Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1300 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I wonder if there is any way to sue or investigate UCI and WADA for corruption. They're international organisations, they seem to stand above anyone else. Basically they can just decide who will be banned and who will be "cleared" without giving any sensible explanation.
 
Jun 21, 2012
77
0
0
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
Craigee said:
wrinklyvet said:
Pantani_lives said:
It makes me sick that the trolls on this website have got what they want. They can now go back from "They're all doing it" to "Our guy is innocent!" The UCI has become a Stalinist organization that says, "You will be protected, you won't." The "scientific" explanation is utter bollocks, corrupt nonsense. WADA has excluded innocent Russians from the Olympics just for being Russian. Now they are openly protecting the biggest cheater of the current decade. The corruption goes all the way to the top.
On just one point of accuracy, I think you will find that was the International Olympic Committee, which did that.
On whose recommendation?
I believe a WADA report came first and then an IOC investigation but the action was taken by IOC. It's probably off topic here. Not sure why I even commented.
I dunno, to sound clever?
 
Re: Re:

Brian Butterfield said:
wrinklyvet said:
Craigee said:
wrinklyvet said:
Pantani_lives said:
It makes me sick that the trolls on this website have got what they want. They can now go back from "They're all doing it" to "Our guy is innocent!" The UCI has become a Stalinist organization that says, "You will be protected, you won't." The "scientific" explanation is utter bollocks, corrupt nonsense. WADA has excluded innocent Russians from the Olympics just for being Russian. Now they are openly protecting the biggest cheater of the current decade. The corruption goes all the way to the top.
On just one point of accuracy, I think you will find that was the International Olympic Committee, which did that.
On whose recommendation?
I believe a WADA report came first and then an IOC investigation but the action was taken by IOC. It's probably off topic here. Not sure why I even commented.
I dunno, to sound clever?
Ha, ha!
 
Sep 11, 2016
63
0
0
Re:

bambino said:
The details of the case are still in mist and might forever be to us as a cycling followers, thus I guess we will never know the real reasons that changed WADA's mind. I hope time (years) will give us some clarity. In the mean time we can only speculate on multiple rationales, one of which is that Froome didn't actually overdose and the test was a result of extreme physiological conditions. There are as, or more, plausible reason though such as loopholes in test procedure or defining the AAF etc. which Morgan definitely would use ruthlessly. I wouldn't be surprised if WADA indeed decided to bail purely because of the cost of legal procedures that would drag potentially still years while the opponent seem to have more money to spend.

But as far as I've seen, unless we get the real explanation to public, Froome will always have tarnished reputation in the eyes of majority of cycling followers. For most of us, he will be dobed monster that got away because of money and power. Regardless if he wins 10 more GT's in row, in the eyes of very wide public, there will always be an huge asterix of doping next to his achievements. Regardless whether it is bloody asthma medicine or something else. He will not be liked, he will not be recognized and will never raise to the same glory than even his peers at time (Berto, Nibs...). Unless they tell exactly why this decision was made and the decision does not have any political/loop hole based controversy in it.
Good post. We badly need more information on this. Which we will most likely never receive.
But until then, this does not smell good.
Ignoring the money/law/power/corruption angle, how can a cyclist turn in a reading (AAF :razz: ) of twice the permitted amount of an asthma medicine and walk free? The limit, as far as I can understand, is already set at a generously high value. It has to be vary rare, unique physiological conditions that give this result. Also when you consider, that he was not great the day before, and then put time into Nibali.
 
Jul 28, 2009
769
0
0
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
they walk away innocent, not on the basis of "guilty, just not punished."
Just a point of order. Typically in legal proceedings the verdict is "not guilty". Innocence is one interpretation of such a verdict. In this case Froome has not been found "not guilty"; in fact what has occurred is that the prosecuting authority (UCI) has assessed the evidence and concluded not to proceed. The case doesn't seem to have progressed to the tribunal stage.

None of this precludes individuals from holding personal opinions regarding Froome's guilt or otherwise.
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
Craigee said:
wrinklyvet said:
Pantani_lives said:
It makes me sick that the trolls on this website have got what they want. They can now go back from "They're all doing it" to "Our guy is innocent!" The UCI has become a Stalinist organization that says, "You will be protected, you won't." The "scientific" explanation is utter bollocks, corrupt nonsense. WADA has excluded innocent Russians from the Olympics just for being Russian. Now they are openly protecting the biggest cheater of the current decade. The corruption goes all the way to the top.
On just one point of accuracy, I think you will find that was the International Olympic Committee, which did that.
On whose recommendation?
I believe a WADA report came first and then an IOC investigation but the action was taken by IOC. It's probably off topic here. Not sure why I even commented.
Totally agree, if you're living by the scientific sword in the clinic to assume a rider will be guilty by WADA science based on 1% knowledge of the case, you can't then ignore what you've proclaimed and WADA concluded by switching the narrative from guilty by science to a claim WADA, UCI & Sky must be collectively corrupt because I just proved Froome is guilty on that 1% knowledge I have and the 99% doesn't matter that WADA also used. Nobody was getting excited here claiming Froome will be acquitted and WADA is corrupt. Now he is, all of a sudden none of their science applies anymore, therefore there must be corruption.

It's like looking at the horizon all around you. The earth is flat when you can clearly see the horizon just stops, you can see it and it explains everything. What's happening in the clinic is you've all walked to end of the horizon with your 1% knowledge of Froomes case, only to realise there's more than you could see originally. The clinic is now at the point where some have followed the horizon so far without conclusion, you've come back to where you started the journey and refuse to accept the World is round from what I can tell.

By all means bring up all the evidence and conspiracy in the clinic here from the previous 1600 pages saying WADA is corrupt though and paid off by UCI/Froome/Sky/British Government to null his Salbutomol AAF that could have been easily swept under the carpet silently simply by deleting an email off a mail server.
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
LaFlorecita said:
And to all those saying this should have been confidential, bla blah, yeah, just imagine how many times he may have escaped in the same way and we know nothing about it. Good that it's been leaked. Now we all know for sure that he's a fraud.
God I'm so salty :lol:
I can imagine that is the very reason it was leaked. Someone saw how often he was skating by, with cycling fans being completely unaware, and decided to at least let it be known that all is not as pure and pristine as it appears.
If that is the case then we should expect more leaks surely, maybe on Thursday night?
 
Re: Re:

rata de sentina said:
wrinklyvet said:
they walk away innocent, not on the basis of "guilty, just not punished."
Just a point of order. Typically in legal proceedings the verdict is "not guilty". Innocence is one interpretation of such a verdict. In this case Froome has not been found "not guilty"; in fact what has occurred is that the prosecuting authority (UCI) has assessed the evidence and concluded not to proceed. The case doesn't seem to have progressed to the tribunal stage.

None of this precludes individuals from holding personal opinions regarding Froome's guilt or otherwise.
I'll go with that. I only counter the "guilty but not punished angle" so far as the outcome was concerned. You explain it well. As someone who should know better I regretted the use of the "innocent" word in the context of my post when I looked at it later. Yes, people can certainly have their own opinion - and they do!
 
Aug 18, 2017
582
0
0
Basically,
1) WADA accepts that it was POSSIBLE for the Salbutamol level seen in CFs urine to have occurred by inhaling it within the permitted maximum dose.
2) I accept that it is POSSIBLE that I could be a millionaire at the weekend, as I have purchased a lottey ticket.

I feel sure that WADA thinks 1) is as likely as much as I think that 2) is....
 
Tim Booth said:
Basically,
1) WADA accepts that it was POSSIBLE for the Salbutamol level seen in CFs urine to have occurred by inhaling it within the permitted maximum dose.
2) I accept that it is POSSIBLE that I could be a millionaire at the weekend, as I have purchased a lottey ticket.

I feel sure that WADA thinks 1) is as likely as much as I think that 2) is....
Well the difference is that the case against Froome could not be proved but you probably won't win!
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
rata de sentina said:
wrinklyvet said:
they walk away innocent, not on the basis of "guilty, just not punished."
Just a point of order. Typically in legal proceedings the verdict is "not guilty". Innocence is one interpretation of such a verdict. In this case Froome has not been found "not guilty"; in fact what has occurred is that the prosecuting authority (UCI) has assessed the evidence and concluded not to proceed. The case doesn't seem to have progressed to the tribunal stage.

None of this precludes individuals from holding personal opinions regarding Froome's guilt or otherwise.
I'll go with that. I only counter the "guilty but not punished angle" so far as the outcome was concerned. You explain it well. As someone who should know better I regretted the use of the "innocent" word in the context of my post when I looked at it later. Yes, people can certainly have their own opinion - and they do!
You have got me thinking again. After this effort I will go and sit on the beach for a while! Given that WADA concluded there was no AAF after all, that points to there having been no case to answer. That's a bit like investigating a crime and then discovering that there hadn't been one after all, rather than not being able to prove who did it.

That's the very thing that is upsetting those who wanted Froome to swing. They find it hard to swallow, But it's not unreasonable if there was no AAF to refer to being innocent on this occasion and not just "not guilty." - - and then the "thinking what we like" can continue!
 
Sep 11, 2016
63
0
0
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
wrinklyvet said:
rata de sentina said:
wrinklyvet said:
they walk away innocent, not on the basis of "guilty, just not punished."
Just a point of order. Typically in legal proceedings the verdict is "not guilty". Innocence is one interpretation of such a verdict. In this case Froome has not been found "not guilty"; in fact what has occurred is that the prosecuting authority (UCI) has assessed the evidence and concluded not to proceed. The case doesn't seem to have progressed to the tribunal stage.

None of this precludes individuals from holding personal opinions regarding Froome's guilt or otherwise.
I'll go with that. I only counter the "guilty but not punished angle" so far as the outcome was concerned. You explain it well. As someone who should know better I regretted the use of the "innocent" word in the context of my post when I looked at it later. Yes, people can certainly have their own opinion - and they do!
You have got me thinking again. After this effort I will go and sit on the beach for a while! Given that WADA concluded there was no AAF after all, that points to there having been no case to answer. That's a bit like investigating a crime and then discovering that there hadn't been one after all, rather than not being able to prove who did it.

That's the very thing that is upsetting those who wanted Froome to swing. They find it hard to swallow, But it's not unreasonable if there was no AAF to refer to being innocent on this occasion and not just "not guilty." - - and then the "thinking what we like" can continue!
But this is what I do not get (with, admittedly, my limited brain power).
As Mercx Index also pointed out above, Froome did record a Salbutamol level above the permitted level. Is this not the definition of an AAF? How can they say there is none?
The only solution I see is that Froome and his camp have succesfully argued, that there are uncertainties regarding the measuring method or otherwise put doubt into the measuring method in which case we have a much bigger problem with respect to believing any kind of anti-doping effort from Wada.
But unless they have gotten Wada to completely abandon their Salbutamol measuring method or pointed out uncertainties in the method which could bring Froome's levels in the test below the limit, there still would exist an AAF, right? Regardless of whether Wada and UCI feel confident in doing anything about this or not.
 
Jan 11, 2018
130
0
0
Well here we are then. People are claiming a fix, or that the decision completely exonerates Froome, or that we haven't been told why the UCI dropped the case. But it isn't, it doesn't, and we have been, in simple terms at least.

Really all that's happened is that WADA were either unprepared, unable or lacked the financial resources to stand up for the veracity and integrity of their own testing and rules. Froome's legal team was able to cast enough doubt on the accuracy of the testing in recording salbutamol concentrations in the blood, and to argue at least the possibility, however slim, that he could produce the result he did whilst staying within the permissible dosage, to the extent that WADA determined that it simply wasn't worth the money and effort required to defend their position. Not a fix in itself (however, caveat below), but a lack of will, be that due to political, scientific or financial reasons, or a combination of them all, to fight out the case.

Does that make Froome 'innocent'? Yes, strictly speaking. But the fact is he did have a high, adverse reading, well above the threshold, even accounting for the dehydration effect. This remains unexplained, at least in public. Froome was not able to reproduce the result in controlled testing, indeed failed/refused to even try. By the strict letter of the rules as in place at the time, Froome broke them. But now he's gone one better and literally broken them. For essentially the rule, not the result, was argued to be faulty, and WADA caved in to this. All we're left with is that the salbutamol testing is perhaps incorrect, and Froome's result was perhaps possible within the permissible dosage, and perhaps he really did only take so much, but perhaps he didn't. He simply hasn't proved either way - all that's happened is he's argued that higher readings might be possible than WADA previously thought, and this has been accepted. Whatever they now say, WADA's sal test is now officially worthless, and will remain as such until they change it.

The fix caveat? Why did that new dehydration calibration come in at such a convenient time for Froome? (whereas I think the Dutch study was obviously at least partly financed by Froome/Sky) Why did WADA fold here, when it hasn't with others - was it really just financial concerns? Why is the UCI so keen to now wipe this under the carpet - 'let's look forward to the racing ahead' - having previously made a show of really trying to press the case up 'til now? That's all a little sus to me - I feel there's at least some body of opinion/influence in the UCI/WADA that simply wanted to make this go away, or at least give up on it when it became 'safe' to do so. And why do these things always happen on the eve of the Tour? Smacks of media management/circus.
 
Mamil said:
Well here we are then. People are claiming a fix, or that the decision completely exonerates Froome, or that we haven't been told why the UCI dropped the case. But it isn't, it doesn't, and we have been, in simple terms at least.

Really all that's happened is that WADA were either unprepared, unable or lacked the financial resources to stand up for the veracity and integrity of their own testing and rules. Froome's legal team was able to cast enough doubt on the accuracy of the testing in recording salbutamol concentrations in the blood, and to argue at least the possibility, however slim, that he could produce the result he did whilst staying within the permissible dosage, to the extent that WADA determined that it simply wasn't worth the money and effort required to defend their position. Not a fix in itself (however, caveat below), but a lack of will, be that due to political, scientific or financial reasons, or a combination of them all, to fight out the case.

Does that make Froome 'innocent'? Yes, strictly speaking. But the fact is he did have a high, adverse reading, well above the threshold, even accounting for the dehydration effect. This remains unexplained, at least in public. Froome was not able to reproduce the result in controlled testing, indeed failed/refused to even try. By the strict letter of the rules as in place at the time, Froome broke them. But now he's gone one better and literally broken them. For essentially the rule, not the result, was argued to be faulty, and WADA caved in to this. All we're left with is that the salbutamol testing is perhaps incorrect, and Froome's result was perhaps possible within the permissible dosage, and perhaps he really did only take so much, but perhaps he didn't. He simply hasn't proved either way - all that's happened is he's argued that higher readings might be possible than WADA previously thought, and this has been accepted. Whatever they now say, WADA's sal test is now officially worthless, and will remain as such until they change it.

The fix caveat? Why did that new dehydration calibration come in at such a convenient time for Froome? (whereas I think the Dutch study was obviously at least partly financed by Froome/Sky) Why did WADA fold here, when it hasn't with others - was it really just financial concerns? Why is the UCI so keen to now wipe this under the carpet - 'let's look forward to the racing ahead' - having previously made a show of really trying to press the case up 'til now? That's all a little sus to me - I feel there's at least some body of opinion/influence in the UCI/WADA that simply wanted to make this go away, or at least give up on it when it became 'safe' to do so. And why do these things always happen on the eve of the Tour? Smacks of media management/circus.
This is indeed potentially what has happened. I find it also pretty likely, but we still don't know the details.

What goes beyond my understanding if the above is the case is... all the atheletes needs to sign up to WADA code and rules. Thus Froome has committed to obey the written rules as they are. And to my understanding, in the case of AAF, the purden of proof it didn't happen is on the Athlete, not on WADA/UCI. So why did WADA bend over so easily to something that the athelete has signed up for, and where the athelete has the purden of proof it didn't happen instead of WADA that it happened. It seems bit odd. But again, we need to know the actual details before we can make any other judgements than personal opinion.
 
Re: Re:

ahsoe said:
wrinklyvet said:
wrinklyvet said:
rata de sentina said:
wrinklyvet said:
they walk away innocent, not on the basis of "guilty, just not punished."
Just a point of order. Typically in legal proceedings the verdict is "not guilty". Innocence is one interpretation of such a verdict. In this case Froome has not been found "not guilty"; in fact what has occurred is that the prosecuting authority (UCI) has assessed the evidence and concluded not to proceed. The case doesn't seem to have progressed to the tribunal stage.

None of this precludes individuals from holding personal opinions regarding Froome's guilt or otherwise.
I'll go with that. I only counter the "guilty but not punished angle" so far as the outcome was concerned. You explain it well. As someone who should know better I regretted the use of the "innocent" word in the context of my post when I looked at it later. Yes, people can certainly have their own opinion - and they do!
You have got me thinking again. After this effort I will go and sit on the beach for a while! Given that WADA concluded there was no AAF after all, that points to there having been no case to answer. That's a bit like investigating a crime and then discovering that there hadn't been one after all, rather than not being able to prove who did it.

That's the very thing that is upsetting those who wanted Froome to swing. They find it hard to swallow, But it's not unreasonable if there was no AAF to refer to being innocent on this occasion and not just "not guilty." - - and then the "thinking what we like" can continue!
But this is what I do not get (with, admittedly, my limited brain power).
As Mercx Index also pointed out above, Froome did record a Salbutamol level above the permitted level. Is this not the definition of an AAF? How can they say there is none?
The only solution I see is that Froome and his camp have succesfully argued, that there are uncertainties regarding the measuring method or otherwise put doubt into the measuring method in which case we have a much bigger problem with respect to believing any kind of anti-doping effort from Wada.
But unless they have gotten Wada to completely abandon their Salbutamol measuring method or pointed out uncertainties in the method which could bring Froome's levels in the test below the limit, there still would exist an AAF, right? Regardless of whether Wada and UCI feel confident in doing anything about this or not.
I really am going to the beach now. However, as badly translated from the Italian, La Gazetta said, "Wada, which supported the UCI with its scientific advice in a complicated procedure, is defeated by a trial that, in the event of condemnation of Froome, would have exposed the agency itself to millionaire claims (the only value costs of consultants is almost ten million euros). Too confusing the rules (which the Wada itself had written) on salbutamol, a simple antiasthmatic that is allowed, without a prescription and without further examination on the athlete, up to the threshold of 1000 nanograms / milliliter (raised over the years). Too many gray areas in the rules, which will now have to be rewritten. And this will greatly help the work of the judge who presided over the UCI Anti-Doping Court, the German Ulrich Haas, who is one of the fathers of the Wada World Code."

So it was in their opinion partly the financial risk of proceeding but also a recognition that the rules as written were unenforceable against someone with the right arguments and resources. And Ulrich Haas now has a job to do, to rewrite the rules. In the Gazetta article there was also an explanation that it had come down to a 19% apparent excess in the urine sample and that this was possible without exceeding the permitted dose. In the light of all of this they could only chuck it out. No AAF.
 
He had an inexplicable dose of salbutamol in his body. He failed to proof that his body can miraculously produce these levels by just taking a few puffs. The only acceptable decision would have been to ban and disqualify him. WADA and UCI aren't following their own rules. It's class justice.
 
Aug 18, 2016
312
1
3,285
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
wrinklyvet said:
Craigee said:
wrinklyvet said:
Pantani_lives said:
It makes me sick that the trolls on this website have got what they want. They can now go back from "They're all doing it" to "Our guy is innocent!" The UCI has become a Stalinist organization that says, "You will be protected, you won't." The "scientific" explanation is utter bollocks, corrupt nonsense. WADA has excluded innocent Russians from the Olympics just for being Russian. Now they are openly protecting the biggest cheater of the current decade. The corruption goes all the way to the top.
On just one point of accuracy, I think you will find that was the International Olympic Committee, which did that.
On whose recommendation?
I believe a WADA report came first and then an IOC investigation but the action was taken by IOC. It's probably off topic here. Not sure why I even commented.
Totally agree, if you're living by the scientific sword in the clinic to assume a rider will be guilty by WADA science based on 1% knowledge of the case, you can't then ignore what you've proclaimed and WADA concluded by switching the narrative from guilty by science to a claim WADA, UCI & Sky must be collectively corrupt because I just proved Froome is guilty on that 1% knowledge I have and the 99% doesn't matter that WADA also used. Nobody was getting excited here claiming Froome will be acquitted and WADA is corrupt. Now he is, all of a sudden none of their science applies anymore, therefore there must be corruption.

It's like looking at the horizon all around you. The earth is flat when you can clearly see the horizon just stops, you can see it and it explains everything. What's happening in the clinic is you've all walked to end of the horizon with your 1% knowledge of Froomes case, only to realise there's more than you could see originally. The clinic is now at the point where some have followed the horizon so far without conclusion, you've come back to where you started the journey and refuse to accept the World is round from what I can tell.

By all means bring up all the evidence and conspiracy in the clinic here from the previous 1600 pages saying WADA is corrupt though and paid off by UCI/Froome/Sky/British Government to null his Salbutomol AAF that could have been easily swept under the carpet silently simply by deleting an email off a mail server.
Sammy, We all get through our lives making decisions based on our instincts. Every action we take in our lives like choosing a life partner, choosing the right job, whether to have kids, how many kids, how big a mortgage we go for. Where we live, What sport we choose if any to participate in. All on instinct.

One thing we all know is not to trust any organisation let alone a sporting one and this is based on human instinct and sorry to tell you this Sammy Boy but my instinct like many others tells me your boy Froomey is a crook and so too is your team Sky.

Not to mention that most of us here contribute in some way to Froomey's income as stupid cycling fans hoping that cycling will one day at least try and stop being the clear undisputed world champions at doping and the corruption that inevitably comes with it. Don't you dare attempt to take away or belittle my right to use my instinct. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and anyone who supports a cheat is a cheat.

You are the one saying that the earth is flat. You are going against all common sense and human instinct because you are a blind blinkered fan.
 
Aug 18, 2016
312
1
3,285
Re:

Pantani_lives said:
He had an inexplicable dose of salbutamol in his body. He failed to proof that his body can miraculously produce these levels by just taking a few puffs. The only acceptable decision would have been to ban and disqualify him. WADA and UCI aren't following their own rules. It's class justice.

100% correct. There is no way to explain the massive overdose that can get one off the charges. He's guilty and we all know it. Even Wrinklyvet knows it.

WADA and the UCI owed it to everyone to charge Froome even if there was a chance that he might beat them. You can't not charge an athlete because they have a chance of beating you. Other wise no one would ever be charged. There's much more to it than Wrinklyvet's weak argument and it's all behind closed doors which is a dead give away that it's corrupt.
 
Re: Re:

Craigee said:
Sammy, We all get through our lives making decisions based on our instincts. Every action we take in our lives like choosing a life partner, choosing the right job, whether to have kids, how many kids, how big a mortgage we go for. Where we live, What sport we choose if any to participate in. All on instinct.

One thing we all know is not to trust any organisation let alone a sporting one and this is based on human instinct and sorry to tell you this Sammy Boy but my instinct like many others tells me your boy Froomey is a crook and so too is your team Sky.

Not to mention that most of us here contribute in some way to Froomey's income as stupid cycling fans hoping that cycling will one day at least try and stop being the clear undisputed world champions at doping and the corruption that inevitably comes with it. Don't you dare attempt to take away or belittle my right to use my instinct. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and anyone who supports a cheat is a cheat.

You are the one saying that the earth is flat. You are going against all common sense and human instinct because you are a blind blinkered fan.
If 'instinct' was so reliable how come the last 1600 pages didn't see this coming or even discuss the possibility it might huh? Everyone was happy to not believe in instinct and follow science until yesterday lol!
 
I think we should remember that on the day of all these critical physiological issues all conflating (what are the chances), is also the day he whapped Nibali into submission and won the Vuelta (what are the chances)...froome...he really is one in a trillion :D
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
The Cycling Podcast also saying Froome decision is due before Tour. They didn't discuss the verdict though.
What was that rumour they had a few weeks ago from a Het Nosebleed hack which, when someone looked into it, turned out to be an opinion piece?

These guys have a track record almost as good as some of the regulars round here. Keep saying things and every now and then they get lucky...
Obviously Cycling Podcast & Especially Cycling Tips calling the correct verdict just got lucky : )
 
Re:

Summoned said:
OK, just to look at this a different way, presumably there was a doping control that yielded a result with a salbutamol reading that exceeded acceptable parameters? Is anyone disputing this? If not, then what has been announced is that that reading can be produced by a rider who did not violate doping rules, correct? Thus, we have WADA saying there was no violation? Which is all well and good, but couldn't such a reading also be arrived as a consequence of someone exceeding the permissible amount of salbutamol? On what basis was a determination made that for Froome it was a result of one and not the other? I understand that the possibility may have been introduced and accepted, but why was that possibility given more weight in making a decision than the alternative? Did Froome and/or his representation provide any evidence to document his usage of salbutamol on the day of the control in question, or for any other day?

These may be fruitless questions at this point, but I am unclear as to the basis upon which this decision has been reached.
I think we have to presume that Froome has proof he took the extra puffs (the press conference puffs)...presumably by the UCI chaperone...otherwise he's just been caught, he said he didn't do it and they've closed the case......
 
Jan 11, 2018
130
0
0
gillan1969 said:
I think we should remember that on the day of all these critical physiological issues all conflating (what are the chances), is also the day he whapped Nibali into submission and won the Vuelta (what are the chances)...froome...he really is one in a trillion :D
This is important. No need to over-egg it with all the other la-la arguments around malfunctioning kidneys and what-not, merely the fact that Froome claims increased asthma on that day, necessitating more puffs, yet this was the same day in which he took time from all his main rivals, deep in the third week of his second consecutive GT, after having by his standards a bad day the day before, simply rings hollow.

Froome and Sky have over the years normalised winning whilst (supposedly) sick, or having increased symptoms. It's garbage. These guys are all elite athletes with small margins between finishing 1st or 50th - if one guy is even 1-2% off, he should be getting beaten, simple as. No legal med should be able to make up the difference. Time and again we see other riders get sick and really suffer and fall away - Pinot is only the most recent and rather dramatic example - but never Froome. He gets increased asthma symptoms, or a chest infection, and just carries on, or in the case of the Vuelta, he even takes more time. How? It simply beggars belief.

So Froome's argument for his few extra puffs I simply don't believe, given the circumstances. What the truth really is I have no idea, but it's not that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY