Re: Re:
What he failed for?
If you cannot recreate the concentration you can get off?
I don't understand. It is still in your system.
On another note it is interesting the talks about the other cases that we don't know about but probably get off. Since we don't know and they get off we don't have that data. I wonder if they will make it public (the numbers only). Especially for cycling.
So?rick james said:Escarabajo said:Nice information and explanation. But I don't care. He still failed that test whether it was an anomaly or not. He should have been punished regardless.bigcog said: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” ....”
So with this in mind if a lesser rider fails the test under similar circumstances and don't have the money to pay the scientific defense to reach the same conclusion then he is doomed? why are the rules there for?
whats the f*cking point!!!
he never failed because he took too many puffs....
What he failed for?
If you cannot recreate the concentration you can get off?
I don't understand. It is still in your system.
On another note it is interesting the talks about the other cases that we don't know about but probably get off. Since we don't know and they get off we don't have that data. I wonder if they will make it public (the numbers only). Especially for cycling.