Cycling thread

Sounds seriously discriminatory to me - plus a gilt-edged opportunity for Sky's lawyers to sue ASO back to the pre-Cambrian era. In the face of that threat, I'd expect ASO to fold.
V similar thing happened with the boxer Tyson Fury's failing a drugs test - except he actually was bang to rights over nandrolone. Incompetence at the testing authority led to the case being unresolved for so long that he threatened legal action of the heavyweight kind, and they folded and reached a biscuit-arsed agreement to back-date his ban to time-served.

Sky certainly are disputing things and playing their part in dragging it all out, but they have to in this circumstance. It's not like a failed drugs test that they're trying to lawyer to death in the hope of exposing some failure of protocol, it's an AAF of a non-PED, from a urine sample with limited frame of reference / precedent as to what is acceptable. On the most tested rider in the world (probably). No way anyone would take that on the chin and just nod it through.

No I don't think they can do that; then they would have to be able to prove actual damage and a causal relation, quite hard to do since it's legally a grey area (a lot of discretionary competence) where they are operating in. They could do something like that to the UCI, one of the reasons why they are treading very carefully, besides their incompetence off course. If the appeal fails that's that for Froome. The only thing that could possibly help him in that event would be for the UCI to step in. I'm very sceptical about that since Lappartient is basically an ASO puppet. So if they mess up on Tuesday it's game over for him, Sky knows this and they have a plan B: G. Thomas. They've been preparing for this all a long and it would really surprise me if they didn't know the exclusion was coming, since ASO have been pressuring them to take their own measures (but they refused).

For this whole procedure it's irrelevant if the Salbutamol is actually a PED etc... That's not for them to decide.

I think he won't go, unless ASO botch up on Tuesday (let's say 60-40; not going - going). The whole thing is quite sad though, there are no winners. Imagine organisers having to take matters into their own hands because the association is completely useless.
 
No they won't be looking at them; their presence doesn't damage the image of the TdF since they are unknown to the wider audience.

They'll look at the Di Luca's, the Fuentes cases and indeed Boonen who they once (tried to) ban(ned). They'll look at those cases and then they'll decide if the measure is in proportion to the perceived damage that the TdF will suffer with Froome being present. With Froome being present, the Tour won't be about the mountains, TT's ... ; it will be about Froome's (perceived) doping and the resulting legal consequences. Not about a race, just another vaudeville.

The failing to resolve is for a large part Froome and Sky's fault tbf, he's been stalling the whole thing for ages. He wants to take a part of his probably suspension during off-season; they are (rightly) gambling on the incompetent UCI doping committee. Also apparently they've already offered him a settlement, but he refused ...

If they simply prove UCI's incompetence and Sky stalling the whole thing, then they'll be okay.

Ok, so because Froome has had his right to privacy breached, they're going to ban him from the race? That's utterly absurd and cowardly from the ASO. Oh, and lest we forget, the UCI are following WADA procedure, which the ASO are signed up to. They have to prove that the Tour will be damaged in a way that the Giro most definitely wasn't. Good luck with that with a week to go to the Depart. Hopefully they'll ban Virenque and Jalabert from working at the event as well, for consistency and all.
 


Chris-Froome-was-chased-by-two-people-dressed-as-surgeons-carrying-an-inhaler-965119.jpg
 
Froome cleared by Wada and the UCI of all charges

Statement as in Tommy's post above, printed here as cut and paste job, but scroll down after it for more

“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from Wada),” read the statement. “On 28 June 2018, Wada informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.

“In light of Wada’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on Wada’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome.

“Whilst the UCI would have obviously preferred the proceedings to have been finalised earlier in the season, it had to ensure that Mr Froome had a fair process, as it would have done with any other rider, and that the correct decision was issued. Having received Wada’s position on 28 June 2018, the UCI prepared and issued its formal reasoned decision as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

The UCI understands that there will be significant discussion of this decision, but wishes to reassure all those involved in or interested in cycling that its decision is based on expert opinions, WADA’s advice, and a full assessment of the facts of the case. The UCI hopes that the cycling world can now turn its focus to, and enjoy, the upcoming races on the cycling calendar."

After the UCI’s statement, Froome said: “I am very pleased that the UCI has exonerated me. While this decision is obviously a big deal for me and the team, it’s also an important moment for cycling. I understand the history of this great sport – good and bad. I have always taken my leadership position very seriously and I always do things the right way. I meant it when I said that I would never dishonour a winner’s jersey and that my results would stand the test of time.

“I have never doubted that this case would be dismissed for the simple reason that I have known throughout I did nothing wrong. I have suffered with asthma since childhood. I know exactly what the rules are regarding my asthma medication and I only ever use my puffer to manage my symptoms within the permissible limits. I appreciate more than anyone else the frustration at how long the case has taken to resolve and the uncertainty this has caused. I am glad it’s finally over.”

Team Sky’s team principal Dave Brailsford added: “We have always had total confidence in Chris and his integrity. We knew that he had followed the right medical guidance in managing his asthma at the Vuelta and were sure that he would be exonerated in the end, which he has been. This is why we decided that it was right for Chris to continue racing, in line with UCI rules, while the process was ongoing. We are pleased that it has now been resolved.”

Team Sky said Froome was only 19% over the limit - not double as had been reported - when the adverse test was adjusted to take account of dehydration.

They also claim 20 other tests conducted on Froome during his Vuelta a Espana win did not need any "further explanation".

Team Principal Sir Dave Brailsford said he always had total confidence in Froome's integrity and that he was looking forward to helping him challenge for a fifth Tour de France.

"The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol," Brailsford said.

"This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled.

"Chris has proved he is a great champion - not only on the bike but also by how he has conducted himself during this period.

"It has not been easy, but his professionalism, integrity and good grace under pressure have been exemplary and a credit to the sport.

"The greatest bike race in the world starts in five days. We can't wait to get racing again and help Chris win it for a record-equalling fifth time."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44679483
 
What a travesty.

Class justice at its best. The UCI now officially has 0 percent credibility, the sooner they burn the better. Throw 6 or 7 million € at it and problem solved. Congratulations to Mike Morgan though. Naturally WADA is being equally useful off course. No worries we get a 4 point WADA summary. Another brilliant case of transparency. Amongst a lot of other things they could have at least explained why there's a deviation from the strict liability principle. No evidence is released. Why did they suspend Ullisi for a lower value; he couldn't explain the higher value using a reconstruction but Froome never did a required pharmacokinetic study and that's okay. They don't know what they are doing.

Cycling shooting itself in the foot. Ah and the last sentence of the UCI press release, lets now all enjoy cycling and pretend that nothing happened. You utterly naive, incompetent idiots. The coming Tour will be 3500 km's of non-cycling related hell.
 
What a travesty.

Class justice at its best. The UCI now officially has 0 percent credibility, the sooner they burn the better. Throw 6 or 7 million € at it and problem solved. Congratulations to Mike Morgan though. Naturally WADA is being equally useful off course. No worries we get a 4 point WADA summary. Another brilliant case of transparency. Amongst a lot of other things they could have at least explained why there's a deviation from the strict liability principle. No evidence is released. Why did they suspend Ullisi for a lower value; he couldn't explain the higher value using a reconstruction but Froome never did a required pharmacokinetic study and that's okay. They don't know what they are doing.

Cycling shooting itself in the foot. Ah and the last sentence of the UCI press release, lets now all enjoy cycling and pretend that nothing happened. You utterly naive, incompetent idiots. The coming Tour will be 3500 km's of non-cycling related hell.
So you weren't that keen on the decision then Armel? :) Reckon ASO knew he was in the clear and thought they'd announce the ban anyway just to be French.

Honestly it was bollox from the start and the leak just made it untenable - urine levels of salbutamol after 2 weeks of pro-endurance riding in Spain in August? You'd be pissing crystals under those conditions. Far too much uncertainty to be laying down pass / fail thresholds, and then letting the result into the public domain is massively incompetent.

Said before I'm not personally a fan of Froome, no one is tbh, but he's been a mental colossus here - having this hanging over him and not only keeping his head together, but winning the Giro. Icy.
Wouldn't have said he would win the Tour as doubling up like that is massive as we all know, but now I'm not so sure - psychologically he will have the entire peloton in his back pocket.
 
It just seems the test isn't that reliable in the view of the experts and legally the charges wouldn't stand up.

In light of Wada’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime just a few key points stand out..

"A review of all 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.”

And Sky's lawyers will have pointed out

Froome was only 19% over the limit - not double as had been reported - when the adverse test was adjusted to take account of dehydration.

"The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol,"

Leaves them open to legal claims if the experts now agree the test is unreliable and can give such variation tbh.
 
Understandable and correct it should never have been leaked anyway and suspect that may lead to more legal action from Sky

More on Wada's position...


Wada said it would not appeal against the UCI's decision to drop the case and explained: "Based on careful consideration of the facts, the agency accepts that the analytical result of Mr Froome's sample from 7 September 2017 during the Vuelta a Espana, which identified the prohibited substance salbutamol at a concentration in excess of the decision limit, did not constitute an adverse analytical finding."

It reached this conclusion after considering a number factors including "a documented illness", the natural variation of salbutamol levels in Froome's other samples and that Froome took "a significant increase in dose" shortly before the test, as Team Sky claimed he had on the advice of the team doctor, without exceeding the maximum permitted dose.

Wada regulations allow athletes to take part in a pharmacokinetic study - a controlled test of how a drug works its way through the body - but it said this was not feasible in Froome's case as it would not have been possible to "adequately" recreate the conditions in which he took the test in question.
 
No they won't be looking at them; their presence doesn't damage the image of the TdF since they are unknown to the wider audience.

They'll look at the Di Luca's, the Fuentes cases and indeed Boonen who they once (tried to) ban(ned). They'll look at those cases and then they'll decide if the measure is in proportion to the perceived damage that the TdF will suffer with Froome being present. With Froome being present, the Tour won't be about the mountains, TT's ... ; it will be about Froome's (perceived) doping and the resulting legal consequences. Not about a race, just another vaudeville.

The failing to resolve is for a large part Froome and Sky's fault tbf, he's been stalling the whole thing for ages. He wants to take a part of his probably suspension during off-season; they are (rightly) gambling on the incompetent UCI doping committee. Also apparently they've already offered him a settlement, but he refused ...

If they simply prove UCI's incompetence and Sky stalling the whole thing, then they'll be okay.


Sky's lawyers will very much be targeting both the UCI and TdF sponsors ASO after this tour, despite all charges being dropped there is every possibility of legal action and cases to answer.
 

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top