Re:
Robert5091 said:
... was caused by a rapid succession of puffs to prevent coughing during post-race TV interviews.
What did I say? Case dismissed! :lol: (throw that doc under a bus, while you're at it)
“Give me a break,” LeMond said. “That is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard. If this is what he claims, then it’s simple, he broke the rules and should be punished accordingly.
“You have to look at Froome’s AAF in context of everything around Team Sky. The comments from Shane Sutton, admitting that the team would push things right to the limit, the lost records, the Jiffy bag.”
LeMond also described Team Sky’s use of tramadol, an unrestricted but controversial painkiller, as “unconscionable”.
He described the team’s use of therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) as “bogus”, referring in particular to the three TUEs given to Sir Bradley Wiggins that allowed him to use what LeMond labelled “a very powerful steroid”.
“It pains me to hear Brailsford and the team dismiss real science as pseudoscience, always a red flag as far as I am concerned,” the American said. “As history has shown, when things are too good to be true, they usually are.”
Describing Froome’s finding for salbutamol as the rider’s own responsibility, LeMond added his voice to those suspicious of the high levels of the drug in Froome’s test result.
“The fallacy that salbutamol does not improve performance is only true if you use it as prescribed,” he said. “Taken orally or by injection it acts as an anabolic steroid, similar to clenbuterol, the drug that Alberto Contador was positive for.
“It’s the athlete’s responsibility for following the rules. As for the use of salbutamol, it’s up to Chris Froome to be responsible for what he puts into his body. He alone is responsible. The peloton relies on the equal application of the rules. If these are not followed, it undermines the sport.”
*** Pound, the former president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) and recent chairman of the Wada independent commission report into doping in Russian sport, believes that Froome will struggle to escape a ban. “If you’re over the threshold by 100 per cent, that needs some explanation,” Pound said. “At that level, it will be hard for the International Cycling Union (UCI) to not do something in terms of sanction.”
Christian Prudhomme, the Tour de France director, has called for Froome’s case to be fast-tracked to avoid it overshadowing this year’s race. Pound, like others, sees the process taking some time. Contador’s positive test for clenbuterol in July 2010 took more than 18 months to resolve. He was stripped of his 2010 Tour de France title and several other results after a hearing at the Council of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in February 2012.
“If the UCI don’t impose a sanction, then it’s possible that Wada could step in,” Pound said. “If Wada steps in then I’d imagine it would go to CAS as a last resort.
“If the defence is anxious to have it wrapped up, it can be done fairly quickly, but if the defence is anxious about winning and adopts the normal tactic of delaying, that can take quite a time.”
Pound, who once described cycling’s ethics as being “in the toilet”, is sceptical of Froome’s case. “There was always a surprising number of heroic asthmatics on TUEs,” he said. “My guess is that the problems in cycling’s credibility are still there.”