Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

I've read the Salbutamol thread and experimented with my son's blue inhaler. Neither has clarified for me what the exact performance enhancing qualities of Salbutamol actually are. Whatever they are, they aren't what is making Froome win races.

You took a few puffs of your son's Salbutamol inhaler to try and understand how Chris Froome could benefit from doing the same?

Yes, I just had a few drinks and tried to duplicate what Landis did . Cheers!

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Its pretty lucky that he caught bilharzia and then had it cured, enabling him to become the best GT rider for a generation.

Just imagine if he'd never caught it and he'd just stayed a sub-average rider all his life.

Bilharzia was not a gift, but an excuse, explanation for a miracle...see LA speech on the Champs Elysees in 2005.

Then more explanations, statements about ignoring his weight and maximum heart rate when the Ventoux tape and others came out.

I'm a "painter" but I know my numbers .

 

[sittingbison]

Re:

Its pretty lucky that he caught bilharzia and then had it cured, enabling him to become the best GT rider for a generation.

Just imagine if he'd never caught it and he'd just stayed a sub-average rider all his life.

this scenario isn't imaginary

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

Its pretty lucky that he caught bilharzia and then had it cured, enabling him to become the best GT rider for a generation.

Just imagine if he'd never caught it and he'd just stayed a sub-average rider all his life.

Bilharzia was not a gift, but an excuse, explanation for a miracle...see LA speech on the Champs Elysees in 2005.

Then more explanations, statements about ignoring his weight and maximum heart rate when the Ventoux tape and others came out.

I'm a "painter" but I know my numbers .

I think you missed the intended heavy irony in my post.

I'm with you on the Bilharzia nonsense. The point I'm making is that the flaw in the Bilharzia story is that it doesn't account for how Froome wasn't super talented before he caught Bilharzia.

 

[Merckx index]

I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.

 

[rick james]

Re:

I've read the Salbutamol thread and experimented with my son's blue inhaler. Neither has clarified for me what the exact performance enhancing qualities of Salbutamol actually are. Whatever they are, they aren't what is making Froome win races.

sounds like you're close to wining the Vuelta 2018


If i take a few doses of my blue inhaler i end up shaking like a sh1tting dog, the blue is meant to be for emergency uses, almost when an attack is coming on or the airwaves are getting tight(and by the way the blue won't work on non asthmatics)..I take red inhaler everyday(symbicort) that's meant to control your everyday asthma better..

I have never actually had an asthma attack, my asthma gets triggered by stupid things, the change in air pressure can make me struggle to breathe, its weird I've never actually felt like I needed my inhaler when cycling, except a few days ago when it was really cold in Scotland and I was out on the bike and my lungs were really struggling for some reason

 

[Robert5091]

Re: Re:

I've read the Salbutamol thread and experimented with my son's blue inhaler. Neither has clarified for me what the exact performance enhancing qualities of Salbutamol actually are. Whatever they are, they aren't what is making Froome win races.

sounds like you're close to wining the Vuelta 2018


If i take a few doses of my blue inhaler i end up shaking like a sh1tting dog, the blue is meant to be for emergency uses, almost when an attack is coming on or the airwaves are getting tight(and by the way the blue won't work on non asthmatics)..I take red inhaler everyday(symbicort) that's meant to control your everyday asthma better..

I have never actually had an asthma attack, my asthma gets triggered by stupid things, the change in air pressure can make me struggle to breathe, its weird I've never actually felt like I needed my inhaler when cycling, except a few days ago when it was really cold in Scotland and I was out on the bike and my lungs were really struggling for some reason

Sounds like you had the skiers E.I.A.

 

[rhubroma]

I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.

As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

I've read the Salbutamol thread and experimented with my son's blue inhaler. Neither has clarified for me what the exact performance enhancing qualities of Salbutamol actually are. Whatever they are, they aren't what is making Froome win races.

sounds like you're close to wining the Vuelta 2018


If i take a few doses of my blue inhaler i end up shaking like a sh1tting dog, the blue is meant to be for emergency uses, almost when an attack is coming on or the airwaves are getting tight(and by the way the blue won't work on non asthmatics)..I take red inhaler everyday(symbicort) that's meant to control your everyday asthma better..

I have never actually had an asthma attack, my asthma gets triggered by stupid things, the change in air pressure can make me struggle to breathe, its weird I've never actually felt like I needed my inhaler when cycling, except a few days ago when it was really cold in Scotland and I was out on the bike and my lungs were really struggling for some reason

Yes I found that cold can definitely bring on wheezing or chest tightness. In 2016 in Melbourne Australia there was an event of Thunderstorm Asthma, a known phenomenon where a sudden drop in temperature during a Spring Thunderstorm combined with a huge amount of pollen in the air killed ten people and hundreds had to attend hospital. It caused such a commotion at the hospitals that they now have alerts for possible Thunderstorm Asthma events based on the coroners findings. Either people were caught without their medication or their usual medication didn't work and they didn't make it to hospital in time.

 

[S2Sturges]

I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.

As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.

Team Sky and Froome I think have taken the tack that there is no reason to think there isn't anything out of the ordinary going on, and are just brassing it out.. they got races to win, and damn it, they're going to win them. Unless they feel they have a inside knowledge on exactly how it's all going to play out legally, they are playing a risky game... The pure and simple bottom line is that he was positive to a AAF, and should have been treated accordingly and suspended by the team. This USG test talk just muddies up the waters, a speciality of Sky, diffuse and cast doubts on the process. It is really all in with Sky, they lose this case and their reputation will truly be in tatters, and Froome is toast, though I'm sure he'll still live comfortably in Monaco with his dubiously earned millions..

 

[Merckx index]

Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic.

Contador's situation was quite different from Froome's. Alberto was cleared by the Spanish federation, so he had every right to race. The only reason there was ambiguity was because UCI and WADA chose to appeal the decision. I don't blame Contador for continuing plans to race after the appeal, because if he had suspended himself and won the appeal--and having been cleared by Spain, winning at CAS wasn't far-fetched--it would have been too late to participate in the Giro and Tour. Think how he would have felt if he sat out the entire season in 2011, only to be cleared at the end of it. You can't backdate GT wins! Another rationale for racing was that it allowed his legal team to take its time and thoroughly prepare for the hearing; there was no pressure to have a decision by a certain date.

So, no, it was not a risky tactic. On the contrary, it was the least risky tactic under the circumstances, the only downside being the bad publicity of someone racing under a cloud, knowing that the results could be taken away later.

Froome is actually in a worse position than Contador in that respect. Since Contador won at the national level, the burden of proof was not on him at CAS. It was on UCI/WADA, at least, more so than it would be in a conventional doping hearing. In contrast, the burden of proof is entirely on Froome. He is not innocent till proven guilty; he most definitely is guilty until proven not guilty. Unlike, say, Peatcchi and Ulissi, he also caught a major break in being notified of his AAF on his very last day of racing for the season. So he could have provisionally suspended himself without missing any races, and if he was so confident in his innocence, cleared himself in time for the 2018 season. Even if he lost the initial hearing, he might have gotten a short enough back-dated suspension to allow him to race in at least one if not both of the first two GTs.

But even that much risk was too much for Froome, so he wouldn't suspend himself. Again, bad PR aside, it's the least risky move in his situation. The only risk he's taking is declaring that he definitely did not inhale more than the allowed amount; that hurts his chances of a relatively short suspension if he loses his case. Had he just said, maybe I made a mistake, without committing to it, he would be in a much better position to plead negligence if he couldn't explain the high level. Contador took the same risk when he declared that he hadn't used any supplements, and it came back to bite him. It quite possibly cost him an extra year.

This USG test talk just muddies up the waters, a speciality of Sky, diffuse and cast doubts on the process.

On the contrary, it could clarify the situation enormously. Sky is not the one talking about the USG, but I wish they were. We internet warriors are the ones pointing out its implications.

 

[Alpe73]

I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.

As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.

Rhub ... let me play this one straight up.

1. The majority of the world’s pro cycling fan base ... those who will attend ‘live’ ... those who will watch on television .... millions of them ... the millions who will again tune into Lance’s “Stages” podcast over the duration ... really don’t give much of a ***. I’m not saying, in the circumstances, that is right or wrong of them ... it’s just the facts, mate.

2. Lawyers reading your comments, businessmen reading your comments .... are busting a gut. Why in the world would you keel over so easily? Just because you alluded to some “promise” of being transparent. Henao, JTL, Wiggins ... have all been dealt with ... obviously not to YOUR liking ... but to those authorities with jurisdiction.

To date .... Froome’s case is still in a holding pattern. He may well get pasted. If he does, I won’t lose a wink.

All this pathos of hang ‘im high ... NOW ... has little to do with the Clinic’s abhorrence of doping, more to do with No Team Colors Allowed and a lot to do with the 7th deadly sin.

 

[rhubroma]

Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic.

Contador's situation was quite different from Froome's. Alberto was cleared by the Spanish federation, so he had every right to race. The only reason there was ambiguity was because UCI and WADA chose to appeal the decision. I don't blame Contador for continuing plans to race after the appeal, because if he had suspended himself and won the appeal--and having been cleared by Spain, winning at CAS wasn't far-fetched--it would have been too late to participate in the Giro and Tour. Think how he would have felt if he sat out the entire season in 2011, only to be cleared at the end of it. You can't backdate GT wins! Another rationale for racing was that it allowed his legal team to take its time and thoroughly prepare for the hearing; there was no pressure to have a decision by a certain date.

So, no, it was not a risky tactic. On the contrary, it was the least risky tactic under the circumstances, the only downside being the bad publicity of someone racing under a cloud, knowing that the results could be taken away later.

Froome is actually in a worse position than Contador in that respect. Since Contador won at the national level, the burden of proof was not on him at CAS. It was on UCI/WADA, at least, more so than it would be in a conventional doping hearing. In contrast, the burden of proof is entirely on Froome. He is not innocent till proven guilty; he most definitely is guilty until proven not guilty. Unlike, say, Peatcchi and Ulissi, he also caught a major break in being notified of his AAF on his very last day of racing for the season. So he could have provisionally suspended himself without missing any races, and if he was so confident in his innocence, cleared himself in time for the 2018 season. Even if he lost the initial hearing, he might have gotten a short enough back-dated suspension to allow him to race in at least one if not both of the first two GTs.

But even that much risk was too much for Froome, so he wouldn't suspend himself. Again, bad PR aside, it's the least risky move in his situation. The only risk he's taking is declaring that he definitely did not inhale more than the allowed amount; that hurts his chances of a relatively short suspension if he loses his case. Had he just said, maybe I made a mistake, without committing to it, he would be in a much better position to plead negligence if he couldn't explain the high level. Contador took the same risk when he declared that he hadn't used any supplements, and it came back to bite him. It quite possibly cost him an extra year.

This USG test talk just muddies up the waters, a speciality of Sky, diffuse and cast doubts on the process.

On the contrary, it could clarify the situation enormously. Sky is not the one talking about the USG, but I wish they were. We internet warriors are the ones pointing out its implications.

I think the differences in the type of substances found has largely to do with the formal discrepancies you bring up. Otherwise Sky is taking access to the same praxis as Saxo, namely permitting their rider to race until a formal ban from the juridical authority/s and, until then, using every legal expedient to obfuscate and exonerate.

 

[rhubroma]

I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.

As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.

Rhub ... let me play this one straight up.

1. The majority of the world’s pro cycling fan base ... those who will attend ‘live’ ... those who will watch on television .... millions of them ... the millions who will again tune into Lance’s “Stages” podcast over the duration ... really don’t give much of a ****. I’m not saying, in the circumstances, that is right or wrong of them ... it’s just the facts, mate.

2. Lawyers reading your comments, businessmen reading your comments .... are busting a gut. Why in the world would you keel over so easily? Just because you alluded to some “promise” of being transparent. Henao, JTL, Wiggins ... have all been dealt with ... obviously not to YOUR liking ... but to those authorities with jurisdiction.

To date .... Froome’s case is still in a holding pattern. He may well get pasted. If he does, I won’t lose a wink.

All this pathos of hang ‘im high ... NOW ... has little to do with the Clinic’s abhorrence of doping, more to do with No Team Colors Allowed and a lot to do with the 7th deadly sin.

You obviously take the general fanbase for schmucks. I don't think unapologetic Lance fans can be extended to the millions watching cycling you claim. The lawyers will do what lawyers do. And certainly folks now, other than the Sky brigade, (especially outside Britain) aren't as apathetic about Froome's case as you make them out to be. To the contrary most are proably relishing in the Sky/Froome predicament.

 

[Alpe73]

Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic.

Contador's situation was quite different from Froome's. Alberto was cleared by the Spanish federation, so he had every right to race. The only reason there was ambiguity was because UCI and WADA chose to appeal the decision. I don't blame Contador for continuing plans to race after the appeal, because if he had suspended himself and won the appeal--and having been cleared by Spain, winning at CAS wasn't far-fetched--it would have been too late to participate in the Giro and Tour. Think how he would have felt if he sat out the entire season in 2011, only to be cleared at the end of it. You can't backdate GT wins! Another rationale for racing was that it allowed his legal team to take its time and thoroughly prepare for the hearing; there was no pressure to have a decision by a certain date.

So, no, it was not a risky tactic. On the contrary, it was the least risky tactic under the circumstances, the only downside being the bad publicity of someone racing under a cloud, knowing that the results could be taken away later.

Froome is actually in a worse position than Contador in that respect. Since Contador won at the national level, the burden of proof was not on him at CAS. It was on UCI/WADA, at least, more so than it would be in a conventional doping hearing. In contrast, the burden of proof is entirely on Froome. He is not innocent till proven guilty; he most definitely is guilty until proven not guilty. Unlike, say, Peatcchi and Ulissi, he also caught a major break in being notified of his AAF on his very last day of racing for the season. So he could have provisionally suspended himself without missing any races, and if he was so confident in his innocence, cleared himself in time for the 2018 season. Even if he lost the initial hearing, he might have gotten a short enough back-dated suspension to allow him to race in at least one if not both of the first two GTs.

But even that much risk was too much for Froome, so he wouldn't suspend himself. Again, bad PR aside, it's the least risky move in his situation. The only risk he's taking is declaring that he definitely did not inhale more than the allowed amount; that hurts his chances of a relatively short suspension if he loses his case. Had he just said, maybe I made a mistake, without committing to it, he would be in a much better position to plead negligence if he couldn't explain the high level. Contador took the same risk when he declared that he hadn't used any supplements, and it came back to bite him. It quite possibly cost him an extra year.

This USG test talk just muddies up the waters, a speciality of Sky, diffuse and cast doubts on the process.

On the contrary, it could clarify the situation enormously. Sky is not the one talking about the USG, but I wish they were. We internet warriors are the ones pointing out its implications.

I think the differences in the type of substances found has largely to do with the formal discrepancies you bring up. Otherwise Sky is taking access to the same praxis as Saxo, namely permitting their rider to race until a formal ban from the juridical authority/s and, until then, using every legal expedient to obfuscate and exonerate.

A bit of obfuscation on your part, Rhub.

 

[Alpe73]

I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.

As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.

Rhub ... let me play this one straight up.

1. The majority of the world’s pro cycling fan base ... those who will attend ‘live’ ... those who will watch on television .... millions of them ... the millions who will again tune into Lance’s “Stages” podcast over the duration ... really don’t give much of a ****. I’m not saying, in the circumstances, that is right or wrong of them ... it’s just the facts, mate.

2. Lawyers reading your comments, businessmen reading your comments .... are busting a gut. Why in the world would you keel over so easily? Just because you alluded to some “promise” of being transparent. Henao, JTL, Wiggins ... have all been dealt with ... obviously not to YOUR liking ... but to those authorities with jurisdiction.

To date .... Froome’s case is still in a holding pattern. He may well get pasted. If he does, I won’t lose a wink.

All this pathos of hang ‘im high ... NOW ... has little to do with the Clinic’s abhorrence of doping, more to do with No Team Colors Allowed and a lot to do with the 7th deadly sin.

You obviously take the general fanbase for schmucks. I don't think unapologetic Lance fans can be extended to the millions watching cycling you claim. The lawyers will do what lawyers do. And certainly folks now, other than the Sky brigade, (especially outside Britain) aren't as apathetic about Froome's case as you make them out to be. To the contrary most are proably relishing in the Sky/Froome predicament.

No ... I don’t see the general fanbase as schmucks. To the contrary ... I see them as pragmatists who enjoy professional sports entertainment. So, I’m not sure you fit into that particular cohort?? You are right to question numbers (re: fans watching and those listening to Lance). Look it up yourself ... or ask someone on here.

If Froome is exonerated ... or short ban and races Tour ... of course there will be noise. Not so sure about a full blown boycott, Rhub ... but you may yet prove me wrong bro ... and to that I will eat crow.

 

[rhubroma]

Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic.

Contador's situation was quite different from Froome's. Alberto was cleared by the Spanish federation, so he had every right to race. The only reason there was ambiguity was because UCI and WADA chose to appeal the decision. I don't blame Contador for continuing plans to race after the appeal, because if he had suspended himself and won the appeal--and having been cleared by Spain, winning at CAS wasn't far-fetched--it would have been too late to participate in the Giro and Tour. Think how he would have felt if he sat out the entire season in 2011, only to be cleared at the end of it. You can't backdate GT wins! Another rationale for racing was that it allowed his legal team to take its time and thoroughly prepare for the hearing; there was no pressure to have a decision by a certain date.

So, no, it was not a risky tactic. On the contrary, it was the least risky tactic under the circumstances, the only downside being the bad publicity of someone racing under a cloud, knowing that the results could be taken away later.

Froome is actually in a worse position than Contador in that respect. Since Contador won at the national level, the burden of proof was not on him at CAS. It was on UCI/WADA, at least, more so than it would be in a conventional doping hearing. In contrast, the burden of proof is entirely on Froome. He is not innocent till proven guilty; he most definitely is guilty until proven not guilty. Unlike, say, Peatcchi and Ulissi, he also caught a major break in being notified of his AAF on his very last day of racing for the season. So he could have provisionally suspended himself without missing any races, and if he was so confident in his innocence, cleared himself in time for the 2018 season. Even if he lost the initial hearing, he might have gotten a short enough back-dated suspension to allow him to race in at least one if not both of the first two GTs.

But even that much risk was too much for Froome, so he wouldn't suspend himself. Again, bad PR aside, it's the least risky move in his situation. The only risk he's taking is declaring that he definitely did not inhale more than the allowed amount; that hurts his chances of a relatively short suspension if he loses his case. Had he just said, maybe I made a mistake, without committing to it, he would be in a much better position to plead negligence if he couldn't explain the high level. Contador took the same risk when he declared that he hadn't used any supplements, and it came back to bite him. It quite possibly cost him an extra year.

This USG test talk just muddies up the waters, a speciality of Sky, diffuse and cast doubts on the process.

On the contrary, it could clarify the situation enormously. Sky is not the one talking about the USG, but I wish they were. We internet warriors are the ones pointing out its implications.

I think the differences in the type of substances found has largely to do with the formal discrepancies you bring up. Otherwise Sky is taking access to the same praxis as Saxo, namely permitting their rider to race until a formal ban from the juridical authority/s and, until then, using every legal expedient to obfuscate and exonerate.

A bit of obfuscation on your part, Rhub.

Only for the shmucks.

 

[Alpe73]

Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic.

Contador's situation was quite different from Froome's. Alberto was cleared by the Spanish federation, so he had every right to race. The only reason there was ambiguity was because UCI and WADA chose to appeal the decision. I don't blame Contador for continuing plans to race after the appeal, because if he had suspended himself and won the appeal--and having been cleared by Spain, winning at CAS wasn't far-fetched--it would have been too late to participate in the Giro and Tour. Think how he would have felt if he sat out the entire season in 2011, only to be cleared at the end of it. You can't backdate GT wins! Another rationale for racing was that it allowed his legal team to take its time and thoroughly prepare for the hearing; there was no pressure to have a decision by a certain date.

So, no, it was not a risky tactic. On the contrary, it was the least risky tactic under the circumstances, the only downside being the bad publicity of someone racing under a cloud, knowing that the results could be taken away later.

Froome is actually in a worse position than Contador in that respect. Since Contador won at the national level, the burden of proof was not on him at CAS. It was on UCI/WADA, at least, more so than it would be in a conventional doping hearing. In contrast, the burden of proof is entirely on Froome. He is not innocent till proven guilty; he most definitely is guilty until proven not guilty. Unlike, say, Peatcchi and Ulissi, he also caught a major break in being notified of his AAF on his very last day of racing for the season. So he could have provisionally suspended himself without missing any races, and if he was so confident in his innocence, cleared himself in time for the 2018 season. Even if he lost the initial hearing, he might have gotten a short enough back-dated suspension to allow him to race in at least one if not both of the first two GTs.

But even that much risk was too much for Froome, so he wouldn't suspend himself. Again, bad PR aside, it's the least risky move in his situation. The only risk he's taking is declaring that he definitely did not inhale more than the allowed amount; that hurts his chances of a relatively short suspension if he loses his case. Had he just said, maybe I made a mistake, without committing to it, he would be in a much better position to plead negligence if he couldn't explain the high level. Contador took the same risk when he declared that he hadn't used any supplements, and it came back to bite him. It quite possibly cost him an extra year.

This USG test talk just muddies up the waters, a speciality of Sky, diffuse and cast doubts on the process.

On the contrary, it could clarify the situation enormously. Sky is not the one talking about the USG, but I wish they were. We internet warriors are the ones pointing out its implications.

I think the differences in the type of substances found has largely to do with the formal discrepancies you bring up. Otherwise Sky is taking access to the same praxis as Saxo, namely permitting their rider to race until a formal ban from the juridical authority/s and, until then, using every legal expedient to obfuscate and exonerate.

A bit of obfuscation on your part, Rhub.

 

[rhubroma]

I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.

As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.

Rhub ... let me play this one straight up.

1. The majority of the world’s pro cycling fan base ... those who will attend ‘live’ ... those who will watch on television .... millions of them ... the millions who will again tune into Lance’s “Stages” podcast over the duration ... really don’t give much of a ****. I’m not saying, in the circumstances, that is right or wrong of them ... it’s just the facts, mate.

2. Lawyers reading your comments, businessmen reading your comments .... are busting a gut. Why in the world would you keel over so easily? Just because you alluded to some “promise” of being transparent. Henao, JTL, Wiggins ... have all been dealt with ... obviously not to YOUR liking ... but to those authorities with jurisdiction.

To date .... Froome’s case is still in a holding pattern. He may well get pasted. If he does, I won’t lose a wink.

All this pathos of hang ‘im high ... NOW ... has little to do with the Clinic’s abhorrence of doping, more to do with No Team Colors Allowed and a lot to do with the 7th deadly sin.

You obviously take the general fanbase for schmucks. I don't think unapologetic Lance fans can be extended to the millions watching cycling you claim. The lawyers will do what lawyers do. And certainly folks now, other than the Sky brigade, (especially outside Britain) aren't as apathetic about Froome's case as you make them out to be. To the contrary most are proably relishing in the Sky/Froome predicament.

No ... I don’t see the general fanbase as schmucks. To the contrary ... I see them as pragmatists who enjoy professional sports entertainment. So, I’m not sure you fit into that particular cohort?? You are right to question numbers (re: fans watching and those listening to Lance). Look it up yourself ... or ask someone on here.

If Froome is exonerated ... or short ban and races Tour ... of course there will be noise. Not so sure about a full blown boycott, Rhub ... but you may yet prove me wrong bro ... and to that I will eat crow.

Well Sky has lost its grip on the narrative that's for sure. Even the pragmatists willing to close an eye, won't let them slide untarnished for this. Of course, same as Lance for what it's worth, there will still be those heavily invested willing to overlook anything. But... in the final analysis, it's the now sullied legacy of Sky that counts. For the average tifoso this is all that matters. If you can't have faith "in miracles," then Sky has lost (the propaganda war) and so it's raison d'etre in the sport.

 

[brownbobby]

If Froome is exonerated ... or short ban and races Tour ... of course there will be noise. Not so sure about a full blown boycott, Rhub ... but you may yet prove me wrong bro ... and to that I will eat crow.

...and noise isn't necessarily something to be feared.

 

[Alpe73]

If Froome is exonerated ... or short ban and races Tour ... of course there will be noise. Not so sure about a full blown boycott, Rhub ... but you may yet prove me wrong bro ... and to that I will eat crow.

...and noise isn't necessarily something to be feared.

This! As in “cheering”, you mean (Muted, [barely audible, but, ‘officially’, above threshold, as to constitute a ‘ noise’] of course)?

 

[Angliru]

Re:

I've read the Salbutamol thread and experimented with my son's blue inhaler. Neither has clarified for me what the exact performance enhancing qualities of Salbutamol actually are. Whatever they are, they aren't what is making Froome win races.

Sounds scientific enough to me. Froome and his legal team should seriously use your study as an integral part of his defense strategy.

 

[brownbobby]

If Froome is exonerated ... or short ban and races Tour ... of course there will be noise. Not so sure about a full blown boycott, Rhub ... but you may yet prove me wrong bro ... and to that I will eat crow.

...and noise isn't necessarily something to be feared.

This! As in “cheering”, you mean (Muted, [barely audible, but, ‘officially’, above threshold, as to constitute a ‘ noise’] of course)?

Noise....Interest, debate, passion, cheering, even booing. Atmosphere!! Call it what you will, it's all there to be embraced and exploited. Not feared.

 

[yaco]

I doubt Froome will ride the TDF suspended or not - Think the ASO will advise Froome they can't guarantee his safety at the TDF - Anyway the Giro and the Vuelta is a better prospect.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I doubt Froome will ride the TDF suspended or not - Think the ASO will advise Froome they can't guarantee his safety at the TDF - Anyway the Giro and the Vuelta is a better prospect.

That’s when G will save the day and win the Tour for Sky! :surprised: