Cycling thread

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.

Off course I'm not keen about that verdict. I suppose I could have seen it coming. We had a whole 4 point explanation. The 'official' proceedings were a joke. I don't care about their (substandard )testing tbh; at this point you can use Salbutamol (and probably some other similar products) and just say that you can't replicate it in a required pharmacokinetic study. It's okay. Sorry Ulissi; should have thrown more money at it. They had every right, legally (ASO), until UCI released that decision to ban him. If they knew beforehand of UCI's decision, then they were playing the gallery.

Honestly at this point I struggle to respect Froome. I've always somewhat disliked him but this no. No more, and he's an idiot if he thinks that his legacy and image remain intact.
 
Off course I'm not keen about that verdict. I suppose I could have seen it coming. We had a whole 4 point explanation. The 'official' proceedings were a joke. I don't care about their (substandard )testing tbh; at this point you can use Salbutamol (and probably some other similar products) and just say that you can't replicate it in a required pharmacokinetic study. It's okay. Sorry Ulissi; should have thrown more money at it. They had every right, legally (ASO), until UCI released that decision to ban him. If they knew beforehand of UCI's decision, then they were playing the gallery.

Honestly at this point I struggle to respect Froome. I've always somewhat disliked him but this no. No more, and he's an idiot if he thinks that his legacy and image remain intact.

Why? Wada basically said they couldn't replicate a three week stage race so used the tests Froome took on every other stage to guide them. As Ulissi isn't a challenger in stage races he doesn't get tested so often so can't do that.

The only way you would have been happy with the testing is if it proved Froome guilty because that's what you were convinced he was.
 
Off course I'm not keen about that verdict. I suppose I could have seen it coming. We had a whole 4 point explanation. The 'official' proceedings were a joke. I don't care about their (substandard )testing tbh; at this point you can use Salbutamol (and probably some other similar products) and just say that you can't replicate it in a required pharmacokinetic study. It's okay. Sorry Ulissi; should have thrown more money at it. They had every right, legally (ASO), until UCI released that decision to ban him. If they knew beforehand of UCI's decision, then they were playing the gallery.

Honestly at this point I struggle to respect Froome. I've always somewhat disliked him but this no. No more, and he's an idiot if he thinks that his legacy and image remain intact.

Whichever way you look at it this, the experts have now cast significant doubt on the reliability of the Salbutamol test under such usage. The limits whereby any result can explicitly be trusted in light of this have disappeared, as there are now effectively no circumstances whatsoever in which a result couldn't be challenged successfully.

For me a key factor in the case was that the pharmacokinetic study could not be carried out in a way that replicated those in which the sample was taken. It has to now be a given that that will most likely be claimed to apply in all other cases as you say.

The question might be where does that now leave things for the threshold for Salbutamol? Perhaps Salbutamol should go the way of caffeine, where it proved impossible to regulate the substance by working with a permitted threshold and it was eventually legalised to avoid confusion.

While there was not enough of a detailed account of all the evidence and their findings, and how exactly the verdict was reached given the mitigating factors given in Froome’s defence, the cyclist has stated that he would be making information public in the next few days.

With this case comes more questions, cyclists banned with lower (or in practice even higher) levels of Salbutamol will think they've been handed a weapon they can use to blow any past or future proposed ban to pieces. Retrospective action and compensation for those now adjudged to have been unfairly banned must be on its way, the damaging effect on careers and reputations will also have to be weighed.

For all this it's hard to get past the fact of this case being LEAKED to the media and free for social media to exaggerate, condemn and campaign against for so long. No matter if the rider is innocent or not, a leak ensures he's forever the blackest of the black and adjudged guilty as hell by the masses who have been informed of the full facts by their mate on twitter.

THIS LEAK HAS CAUSED ALL THE DAMAGE - UCI deserve all the brickbats that come their way and ASO have been made to look the clowns they undoubtedly are with their playing to the gallery stunt.

Whoever leaked this so many months ago knowingly breaking rules put in place, has by a single action done untold and lasting damage to a sport already crippled by a tortuous past and a shredded reputation.

I find it hard to believe ASO hadn't any idea of what was coming, Sky knew it and were telling anyone and everyone on Sunday as the ASO stunt unfolded that they were absolutely definite he'd start, it's hard to believe ASO weren't just playing it up for their own home audience and lacking any of responsibility or propriety, completely reckless and futile populism which has left the frustrated tour chiefs seriously embarrassed.

It would be very surprising if Sky's lawyers aren't very carefully looking at any grounds they might have for action against the governing body and/or others.
 
Last edited:
Whichever way you look at it this, the experts have now cast significant doubt on the reliability of the Salbutamol test under such usage. The limits whereby any result can explicitly be trusted in light of this have disappeared, as there are now effectively no circumstances whatsoever in which a result couldn't be challenged successfully.

For me a key factor in the case was that the pharmacokinetic study could not be carried out in a way that replicated those in which the sample was taken. It has to now be a given that that will most likely be claimed to apply in all other cases as you say.

The question might be where does that now leave things for the threshold for Salbutamol? Perhaps Salbutamol should go the way of caffeine, where it proved impossible to regulate the substance by working with a permitted threshold and it was eventually legalised to avoid confusion.

While there was not enough of a detailed account of all the evidence and their findings, and how exactly the verdict was reached given the mitigating factors given in Froome’s defence, the cyclist has stated that he would be making information public in the next few days.

With this case comes more questions, cyclists banned with lower (or in practice even higher) levels of Salbutamol will think they've been handed a weapon they can use to blow any past or future proposed ban to pieces. Retrospective action and compensation for those now adjudged to have been unfairly banned must be on its way, the damaging effect on careers and reputations will also have to be weighed.

For all this it's hard to get past the fact of this case being LEAKED to the media and free for social media to exaggerate, condemn and campaign against for so long. No matter if the rider is innocent or not, a leak ensures he's forever the blackest of the black and adjudged guilty as hell by the masses who have been informed of the full facts by their mate on twitter.

THIS LEAK HAS CAUSED ALL THE DAMAGE - UCI deserve all the brickbats that come their way and ASO have been made to look the clowns they undoubtedly are with their playing to the gallery stunt.

Whoever leaked this so many months ago knowingly breaking rules put in place, has by a single action done untold and lasting damage to a sport already crippled by a tortuous past and a shredded reputation.

I find it hard to believe ASO hadn't any idea of what was coming, Sky knew it and were telling anyone and everyone on Sunday as the ASO stunt unfolded that they were absolutely definite he'd start, it's hard to believe ASO weren't just playing it up for their own home audience and lacking any of responsibility or propriety, completely reckless and futile populism which has left the frustrated tour chiefs seriously embarrassed.

It would be very surprising if Sky's lawyers aren't very carefully looking at any grounds they might have for action against the governing body and/or others.

Given the proximity of the riders to spectators though, if the ASO were aware of what was likely to unfold then it was hugely irresponsible to do what they did. Are they actively wanting to see riders abused, either physically or verbally? The proximity of rider and spectator is one of the beautiful things about cycling, but it's something that has to be done responsibly if it's to endure.
 
With any pretence of 'not knowing' what was so evidently about to break the malicious and vindictive intent of ASO is quite galling. They really could be the sponsor of the race which brings the tour down to another level of infamy.

Even high profile rivals have started commenting

'Jonathan Vaughters, the manager of the Education First team of last year’s Tour de France runner-up, Rigoberto Urán, has voiced his concerns at the threats being directed towards Chris Froome.

“Reading comments on social media from people saying, ‘Since justice wasn’t served, by the UCI and Wada, we’ll serve it from the side of the road’, that’s basically an outright threat. And it does feel [the Tour promoter] ASO fired things up when it’s their responsibility to protect them.”....

..."Vaughters, a former teammate of Lance Armstrong, was a pivotal witness in the Usada investigation that exposed Armstrong’s systemic doping programme. Yet he is among the growing numbers within cycling who have attacked the lack of confidentiality in the Froome matter.

“The first thing to understand is that this was never a case,” he said. “It was a process to determine whether they should bring a case. And 99% of the time that happens behind closed doors, in complete privacy.

“In this case, it was public, which is really unfortunate and whoever leaked it — because somebody inside the UCI leaked it — it’s just nasty, vindictive behaviour to do that,” he said. “It doesn’t actually allow the system to work in the way that it should in a case involving a restricted substance, as opposed to a banned substance.”

Although under normal circumstances the athlete in such a case would be expected to undergo a controlled pharmacokinetic study, this was not insisted on by Wada in Froome’s case.

“I don’t know how you would replicate that [in cycling],” Vaughters said. “In any other sport in controlled environments it would be easier and you could, whereas with Froome it would have been trying to replicate the last week of the Vuelta a España. I don’t know how you do that. I think it’s almost impossible.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ucation-first-chris-froome-jonathan-vaughters
 
WOW, you can see what the sky lawyers might be looking at - Possible major scandal

Article printed in full here as behind a paywall


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling...clusive-interview-would-scandalous-wada-knew/

Froome has said it would be “scandalous” if it emerged that Wada had sat on unpublished data proving its salbutamol tests were not fit for purpose, although he stopped short of saying he would sue world anti-doping’s governing body if it emerged that it had.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph on the eve of the 105th Tour de France, which begins in the Vendée region on France’s west coast on Saturday, Froome was reacting to the developments of the last few days.

The UCI’s decision earlier this week to close its nine-month investigation into a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding returned by Froome at last September’s Vuelta a Espana led to calls for the full, reasoned decision to be released, with many accusing Team Sky of having “bought justice”.

Cycling’s world governing body released a statement on Friday, however, reiterating that its decision to drop the case was based on advice from Wada who, it noted, had “access to information that the UCI does not, including ongoing and unpublished studies on the excretion of Salbutamol (which is - as confirmed by Wada Scientific Director - subject to considerable variations)”.

Asked about these “unpublished reports” and what evidence they might contain, Wada told The Telegraph it was not within its gift to make them public.

“Pursuant to the terms of the funding agreement with the research teams and Wada, it is the research teams that have ownership of the data/studies. Therefore, we cannot provide you with unpublished data either from completed or ongoing projects,” said a spokesperson.

Froome said he “very much hoped” the unpublished reports would become public knowledge in time, adding that he would like to know how long Wada had had access to them given how badly his reputation has been damaged over the last six months by an affair which was dragged into the public domain last December when it was leaked to the media.

Since the case closed, one scientist who was responsible for drawing up Wada’s threshold test has already publicly admitted the test is flawed.

“How long have they known this for? I’d love to know,” Froome said. “If it’s data they have had from the very beginning then it does make a mockery of the proceedings and it would be scandalous.”
Asked whether he would contemplate bringing charges against Wada or the UCI if that was the case, Froome said: “It’s not something I’ve ever really given thought to, especially on the eve of the Tour. I’m more concentrating on getting through the next few weeks.
“But to be honest, right from the word go, I knew I hadn’t done anything wrong. I mean, the [salbutamol] limit is 16 puffs and I went nowhere the limit. I mean, if I took 15 puffs maybe I would have been scratching my head saying, ‘Did I count right?’ But I was nearer to half that number. So I knew there was no way I could have been near 16. That from the very beginning has kept me going.”


Froome was generally in upbeat mood as he prepared to get his race under way, despite an unsettling reception at Thursday’s team presentation in La Roche-sur-Yon. The four-time Tour champion, who is chasing a record-equalling fifth title this year, found himself drowned out by a chorus of boos as he tried to answer questions on stage.
Froome, though, denied that the hostile reception had got to him. Nor was he worried about his safety over the next three weeks – with Tour security chiefs saying they will have more than 30,000 agents deployed to protect the riders.
“I have to block all that out,” he said. “I’m used to it. It wouldn’t be the Tour de France without a bit of edginess here or there. Hopefully the racing will be so full on there won’t be time to even think about anything outside of the race.”
Froome said he was thankful he was able to count on the support of his team mates at this race. The Daily Telegraph understands Team Sky’s riders had a World Cup sweepstake at the start of the quarter-finals, with Froome drawing hosts Russia. Colombian starlet Egan Bernal – Sky’s youngest rider in this race at just 21 years of age but someone who has been tipped to make a big impression in this Tour – drew England, while Geraint Thomas got England’s quarter-final opponents Sweden.


Froome said he expected the first nine days of the race to be “brutal”, certainly until the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix are behind them.
“It’s going to be about survival,” he predicted. “And not missing out on opportunities, particularly on the cobbles [stage nine]. Then, once we reach the mountains, that is when the racing will start.”
He finished by saying he was hopeful public opinion would change as the full details of the case emerged.

And he said he would gladly sit down with Bernard Hinault, France’s five-time Tour champion, who did more than most to whip up anti-Froome sentiment in the weeks leading up to the race, urging Froome’s rivals to strike if the Briton showed up in France.

“I’d shake his hand and ask if he wanted a drink some time,” Froome replied, when asked what he would say to Hinault the next time their paths crossed. “I really would. I’ve got on well with him in the past. And you can see from his comments that he has got the wrong end of the stick.

“I’m sure [the unpublished data] will be published. I would certainly welcome [Wada] to publish it. The sooner the better.”
 
WOW, you can see what the sky lawyers might be looking at - Possible major scandal

Article printed in full here as behind a paywall


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling...clusive-interview-would-scandalous-wada-knew/

Froome has said it would be “scandalous” if it emerged that Wada had sat on unpublished data proving its salbutamol tests were not fit for purpose, although he stopped short of saying he would sue world anti-doping’s governing body if it emerged that it had.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph on the eve of the 105th Tour de France, which begins in the Vendée region on France’s west coast on Saturday, Froome was reacting to the developments of the last few days.

The UCI’s decision earlier this week to close its nine-month investigation into a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding returned by Froome at last September’s Vuelta a Espana led to calls for the full, reasoned decision to be released, with many accusing Team Sky of having “bought justice”.

Cycling’s world governing body released a statement on Friday, however, reiterating that its decision to drop the case was based on advice from Wada who, it noted, had “access to information that the UCI does not, including ongoing and unpublished studies on the excretion of Salbutamol (which is - as confirmed by Wada Scientific Director - subject to considerable variations)”.

Asked about these “unpublished reports” and what evidence they might contain, Wada told The Telegraph it was not within its gift to make them public.

“Pursuant to the terms of the funding agreement with the research teams and Wada, it is the research teams that have ownership of the data/studies. Therefore, we cannot provide you with unpublished data either from completed or ongoing projects,” said a spokesperson.

Froome said he “very much hoped” the unpublished reports would become public knowledge in time, adding that he would like to know how long Wada had had access to them given how badly his reputation has been damaged over the last six months by an affair which was dragged into the public domain last December when it was leaked to the media.

Since the case closed, one scientist who was responsible for drawing up Wada’s threshold test has already publicly admitted the test is flawed.

“How long have they known this for? I’d love to know,” Froome said. “If it’s data they have had from the very beginning then it does make a mockery of the proceedings and it would be scandalous.”
Asked whether he would contemplate bringing charges against Wada or the UCI if that was the case, Froome said: “It’s not something I’ve ever really given thought to, especially on the eve of the Tour. I’m more concentrating on getting through the next few weeks.
“But to be honest, right from the word go, I knew I hadn’t done anything wrong. I mean, the [salbutamol] limit is 16 puffs and I went nowhere the limit. I mean, if I took 15 puffs maybe I would have been scratching my head saying, ‘Did I count right?’ But I was nearer to half that number. So I knew there was no way I could have been near 16. That from the very beginning has kept me going.”


Froome was generally in upbeat mood as he prepared to get his race under way, despite an unsettling reception at Thursday’s team presentation in La Roche-sur-Yon. The four-time Tour champion, who is chasing a record-equalling fifth title this year, found himself drowned out by a chorus of boos as he tried to answer questions on stage.
Froome, though, denied that the hostile reception had got to him. Nor was he worried about his safety over the next three weeks – with Tour security chiefs saying they will have more than 30,000 agents deployed to protect the riders.
“I have to block all that out,” he said. “I’m used to it. It wouldn’t be the Tour de France without a bit of edginess here or there. Hopefully the racing will be so full on there won’t be time to even think about anything outside of the race.”
Froome said he was thankful he was able to count on the support of his team mates at this race. The Daily Telegraph understands Team Sky’s riders had a World Cup sweepstake at the start of the quarter-finals, with Froome drawing hosts Russia. Colombian starlet Egan Bernal – Sky’s youngest rider in this race at just 21 years of age but someone who has been tipped to make a big impression in this Tour – drew England, while Geraint Thomas got England’s quarter-final opponents Sweden.


Froome said he expected the first nine days of the race to be “brutal”, certainly until the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix are behind them.
“It’s going to be about survival,” he predicted. “And not missing out on opportunities, particularly on the cobbles [stage nine]. Then, once we reach the mountains, that is when the racing will start.”
He finished by saying he was hopeful public opinion would change as the full details of the case emerged.

And he said he would gladly sit down with Bernard Hinault, France’s five-time Tour champion, who did more than most to whip up anti-Froome sentiment in the weeks leading up to the race, urging Froome’s rivals to strike if the Briton showed up in France.

“I’d shake his hand and ask if he wanted a drink some time,” Froome replied, when asked what he would say to Hinault the next time their paths crossed. “I really would. I’ve got on well with him in the past. And you can see from his comments that he has got the wrong end of the stick.

“I’m sure [the unpublished data] will be published. I would certainly welcome [Wada] to publish it. The sooner the better.”

The way he continues to act in the face of extreme provocation is hugely commendable.
 
Has Hinault apologised yet?

Not to my knowledge, I think comparisons to his French countryman, former football star Michel Platini are apt.

A true legend as a cyclist (or player) but has seriously let himself down since, perhaps nothing like as badly as Platini but this will be a black stain on the name of Hinault for me.
 
Usual early Tour stage carnage sees Froome, Porte and Quintana ship time, with Quintana possibly out of contention already. Fuglsang, Dumoulin and Nibali seem to have got the right side of any splits and gained time.
 

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