ban, and take the case to CAS. I’m not sure what his strategy would be, but other than a lot of money, he wouldn’t have much to lose by trying. However, this raises another point. Suppose he did win at CAS, overturning a ban. His Vuelta and worlds results would be reinstated. But it would take a long time to prepare for CAS—the Contador case dragged out, all told, for more than eighteen months—so he would still miss whatever races the original ban covered, probably the Giro and maybe the Tour.

What I’m getting at is that it might be to Froome’s advantage to delay the lab test as long as possible. Is there a time period within which he must take it? Suppose he could wait till after the Tour, thus allowing him to continue his plan of the double. (Yes, this is hypothetical; the public outcry at this point would be deafening). If he took the test after that, and failed, he would of course lose both those results. But at least in that situation he would know that if he challenged and won at CAS, he would get those results back. Whereas if he takes the test sooner, sometime this winter probably, and fails, he will probably miss at least the Giro, and if not the Tour, he still won’t be able to prepare for it properly. And in that case, even a victory at CAS wouldn’t help him with those.

If he passes the lab test, which I doubt, he’s free to continue racing. But UCI and/or WADA might decide to challenge the decision at CAS. I think this is particularly likely given, as I’ve pointed out before, even passing the test under optimal lab conditions doesn’t necessarily provide an explanation for what happened on the road. In that case, we would have a situation like Contador, where Froome would race in both the Giro and the Tour, without knowing for sure that his results there would stand. If he did lose the CAS case, the blow would potentially be even worse than the one Contador suffered. He might lose a total of three GTs—one of each—including two doubles.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

Looking ahead…

If Froome fails the lab test, he will be suspended immediately. There’s speculation that he might get a ban of between 6-12 months, as well as losing the Vuelta and worlds results. If the ban is backdated, he might or might not miss the Giro or the TDF, depending on how long the ban is. A nine month ban, as Ulissi got, would take the Giro out of play. He would return in early June, in time for the TDF, but with very little time to prepare for it.

If he does fail the lab test, it’s possible he might challenge the ban, and take the case to CAS. I’m not sure what his strategy would be, but other than a lot of money, he wouldn’t have much to lose by trying. However, this raises another point. Suppose he did win at CAS, overturning a ban. His Vuelta and worlds results would be reinstated. But it would take a long time to prepare for CAS—the Contador case dragged out, all told, for more than eighteen months—so he would still miss whatever races the original ban covered, probably the Giro and maybe the Tour.

What I’m getting at is that it might be to Froome’s advantage to delay the lab test as long as possible. Is there a time period within which he must take it? Suppose he could wait till after the Tour, thus allowing him to continue his plan of the double. (Yes, this is hypothetical; the public outcry at this point would be deafening). If he took the test after that, and failed, he would of course lose both those results. But at least in that situation he would know that if he challenged and won at CAS, he would get those results back. Whereas if he takes the test sooner, sometime this winter probably, and fails, he will probably miss at least the Giro, and if not the Tour, he still won’t be able to prepare for it properly. And in that case, even a victory at CAS wouldn’t help him with those.

If he passes the lab test, which I doubt, he’s free to continue racing. But UCI and/or WADA might decide to challenge the decision at CAS. I think this is particularly likely given, as I’ve pointed out before, even passing the test under optimal lab conditions doesn’t necessarily provide an explanation for what happened on the road. In that case, we would have a situation like Contador, where Froome would race in both the Giro and the Tour, without knowing for sure that his results there would stand. If he did lose the CAS case, the blow would potentially be even worse than the one Contador suffered. He might lose a total of three GTs—one of each—including two doubles.

Where does this speculation come from?

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

Looking ahead…

If Froome fails the lab test, he will be suspended immediately. There’s speculation that he might get a ban of between 6-12 months, as well as losing the Vuelta and worlds results. If the ban is backdated, he might or might not miss the Giro or the TDF, depending on how long the ban is. A nine month ban, as Ulissi got, would take the Giro out of play. He would return in early June, in time for the TDF, but with very little time to prepare for it.

If he does fail the lab test, it’s possible he might challenge the ban, and take the case to CAS. I’m not sure what his strategy would be, but other than a lot of money, he wouldn’t have much to lose by trying. However, this raises another point. Suppose he did win at CAS, overturning a ban. His Vuelta and worlds results would be reinstated. But it would take a long time to prepare for CAS—the Contador case dragged out, all told, for more than eighteen months—so he would still miss whatever races the original ban covered, probably the Giro and maybe the Tour.

What I’m getting at is that it might be to Froome’s advantage to delay the lab test as long as possible. Is there a time period within which he must take it? Suppose he could wait till after the Tour, thus allowing him to continue his plan of the double. (Yes, this is hypothetical; the public outcry at this point would be deafening). If he took the test after that, and failed, he would of course lose both those results. But at least in that situation he would know that if he challenged and won at CAS, he would get those results back. Whereas if he takes the test sooner, sometime this winter probably, and fails, he will probably miss at least the Giro, and if not the Tour, he still won’t be able to prepare for it properly. And in that case, even a victory at CAS wouldn’t help him with those.

If he passes the lab test, which I doubt, he’s free to continue racing. But UCI and/or WADA might decide to challenge the decision at CAS. I think this is particularly likely given, as I’ve pointed out before, even passing the test under optimal lab conditions doesn’t necessarily provide an explanation for what happened on the road. In that case, we would have a situation like Contador, where Froome would race in both the Giro and the Tour, without knowing for sure that his results there would stand. If he did lose the CAS case, the blow would potentially be even worse than the one Contador suffered. He might lose a total of three GTs—one of each—including two doubles.

What reason could he use to delay the test ? Probably only illness. They won't need to give his legal team extra time because the test is not a legal matter, it's a mandatory part of the process. How the results are interpreted or challenged is a different matter.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.

Here’s the thing about bloodbags. Fuentes once trialled a method known as “Siberia” where he would freeze the bags so you could use many throughout the year. It had disatorious results, ie Hamilton in 2004.

Simple really.

Rasmussen had almost 40 bb's (i cant remember the exact number in my head now) waiting for him when he was making his comeback, he had them frozen in Austria, I guarantee you that something like siberia is still around.

In his book (Gul Feber, first edition, hardcover) on page 285, he states that it was 13 bags (180ml) that was flushed out in 2009.

 

[bigcog]

From this cyclingtips article: https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/certainly-doesnt-look-good-doctor-speaks-froome-case/

"But it’s important to say that this is not just potentially an anti-doping infraction; having such high levels is actually very bad for you. Overuse of salbutamol is actually associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. So there is a substantial health risk involved too. It is lethal stuff at those sorts of levels."

If the above is true you have to think it is a c*ck up of some kind. I would have thought the risk of cardiac death is even higher if you are going up a mountain in a GT.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Looking ahead…

If Froome fails the lab test, he will be suspended immediately. There’s speculation that he might get a ban of between 6-12 months, as well as losing the Vuelta and worlds results. If the ban is backdated, he might or might not miss the Giro or the TDF, depending on how long the ban is. A nine month ban, as Ulissi got, would take the Giro out of play. He would return in early June, in time for the TDF, but with very little time to prepare for it.

If he does fail the lab test, it’s possible he might challenge the ban, and take the case to CAS. I’m not sure what his strategy would be, but other than a lot of money, he wouldn’t have much to lose by trying. However, this raises another point. Suppose he did win at CAS, overturning a ban. His Vuelta and worlds results would be reinstated. But it would take a long time to prepare for CAS—the Contador case dragged out, all told, for more than eighteen months—so he would still miss whatever races the original ban covered, probably the Giro and maybe the Tour.

What I’m getting at is that it might be to Froome’s advantage to delay the lab test as long as possible. Is there a time period within which he must take it? Suppose he could wait till after the Tour, thus allowing him to continue his plan of the double. (Yes, this is hypothetical; the public outcry at this point would be deafening). If he took the test after that, and failed, he would of course lose both those results. But at least in that situation he would know that if he challenged and won at CAS, he would get those results back. Whereas if he takes the test sooner, sometime this winter probably, and fails, he will probably miss at least the Giro, and if not the Tour, he still won’t be able to prepare for it properly. And in that case, even a victory at CAS wouldn’t help him with those.

If he passes the lab test, which I doubt, he’s free to continue racing. But UCI and/or WADA might decide to challenge the decision at CAS. I think this is particularly likely given, as I’ve pointed out before, even passing the test under optimal lab conditions doesn’t necessarily provide an explanation for what happened on the road. In that case, we would have a situation like Contador, where Froome would race in both the Giro and the Tour, without knowing for sure that his results there would stand. If he did lose the CAS case, the blow would potentially be even worse than the one Contador suffered. He might lose a total of three GTs—one of each—including two doubles.

What reason could he use to delay the test ? Probably only illness. They won't need to give his legal team extra time because the test is not a legal matter, it's a mandatory part of the process. How the results are interpreted or challenged is a different matter.

€2m appearance fee at the Giro.

 

[bigcog]

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/certainly-doesnt-look-good-doctor-speaks-froome-case/
This backs also up the idea that bb's are not likely:

"Former pro Joerg Jaksche suggested that if somebody used a blood bag, and had been using an inhaler at the time when the blood was taken out, that this could be carried over. Is this suggestion unfounded?

I think that would be very, very unlikely. That would be within the grounds of science fiction, rather than a real scenario.

You would have to have an absolutely massive dose of Ventolin the day he gave the blood. And then it would have to stay stable and not degrade over the period of time that it was being kept. It is off the wall, that, I think."

 

[thehog]

Re:

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/certainly-doesnt-look-good-doctor-speaks-froome-case/
This backs also up the idea that bb's are not likely:

"Former pro Joerg Jaksche suggested that if somebody used a blood bag, and had been using an inhaler at the time when the blood was taken out, that this could be carried over. Is this suggestion unfounded?

I think that would be very, very unlikely. That would be within the grounds of science fiction, rather than a real scenario.

You would have to have an absolutely massive dose of Ventolin the day he gave the blood. And then it would have to stay stable and not degrade over the period of time that it was being kept. It is off the wall, that, I think."

Well, no. The Doctor appears not to be accounting for Salbutamol via injection or orally in pill form. Ventolin does come in pill format but is not as well known as it’s inhaler.

 

[Pantani_lives]

The nebulizer mentioned by Dr. Conor McGrane is an interesting angle. Apparently that would be an explanation of the high level. And it was a practice at Team Sky, as was said by Brailsford in the Wiggins case.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

Looking ahead…

If Froome fails the lab test, he will be suspended immediately. There’s speculation that he might get a ban of between 6-12 months, as well as losing the Vuelta and worlds results. If the ban is backdated, he might or might not miss the Giro or the TDF, depending on how long the ban is. A nine month ban, as Ulissi got, would take the Giro out of play. He would return in early June, in time for the TDF, but with very little time to prepare for it.

If he does fail the lab test, it’s possible he might challenge the ban, and take the case to CAS. I’m not sure what his strategy would be, but other than a lot of money, he wouldn’t have much to lose by trying. However, this raises another point. Suppose he did win at CAS, overturning a ban. His Vuelta and worlds results would be reinstated. But it would take a long time to prepare for CAS—the Contador case dragged out, all told, for more than eighteen months—so he would still miss whatever races the original ban covered, probably the Giro and maybe the Tour.

What I’m getting at is that it might be to Froome’s advantage to delay the lab test as long as possible. Is there a time period within which he must take it? Suppose he could wait till after the Tour, thus allowing him to continue his plan of the double. (Yes, this is hypothetical; the public outcry at this point would be deafening). If he took the test after that, and failed, he would of course lose both those results. But at least in that situation he would know that if he challenged and won at CAS, he would get those results back. Whereas if he takes the test sooner, sometime this winter probably, and fails, he will probably miss at least the Giro, and if not the Tour, he still won’t be able to prepare for it properly. And in that case, even a victory at CAS wouldn’t help him with those.

If he passes the lab test, which I doubt, he’s free to continue racing. But UCI and/or WADA might decide to challenge the decision at CAS. I think this is particularly likely given, as I’ve pointed out before, even passing the test under optimal lab conditions doesn’t necessarily provide an explanation for what happened on the road. In that case, we would have a situation like Contador, where Froome would race in both the Giro and the Tour, without knowing for sure that his results there would stand. If he did lose the CAS case, the blow would potentially be even worse than the one Contador suffered. He might lose a total of three GTs—one of each—including two doubles.

What reason could he use to delay the test ? Probably only illness. They won't need to give his legal team extra time because the test is not a legal matter, it's a mandatory part of the process. How the results are interpreted or challenged is a different matter.

€2m appearance fee at the Giro.

With his profile in the sport they won't let him race the Giro and then do the test. If he wins and fails the test it becomes even more of a farce especially for the UCI.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/certainly-doesnt-look-good-doctor-speaks-froome-case/
This backs also up the idea that bb's are not likely:

"Former pro Joerg Jaksche suggested that if somebody used a blood bag, and had been using an inhaler at the time when the blood was taken out, that this could be carried over. Is this suggestion unfounded?

I think that would be very, very unlikely. That would be within the grounds of science fiction, rather than a real scenario.

You would have to have an absolutely massive dose of Ventolin the day he gave the blood. And then it would have to stay stable and not degrade over the period of time that it was being kept. It is off the wall, that, I think."

Well, no. The Doctor appears not to be accounting for Salbutamol via injection or orally in pill form. Ventolin does come in pill format but is not as well known as it’s inhaler.

The pills were pretty much superseded by the nebulizers. Maybe the most chronic asthmatics still take pills when hospitalized but at that stage they are on a cocktail of drugs. Pills would take longer to work but how long the effect is prolonged I don't know.

 

[buckle]

Re:

The nebulizer mentioned by Dr. Conor McGrane is an interesting angle. Apparently that would be an explanation of the high level. And it was a practice at Team Sky, as was said by Brailsford in the Wiggins case.

It's a struggle to find evidence that nebulizers produce higher levels.

 

[Merckx index]

Well, no. The Doctor appears not to be accounting for Salbutamol via injection or orally in pill form. Ventolin does come in pill format but is not as well known as it’s inhaler.

The researcher’s point isn’t that you can’t take a high enough dose by inhalation, it’s that a high enough dose would be far beyond what anyone would take, orally, by injection or whatever. We’re talking hundreds of mg, maybe even a gram or more.

It's a struggle to find evidence that nebulizers produce higher levels.

Nebulizers allow you to take a very high dose relatively quickly. In Sundby’s case, he took three 5 mg doses in a few hours. I think it would be hard to take that much with a standard inhaler. Btw, Sundby’s example also shows that you can take high doses that are potentially performance enhancing without having cardiac arrest or whatever.

I still think it would be to Froome’s advantage to delay (though I hope he doesn't). Suppose he takes the test in a few weeks, and fails it. Let’s say he gets a nine month back-dated suspension. He couldn’t ride the Giro; he would be back before the Tour, but would have very little chance to race as preparation.

If he delayed the test until March, he could at least enter a few early season races, and would be idle for a shorter period of time when he was allowed to return.

Edit: I completely forgot. Froome could ask the the case go directly to CAS, and if WADA/UCI agreed, it would. It would take several months to resolve, during which time Froome could race. I'm virtually sure if he chose that route, he would be able to start and complete the Giro, and probably the Tour as well, given that his lawyers could use the races as a reason for delay.

Of course the PR would be very negative if Froome were racing with a cloud over his head, and maybe the GTs wouldn't welcome him. But it makes sense for several reasons:

1) he's likely to fail the lab test, in which case his only chance would be at CAS, anyway. if it goes directly to CAS, he will almost certainly perform a lab test, and use that as evidence if it can help him in any way, but he doesn't have to publicize the results. In fact, there's nothing to stop Froome from taking the lab test now, unofficially, and if it looks bad, making the decision to go right to CAS. It wouldn't surprise me if he's already taken the test, it didn't pass, so he's huddling with his lawyers to decide if there's a chance he could pass, and if not, whether to go straight to CAS.
2) CAS will allow a broad spectrum of arguments that might not be heard at the lower levels, such as the effects of dehydration and whether salbutamol is performance enhancing
3) if he fails the lab test, then he will almost certainly miss the Giro, and quite possibly the Tour. Even if he appeals to CAS and wins, he of course couldn't get those chances back.

 

[meat puppet]

Re: Re:

The nebulizer mentioned by Dr. Conor McGrane is an interesting angle. Apparently that would be an explanation of the high level. And it was a practice at Team Sky, as was said by Brailsford in the Wiggins case.

It's a struggle to find evidence that nebulizers produce higher levels.

Interesting. Why is that? Would have thought nebulisers are very effective as they are the method of choice in severe cases, ER situations and of course among Norwegian xc skiing stars. The xc thread is full of info.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

The nebulizer mentioned by Dr. Conor McGrane is an interesting angle. Apparently that would be an explanation of the high level. And it was a practice at Team Sky, as was said by Brailsford in the Wiggins case.

It's a struggle to find evidence that nebulizers produce higher levels.

Interesting. Why is that? Would have thought nebulisers are very effective as they are the method of choice in severe cases, ER situations and of course among Norwegian xc skiing stars. The xc thread is full of info.

Their main advantage seems to be for infants, old people or anyone so debilitated they can't use a hand held. Perhaps for a short, sharp hit they can deliver more effectively in an emergency context. I guess a tired athlete might see them as a cool accessory.

 

[MartinGT]

If the Dawg gets a back dated suspension and then comes back June. Then races and wins the Tour, he's slapping his d!ck in all our faces.

 

[pastronef]

If the Dawg gets a back dated suspension and then comes back June. Then races and wins the Tour, he's slapping his d!ck in all our faces.

that would be fun (d!ck aside ) but it will be difficult to happen

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

As a Froome's fan, I will wait for UCI/WADA verdict.
But if he is finally banned I will place him between his great rivals, i.e. Contador and Valverde, in a Big Trash of Cycling Dopers and erase his palmaries from my memory.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

UCI clarifications concerning anti-doping proceedings:
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

"In cases where there is no provisional suspension, the UCI issues a press release only if the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal finds that the rider has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. If the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal acquits the rider, the latter has a right to ask that the decision is not publicly disclosed. If the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding is made public by another party before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal renders its decision, the UCI issues a short statement confirming the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding, the substance that was found and clarifying that the rider is not provisionally suspended."

As we all know the Froome AAF "leaked" to the press, Sky probably had, maybe still have good connections at all levels of anti-doping so they thought they will win the case and nobody would find out. I wonder how many Sky AAF's were under Crookson? Maybe this happened before that is why Brailsfraud and Frumi weren't too concerned and went on with the double plan. Now that the issue became public and the world just found out that Dawg is a cheat they can't quite go back and suspend him. It will just justify that Froome might really be a cheat. So they have to go full genius all the way.

From the above UCI press release:

If the Adverse Analytical Finding is for a Specified Substance (i.e. a substance that WADA considers more likely to have been consumed for a purpose other than performance enhancement), the rider is not subject to mandatory provisional suspension

OK, i do have a tendency to over analyse things, but i find this definition of a specified substance intriguing. It is not one i've seen before, and seems to contradict the way specified substances have always been defined in previous statements and indeed the regulations themselves.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

UCI clarifications concerning anti-doping proceedings:
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

"In cases where there is no provisional suspension, the UCI issues a press release only if the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal finds that the rider has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. If the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal acquits the rider, the latter has a right to ask that the decision is not publicly disclosed. If the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding is made public by another party before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal renders its decision, the UCI issues a short statement confirming the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding, the substance that was found and clarifying that the rider is not provisionally suspended."

As we all know the Froome AAF "leaked" to the press, Sky probably had, maybe still have good connections at all levels of anti-doping so they thought they will win the case and nobody would find out. I wonder how many Sky AAF's were under Crookson? Maybe this happened before that is why Brailsfraud and Frumi weren't too concerned and went on with the double plan. Now that the issue became public and the world just found out that Dawg is a cheat they can't quite go back and suspend him. It will just justify that Froome might really be a cheat. So they have to go full genius all the way.

From the above UCI press release:

If the Adverse Analytical Finding is for a Specified Substance (i.e. a substance that WADA considers more likely to have been consumed for a purpose other than performance enhancement), the rider is not subject to mandatory provisional suspension

OK, i do have a tendency to over analyse things, but i find this definition of a specified substance intriguing. It is not one i've seen before, and seems to contradict the way specified substances have always been defined in previous statements and indeed the regulations themselves.

interesting...to the bolded
Froome perhaps should have you in his defence team ...that looks like it might be something to hang your hat on....however he's already on record as saying it was ingested for his asthma via inhaler.....albeit a circle which it would appear cannot be turned into a square...that will surely limit any ability to now say it was taken purposefully in that high a does for another reason? I would think...then I'm not a highly paid lawyer.....

edited for being daft...this presumably relates to any initial suspension i.e. now before any final decision is made rather than any ultimate 'punishment'....so, as you were...

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

UCI clarifications concerning anti-doping proceedings:
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

"In cases where there is no provisional suspension, the UCI issues a press release only if the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal finds that the rider has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. If the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal acquits the rider, the latter has a right to ask that the decision is not publicly disclosed. If the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding is made public by another party before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal renders its decision, the UCI issues a short statement confirming the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding, the substance that was found and clarifying that the rider is not provisionally suspended."

As we all know the Froome AAF "leaked" to the press, Sky probably had, maybe still have good connections at all levels of anti-doping so they thought they will win the case and nobody would find out. I wonder how many Sky AAF's were under Crookson? Maybe this happened before that is why Brailsfraud and Frumi weren't too concerned and went on with the double plan. Now that the issue became public and the world just found out that Dawg is a cheat they can't quite go back and suspend him. It will just justify that Froome might really be a cheat. So they have to go full genius all the way.

From the above UCI press release:

If the Adverse Analytical Finding is for a Specified Substance (i.e. a substance that WADA considers more likely to have been consumed for a purpose other than performance enhancement), the rider is not subject to mandatory provisional suspension

OK, i do have a tendency to over analyse things, but i find this definition of a specified substance intriguing. It is not one i've seen before, and seems to contradict the way specified substances have always been defined in previous statements and indeed the regulations themselves.

interesting...to the bolded
Froome perhaps should have you in his defence team ...that looks like it might be something to hang your hat on....however he's already on record as saying it was ingested for his asthma via inhaler.....albeit a circle which it would appear cannot be turned into a square...that will surely limit any ability to now say it was taken purposefully in that high a does for another reason? I would think...then I'm not a highly paid lawyer.....

edited for being daft...this presumably relates to any initial suspension i.e. now before any final decision is made rather than any ultimate 'punishment'....so, as you were...

What is interesting is that i've never seen this definition before. Any press release by the UCI will have been very carefully considered and crafted. The choice of language and terminology is fascinating.

i.e. This precedes the presentation of a fact. They could have used eg but that would completely change the contect of the statement.
more likely....this suggests that the starting point in any ensuing legal debate will be the presumption that it was more likely than not to have been taken for purposes other than performance enhancement.

If this is a peg for Froome to hang his hat on, then as far as i'm aware it's a new peg. Why is a new peg being crafted for Froome to hang his hat on.

Conspiracy theory here.....UCI didn't want this test ever to see the light of day, but now it has they've got to be seen to be acting. So, with a degree of subtlety they reword their own interpretation of the whole specified substance debate.

Chris Froome has to get some kind of reprimand for this now. But eh, he didnt get any kind of performance enhancement from the 'mistake'. You've been a bit silly Mr. Froome, consider this a warning and a slap on the wrist. If it happens again there will be consequences!

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

UCI clarifications concerning anti-doping proceedings:
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

"In cases where there is no provisional suspension, the UCI issues a press release only if the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal finds that the rider has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. If the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal acquits the rider, the latter has a right to ask that the decision is not publicly disclosed. If the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding is made public by another party before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal renders its decision, the UCI issues a short statement confirming the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding, the substance that was found and clarifying that the rider is not provisionally suspended."

As we all know the Froome AAF "leaked" to the press, Sky probably had, maybe still have good connections at all levels of anti-doping so they thought they will win the case and nobody would find out. I wonder how many Sky AAF's were under Crookson? Maybe this happened before that is why Brailsfraud and Frumi weren't too concerned and went on with the double plan. Now that the issue became public and the world just found out that Dawg is a cheat they can't quite go back and suspend him. It will just justify that Froome might really be a cheat. So they have to go full genius all the way.

From the above UCI press release:

If the Adverse Analytical Finding is for a Specified Substance (i.e. a substance that WADA considers more likely to have been consumed for a purpose other than performance enhancement), the rider is not subject to mandatory provisional suspension

OK, i do have a tendency to over analyse things, but i find this definition of a specified substance intriguing. It is not one i've seen before, and seems to contradict the way specified substances have always been defined in previous statements and indeed the regulations themselves.

interesting...to the bolded
Froome perhaps should have you in his defence team ...that looks like it might be something to hang your hat on....however he's already on record as saying it was ingested for his asthma via inhaler.....albeit a circle which it would appear cannot be turned into a square...that will surely limit any ability to now say it was taken purposefully in that high a does for another reason? I would think...then I'm not a highly paid lawyer.....

edited for being daft...this presumably relates to any initial suspension i.e. now before any final decision is made rather than any ultimate 'punishment'....so, as you were...

Yes, the press release related to suspensions etc;.......but that doesn't change the fact that they've taken the opportunity to offer an alternative definition for specified substances in an official press release.

It would have been too blindingly obvious if they'd just come out with a press release for the sole purpose of telling us how they define a specified substance.

Much better to hide it within plain sight within a wider subject for the legal people to find and use as and when required.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

As a Froome's fan, I will wait for UCI/WADA verdict.
But if he is finally banned I will place him between his great rivals, i.e. Contador and Valverde, in a Big Trash of Cycling Dopers and erase his palmaries from my memory.

It's not bans that make dopers, it's doping that makes dopers.