Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[rick james]

Re:

Complete farce of a sport.

no one forces you to watch

 

[Robert5091]

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/

After the evidentiary phase, Mr Froome requested additional information from WADA about the salbutamol regime. Following receipt of information from WADA, Mr Froome then filed his explanation for the abnormal result on 4 June 2018, together with significant additional expert evidence.

So the lawyers asked for the procedure details, rules etc and went looking for loopholes, which Dawg rode right through. Chapeau!

 

[postmanhat]

If this hadn't been leaked, is this the first we'd have been hearing about the case?

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

If this hadn't been leaked, is this the first we'd have been hearing about the case?

If it hadn't been leaked I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have heard about it at all now this is the decision.

 

[wirral]

Re:

If this hadn't been leaked, is this the first we'd have been hearing about the case?

I think if it hadn't been leaked, then we would never have heard anything. WADA withdrew support for the case. UCI had no choice but to close proceedings.

In addition, we will probably never know how Mike Morgan got WADA to withdraw support for prosecuting the AAF.

 

[MartinGT]

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

 

[postmanhat]

Re: Re:

If this hadn't been leaked, is this the first we'd have been hearing about the case?

If it hadn't been leaked I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have heard about it at all now this is the decision.

Cheers. I wonder if the leaker will have any regrets as Froome is verbally, and possibly physically abused for the next three weeks

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

That's something we'll probably never know but I would really like to. A pure guess would be a combination of specific gravity correction and maybe standard error in testing making it much less cut and dry than the headline number suggests. That's assuming it is above board.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

Presumably because there was evidence presented that showed they've f'ed up somewhere along the line, and they couldn't defend or refute it...

Or maybe Sky paid them billions of Ugandan dollars....if that suits your own personal agenda.

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

Presumably because there was evidence presented that showed they've f'ed up somewhere along the line, and they couldn't defend or refute it...

Or maybe Sky paid them billions of Ugandan dollars....if that suits your own personal agenda.

:lol:

It's all very messy.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

If this hadn't been leaked, is this the first we'd have been hearing about the case?

If it hadn't been leaked I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have heard about it at all now this is the decision.

Cheers. I wonder if the leaker will have any regrets as Froome is verbally, and possibly physically abused for the next three weeks

I think the leaker/whistleblower can't be blamed for the actions of idiots, although they may blame themselves if something does happen. What this case has done is highlight that the rules covering such cases need re-writing, putting the onus on the rider/team to sort it out quickly. Something along the lines of having 3 months to do the pharmacokinetic study and if that doesn't work the procedure is the same as any other doping case and you are provisionally suspended until it is resolved. This would be a good topic for a thread.

 

[spalco]

Apparently froome's theory of the aaf is that it's not possible to draw direct conclusions about the amount of salbutamol ingested from urine tests.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Apparently froome's theory of the aaf is that it's not possible to draw direct conclusions about the amount of salbutamol ingested from urine tests.

Source? Lets not call it Froome's theory either, he's not been reading papers and studying data.

 

[postmanhat]

Re:

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

Quote from Dave Braisford:

“Chris’s elevated Salbutamol urine reading from Stage 18 of the Vuelta was treated as a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) by the UCI and WADA, which triggered a requirement for us to provide further information. After a comprehensive review of that information, relevant data and scientific research, the UCI and WADA have concluded that there was, in fact, no AAF and that no rule has been broken.

“We said at the outset that there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol. This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled. A review of all Chris’s 21 test results from the Vuelta revealed that the Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation and therefore consistent with him having taken a permitted dose of Salbutamol."

Hopefully, WADA will present a more detailed explanation soon

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

Presumably because there was evidence presented that showed they've f'ed up somewhere along the line, and they couldn't defend or refute it...

Or maybe Sky paid them billions of Ugandan dollars....if that suits your own personal agenda.

He was only 20% over when dehydration was taken into account, that plus being able to prove that he didn't exceed the allowed number of puffs per 24 hours would probably be enough for WADA to rule in his favour.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

Presumably because there was evidence presented that showed they've f'ed up somewhere along the line, and they couldn't defend or refute it...

Or maybe Sky paid them billions of Ugandan dollars....if that suits your own personal agenda.

I think it all comes back to it being leaked. For WADA to not even support the AAF itself suggests Froome either didn't actually AAF as leaked at the level reported, or he explained it and the rules adhered to.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

Quote from Dave Braisford:

“Chris’s elevated Salbutamol urine reading from Stage 18 of the Vuelta was treated as a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) by the UCI and WADA, which triggered a requirement for us to provide further information. After a comprehensive review of that information, relevant data and scientific research, the UCI and WADA have concluded that there was, in fact, no AAF and that no rule has been broken.

“We said at the outset that there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol. This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled. A review of all Chris’s 21 test results from the Vuelta revealed that the Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation and therefore consistent with him having taken a permitted dose of Salbutamol."

Hopefully, WADA will present a more detailed explanation soon

Hopefully, because that wrong assumption right there is glaringly obvious.

 

[biker jk]

Re:

Apparently froome's theory of the aaf is that it's not possible to draw direct conclusions about the amount of salbutamol ingested from urine tests.

Yes, WADA essentially confirmed their test for Salbutamol is meaningless.

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

Re:

Why did WADA Withdraw support?

lagazzetta claim that they couldn't afford to defend their own rules if challenged. or, at least that's my attempt to put google translate into English.

https://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/02-07-2018/clamoroso-caso-salbutamolo-froome-assolto-la-wada-non-sanzionabile-280279069272.shtml?refresh_ce-cp

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

Apparently froome's theory of the aaf is that it's not possible to draw direct conclusions about the amount of salbutamol ingested from urine tests.

Source? Lets not call it Froome's theory either, he's not been reading papers and studying data.

It's what I gathered from the BBC article about this topic.

 

[Pantani Attacks]

https://twitter.com/NielsPluijmen/status/1013730206996160512

 

[shakey88]

Re:

This is it. They can now do just about everything they want it seems. Sky got caught and nothing happened. Expect them to break all the records in the following month, laughing at the public while finishing 1-2-3 on a couple of stages. What a shame for cycling... when you have proof of cheating and you still not do anything...

Great! Bring it on! :lol:

 

[rick james]

Re:

https://twitter.com/NielsPluijmen/status/1013730206996160512

yes. a stunning win by Froomedawg..add it to the list of wins

 

[Cycle Chic]

Re:

Complete farce of a sport.

I AGREE - after the farce of the Giro and now Froome escaping a ban , its nolonger a pleasure to watch pro cycling. I havent watched any races on tv since the Giro, and dont think i can stomach the Tour.

I may watch if I feel like a good laugh one day.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Prudy again all but ruling out whacking Froome with the disrepute stick (and all but admitting why):

Legally, he can [start]

Interestingly, while still passing the blame back to the UCI he's now making it clear that it is not the fault of ASO's man in Aigle, Lappy:

"It's terrible that the sporting authorities have not managed to solve this problem before the start of the world's biggest race. I won't say anything more but of course, rules have to be modified.

"An abnormal control doesn't mean anything to a large public. It has to be black or white, positive or negative."

Prudhomme, once a journalist, would not blame the situation on the UCI's president, David Lappartient, who took over the position from Brian Cookson last autumn.

"He has already changed a lot of things but he couldn't change everything", Prudhomme said.

Time, I think, for Cooky to defend his tarnished reputation...

(A part of me does wish ASO did play the disrepute card. Just to see the looks on faces when CAS laughed it out of court.)

Your wish came true it seems..

Only if we get to Wednesday and a decision, clarity of what we've been discussing for the last four months.

Buggeration take the nation. Prudhomme has just told Reuters that the disrepute case is dropped. We'll have no clarity on it. This is like cancelling Lost right before the final episode: you can live without seeing it, might even be happier not seeing it, but some morbid fascination makes you want to be there for it.

For ASO, I'd call this a moral victory. They get to look like they tried. No one will remember that they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning at French CAS, all that will be remembered is they tried.