Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1301 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
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 : )
Good spot Sam! :cool:
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
A very sad moment for anti-doping indeed. Just as in some RL cases, dangers of bankruptcy coming from litigation by someone with lots more money leads to a legitimate case being dropped.

We will remember this moment as 1/ showing that WADA has no teeth, and the UCI as well 2/ legitimising the "medecine bag" approach to performance enhancing, all riders will probably be asthmatic from an official stand point from now on.

I am just sad, really sad. Anti doping in cycling had had its ups and downs, this is a major down. An utter defeat.
 
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.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
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.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
Well... actually you don't know whether he did or not.

The details are not there to be judged whether they managed to explain anything or did they just point out to measurement errors that will be dealt in court for the next 2-3 years. Or something else. Actually none of us knows jack *** about why exactly it was whitdrawn.
 
Sep 11, 2016
122
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
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.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
Do we know that?

Did he manage to recreate the conditions and medicine levels to show that the levels could be acchieved with a legal amount of medicine?

Did he question the validity of the tests?

Did he complicate the issue with science papers and documents en masse?

Did he and his lawyers find a legal loophole in the current rules?

We simply do not know without more information on the case. All we know is that WADA and UCI are not further pursuing the issue, and hence there is no case on Froome anymore.
 
Sep 11, 2016
122
0
0
Re: Re:

bambino said:
brownbobby said:
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.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
Well... actually you don't know whether he did or not.

The details are not there to be judged whether they managed to explain anything or did they just point out to measurement errors that will be dealt in court for the next 2-3 years. Or something else. Actually none of us knows jack **** about why exactly it was whitdrawn.
You beat me to it. Exactly my point :)
 
Uci has signed up to follow the wada rules. Uci leaks the aaf. Wada changes the rules. Still not enough. Wada deletes the sal rule. Uci and aso tried to ban CF but Wada/Sky overruled them.
 
The irony is that Haas who was involved in the WADA Code, who then presided over the UCI Tribunal, effectively had the Froome case thrown out by WADA because they were concerned their rules wouldn't stand up to scrutiny - So my guess is Haas may receive more money to rewrite his section of the WADA Code - Nice earner if you can get it - The more important thing is this decision gives athletes and their associations to take on the weaknesses of the WADA Code.
 
This "Measurement Uncertainty" document might well get beaten to death and reach ridiculous levels before things get better. It seems a God send for lawyers and riders willing to "push the envelope".
 
Brits are turning out as difficult as the Americans when they had Lance riding.

What's not to understand?

I know most of the riders dope, blah, blah, blah, and Froome is not the only one blah, blah, blah. That's not the point. There are some rules and we have to follow them. There is an evidence that rules have been broken. Don't care how. Somebody has to pay. Riders in the past have already paid for this for lesser amounts. What is different between Froome and the other riders?
There are things in life like accidents that I cannot explain but it happens. There is evidence and you have to abide by it. Technology in the future will help us come to terms with better explanations. But TODAY, the rules were broken whether they are well explained or not I don't care!!!!
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
This "Measurement Uncertainty" document might well get beaten to death and reach ridiculous levels before things get better. It seems a God send for lawyers and riders willing to "push the envelope".
Exactly and then throw in 8000 pages :cool:

According to today's Gazzetta Sky's dossier sent to WADA was above 8000 pages. WADA accepted it and probably wanted to avoid to be sued for damages by Sky in future. UCI is described as irritated for WADA decision but they cannot do nothing as it's WADA writing antidoping rules
 
Re: Re:

ahsoe said:
bambino said:
brownbobby said:
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.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
Well... actually you don't know whether he did or not.

The details are not there to be judged whether they managed to explain anything or did they just point out to measurement errors that will be dealt in court for the next 2-3 years. Or something else. Actually none of us knows jack **** about why exactly it was whitdrawn.
You beat me to it. Exactly my point :)
Oh i see, this thing only works one way...we can happily jump to conclusions about bribes, pay offs and cover ups...but we cant suggest that the reason the case was dropped was because he explained the readings to the satisfaction of the people that matter. Ive got it :cool:
 
Re:

Escarabajo said:
Brits are turning out as difficult as the Americans when they had Lance riding.

What's not to understand?

I know most of the riders dope, blah, blah, blah, and Froome is not the only one blah, blah, blah. That's not the point. There are some rules and we have to follow them. There is an evidence that rules have been broken. Don't care how. Somebody has to pay. Riders in the past have already paid for this for lesser amounts. What is different between Froome and the other riders?
There are things in life like accidents that I cannot explain but it happens. There is evidence and you have to abide by it. Technology in the future will help us come to terms with better explanations. But TODAY, the rules were broken whether they are well explained or not I don't care!!!!
Just imagine what would have happened if Operation Puerto was investigated and prosecuted the way it should have been. Who is judging the judges ? The sport needs more whistleblowers but it seems that even anti doping experts were confused by this decision so little wonder the fans are totally bemused in light of what has happened to riders in similar circumstances in the past.
 
From another forum:

From Matt Slater.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has strongly denied that the decision to clear Chris Froome of cheating has left its policy on the asthma drug salbutamol in shreds.
Speaking to Press Association Sport, WADA’s science director Dr Oliver Rabin said the case was “not unique” and he did not believe it would lead to a wave of appeals from athletes who have been banned in the past.
Earlier on Monday, cycling’s governing body the UCI announced it was not proceeding with an anti-doping case against Froome despite the Team Sky star returning a urine sample at last year’s Vuelta a Espana that contained double the permitted amount of salbutamol.
Having always maintained his innocence, the four-time Tour de France champion welcomed the news but many pundits have questioned how WADA’s rules on salbutamol, and other so-called “threshold drugs”, can survive.
Asked what impact he thought the case would have, Dr Rabin said: “I may be about to disappoint you, but I do not believe it will have much at all.”
Salbutamol is classed as a ‘specified’ drug by WADA, which means it is allowed for therapeutic reasons up to a certain dosage. This is because there is no performance-enhancing effect for asthmatics taking normal amounts of the drug via an inhaler.
For salbutamol, the limit is 1,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml) and that has been set so the majority of people, taking no more than 1,600 micrograms a day, or 16 puffs on an adult inhaler, would not fail the test.
The word “majority” is crucial as Dr Rabin acknowledges WADA “is well aware of salbutamol’s variability” – in other words, not everyone processes it in the same way and some process it differently some of the time.
“That is why an adverse finding only opens the door to further study – it’s not an automatic sanction,” he said.
Froome’s sample contained 2,000 ng/ml of salbutamol, double the limit, although that was then corrected to 1,400 ng/ml when his dehydration was factored in. Having returned that finding, the onus was on him to explain how it happened without taking more than the permitted dose.
The British star, as we now know, has been able to satisfy the UCI and WADA that the one adverse sample he returned during that race, when he was tested almost every day, was an anomaly and not a result of taking too many puffs or taking the drug orally or intravenously.
This last point is significant as WADA does ban higher dosages of salbutamol taken via those methods, as there is evidence it acts as a stimulant and a muscle-building agent.
The problem for WADA, Dr Rabin explained, is that even when you inhale salbutamol 60-70 per cent of it goes into the gastrointestinal tract, as it would if you took it as a pill. This is why WADA’s advice is not to get too close to the dosage limit as doing so would suggest your asthma is out of control and you run the risk of an adverse finding.
“In this case, we had several specific elements,” said Dr Rabin.
“First, there was a very significant increase in dosage in the preceding days (Froome increased his normal low dosage to a higher but still legal number of puffs to combat worsening symptoms). Second, he was being treated for an infection.
“And then there was the physiological impact of the event and other factors, such as dietary supplements and so on.
“Given all of this, we decided an excretion study was impossible and the finding was not inconsistent with therapeutic dosages.”
The reference to excretion study relates to WADA’s usual requirement in these cases that the athlete replicates what happened in a laboratory.
Asked why anyone else in Froome’s position will not use the same arguments, Dr Rabin said people were underestimating how many of these cases occur every year without anyone knowing about them, as was meant to happen in this case, too.
“It’s not a unique case but because it was Froome, a sporting celebrity, and it was put in the limelight, it appears to be unique,” he said.
“We deal with all cases on an individual basis and I have personally dealt with several in the past. Yes, there are elements of this case that are fairly unusual but I can assure you it is not unique.”
Stressing that the rules are “for everyone”, Dr Rabin said that WADA would send the details of the case to its experts for review, as it does after every significant case.
“But for now, we have no reason to question the rules,” he said.
And on whether WADA should prepare itself for appeals, he said: “That is more of a legal issue than a science question but, again, each case is different and we can see no reason that previous cases have not been handled fairly.”
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
ahsoe said:
bambino said:
brownbobby said:
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.
An inexplicable dose that he managed to errr....explain :confused:
Well... actually you don't know whether he did or not.

The details are not there to be judged whether they managed to explain anything or did they just point out to measurement errors that will be dealt in court for the next 2-3 years. Or something else. Actually none of us knows jack **** about why exactly it was whitdrawn.
You beat me to it. Exactly my point :)
Oh i see, this thing only works one way...we can happily jump to conclusions about bribes, pay offs and cover ups...but we cant suggest that the reason the case was dropped was because he explained the readings to the satisfaction of the people that matter. Ive got it :cool:
Be careful who you respond to. I haven't said once to know the reason of the whitdraw, because I do not know. Neither should you. I know some people are, but the fact is they don't know. Neither do you.
 
Saw that on Matt Slater’s Twitter / Facebook.

What WADA need to do is release the data because at the moment it’s still clear as mud how they came to bend their own rules in the manner in which they did along with not holding th PKG test.
 
thehog said:
Saw that on Matt Slater’s Twitter / Facebook.

What WADA need to do is release the data because at the moment it’s still clear as mud how they came to bend their own rules in the manner in which they did along with not holding th PKG test.
Yeah, and there still seems to be lots of assumptions/taking his word for it. Things like increasing the dose in the days before, how do they know how much he took. Surely they didn't ask a man who has had a team of lawyers and scientists determining his best defence how much medication he took and accepted his answer without verification? Which dietary supplements interfere with salbutamol metabolism and did they prove he was taking them?
 
thehog said:
Saw that on Matt Slater’s Twitter / Facebook.

What WADA need to do is release the data because at the moment it’s still clear as mud how they came to bend their own rules in the manner in which they did along with not holding th PKG test.
We don't know that and the inference is they have a lot of such cases, so people are treating a sample of 1 (or 3 if you include Ulissi/Petacchi) as indicative and predictive of how they proceed with such cases.
 
bigcog said:
thehog said:
Saw that on Matt Slater’s Twitter / Facebook.

What WADA need to do is release the data because at the moment it’s still clear as mud how they came to bend their own rules in the manner in which they did along with not holding th PKG test.
We don't know that and the inference is they have a lot of such cases, so people are treating a sample of 1 (or 3 if you include Ulissi/Petacchi) as indicative and predictive of how they proceed with such cases.
Huh? WADA stated they didn’t hold the PKG test. We do not know that much but we are unsure why they decided not to conduct the test other than Froome wouldn’t be able to replicate his illness and exact conditions of the stage (??). Release the remaining data then we will know more. Nothing to do with Ulissi or Petacchi.
 
King Boonen said:
thehog said:
Saw that on Matt Slater’s Twitter / Facebook.

What WADA need to do is release the data because at the moment it’s still clear as mud how they came to bend their own rules in the manner in which they did along with not holding th PKG test.
Yeah, and there still seems to be lots of assumptions/taking his word for it. Things like increasing the dose in the days before, how do they know how much he took. Surely they didn't ask a man who has had a team of lawyers and scientists determining his best defence how much medication he took and accepted his answer without verification? Which dietary supplements interfere with salbutamol metabolism and did they prove he was taking them?
And this is why I'm getting puzzled.

This decision suggest that in case you can "explain" spesific conditions, the liability of Athlete to proove he/she didn't use prohibited way to administrate or didn't take too much seems to be gone. The medication for infection can be prooved I guess, but supplements - fo they track the usage with documentation?
 
Aug 20, 2017
1,397
0
0
It should be repeated, Mr Rabin, WADA:
...
Asked why anyone else in Froome’s position will not use the same arguments, Dr Rabin said people were underestimating how many of these cases occur every year without anyone knowing about them, as was meant to happen in this case, too.
“It’s not a unique case but because it was Froome, a sporting celebrity, and it was put in the limelight, it appears to be unique,” he said.
“We deal with all cases on an individual basis and I have personally dealt with several in the past. Yes, there are elements of this case that are fairly unusual but I can assure you it is not unique.”
 
Its like tax when it comes down to it, isn't it?

Efficient, equitable, enforceable. Unfortunately, anti-doping is questionable in all three to one degree or another and it seems that the salbutomol rules have been found to be unfit for purpose once someone with enough resources comes along to challenge them.

Personally, I can see the merit in an argument that WADA/UCI use their resources developing the rules in the longer term into something that can work more quickly and reliably rather than focusing on one case although that doesn't mean I like the fact the Froome and Sky have probably got away with it.
 
Apr 16, 2017
212
3
2,035
I think the question definitely remains: was there any evidence presented by Froome and his representation to document that the conditions that they maintain led to the amount of salbutamol found in his control were actually at work? Also, are the conditions they claim prevailed the only way to get the result that led to the inquiry? If there was more than one possibility that could have produced that result, then what is the reasoning behind deciding that only the explanation provided by Froome was acceptable?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY