how many other riders especially team leaders and their 2 chief domestiques are also under investigation but cleared to ride?
This.
I still think the real issue is the UCI.
how do we know it's not being delayed by sky and their legal team ? have they been given time to collect evidence make their defense ? I don't know, legal stuff usually takes a while as lawyers like to charge by the hour.
how do we know it’s not being delayed by sky and their legal team ? have they been given time to collect evidence make their defense ?
UCI are in charge of the process. Sky has presented it's evidence.
Sky has presented its evidence and there's a lot of it. The UCI outsources its legal work so I guess the lawyers they use have other jobs and fit the UCI stuff in when they have a bit of spare time. In this day and age I would have thought the UCI would have its own legal department.
do we have a date on that and how much evidence was presented ?
The UCI outsources its legal work so I guess the lawyers they use have other jobs and fit the UCI stuff in when they have a bit of spare time. In this day and age I would have thought the UCI would have its own legal department.
would it not just be lawyers though, you'll need medical experts to critique the evidence too.
And to ask Froome to fall on his sword, just because the UCI can’t sort this out, is pathetic.
Noone is suggesting he does that though are they. That's not the same as questioning why on earth he'd want to ride, for the reasons already mentioned
The date is out there somewhere, it was about a month ago I think but now it's being done properly and behind the closed doors.
The implication of this is huge for the UCI if they show the test is not a reliable test, it's a very big deal for them and they will be wanting to get it right.
The Sky stringing it out line doesn't really make sense as he could have copped a ban at the time and served it through the off season just losing out on the Vuelta title. They now risk losing the all 3.
The Sky stringing it out line doesn’t really make sense as he could have copped a ban at the time and served it through the off season just losing out on the Vuelta title. They now risk losing the all 3.
it's got nothing to do with a ban or otherwize... it's to do with clean or dirty and the implications for froome and sky and the relationship between them
do we have a date on that and how much evidence was presented ?
A few weeks ago and it ran to 1500 pages
Re the test or lab accuracy. They started out claiming he had 2,000ng/ml now revised substantially down to 1400ng/ml. Doesn't exactly give one a lot of confidence about the lab or the test
it’s got nothing to do with a ban or otherwize… it’s to do with clean or dirty and the implications for froome and sky and the relation between them
You could have gone with we were using this drug during this time, we used this dose and the amount in the test was not representative of what we were using. We don't trust the test but accept the decision. To go this far with the defence they have to be confident they have the evidence to defend their position because coming this far can rolling the dice to see what ban you get doesn't add up in any way
Still think of Sky don’t get Froome in, Sky will pull the funding plug.
I think ASO expect to lose the appeal, but they have hedged the risk here. If Froome is found guilty, they can say "well we tried", if he isn't then they can say "justice has run its course". Cute move. The risk for them is if they win the appeal. Then they will be sweating on the Froome case outcome.
UCI president David Lappartient said: "I have always said we would make known the general position of the UCI before the Tour and that will be the case.
"It begins next Saturday so we shall explain our position during the coming week."
It'll be interesting to hear what their "general position" actually is.
It’ll be interesting to hear what their “general position” actually is.
Well if they can manage to only upset half of the people it will be a start....
They may have a sniff of what’s coming & are acting pre-emptively.
Amusingly the most recent Cycling Tips podcast included speculation that Froome could be cleared by the UCI before the Tour... they'd heard mutterings and rumours. Or something. It seems unlikely, but hey, stuff happens.
Still think of Sky don’t get Froome in, Sky will pull the funding plug.
Didn't you reckon they were going to merge with BMC? I guess you have inside information.
I really can't see what stating a "general position" can do for the UCI other than make things worse, Their position is clear from the public documents available (their rules). They cannt say anything that goes against those. And they cannot say anything about the case until there is a final decision.
Wait and see what the French CAS have to say. How many other riders are riding with an AAF? He should be treated the same as any other rider.
And if he doesn’t ride, pity the winner. There will always be a footnote next to the record.
This could be like that Tyson Fury boxing case. Sky could have a lot of very expensive/good lawyers waiting to take them to the cleaners. Especially if any of the other contenders, their domestiques or stage winners are on the same list as Froome.
Ultimately 9 months is a mental time for this to drag on, bearing in mind it's someones career.
why would you want to race where you are not welcome, the reaction would have been bad before this decision if he “forces” way onto the roster using sky financial muscle and a posse of lawyers the french fan reaction is not going to be welcoming
Just because someone doesn't like you doesn't mean you should walk away. I suspect a lot of Hinaults talk is to get the Sky team out of the TdF to maybe help Bardet etc. and get a homegrown winner. Given his way I'm sure every team would be composed of just French.
That would be the same Hinault who refused a drugs test. I wonder why he did that...
Bardet's no TDF winner. He might get on the podium, hell he might even get a stage, but Thomas (opps I fell off again) is more likely to win than Bardet. And frankly Thomas is as likely to win as a...
Meanwhile the decision making processes need to be clarified and sped up. It's completely bonkers to have people's livelihoods left hanging because of amateurs bickering.
So... as per my earlier post, The Times is reporting that a verdict on the Salbutamol case is imminent and likely to remder the whole ASO process irrelevant:
It's behind a pay-wall, but if you can be arsed, registering gives you a couple of free articles per week. Also Richard Freeman has been interviewed by the BBC's Dan Roan. Takeaways include that he has documentary proof of the theft of his lap-top in 2014.
Anyway...
The Sky stringing it out line doesn’t really make sense as he could have copped a ban at the time and served it through the off season just losing out on the Vuelta title. They now risk losing the all 3.
Then again maybe they figure Froome will actually be vindicated.
This really is all down to the UCI. They are the governing body. If they say Froome is free to ride then he is free to ride. If I were managing Sky that would be my stance. I would take a very dim view of an officer of the ASO stirring up the issue.
I only really watch TdF for the helicoptering scenery shots anyway. Not bothered frankly.
Talking of Sky..... You can get odds of 9/4 for Froome winning the TDF on Sky Bet.
Maybe they know more than others.
Surely the ASO can't act against the rules of the UCI without the latter declaring the whole TdF out-of-bounds to UCI affiliated teams?
@slowoldman that was the gist of my post and later one, you don't head down this road unless you have confidence in the outcome.
Re the test or lab accuracy. They started out claiming he had 2,000ng/ml now revised substantially down to 1400ng/ml. <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Doesn’t exactly give one a lot of confidence about the lab or the test</span>
I believe that's a standard adjustment they make for the specific gravity of the sample, to reflect the effect of dehydration. The 2000 value was the raw result. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the testing process.
I think the Salbutamol test is pretty well established, and no one has seriously challenged its validity. Even with the adjustment, Froome was way over the limit. The comments I have read from people who seem to know what they are talking about suggest it would be well nigh impossible to generate that test result from legal use of an inhaler. I assume Sky are therefore struggling to put together a convincing defence, hence not opting for the pharmo-kinetic study and presenting 1500 pages of evidence, which will spin things out as long as possible.
I think the ASO are doing this to force the UCI to get their backsides in gear and either pee or get off the pot regarding their ruling. Whether Froome is in or out they just want the ruling to have been announced so they are clear the correct the decision has been made. They don't want Froome in with this hanging over his head so either want him to be in and cleared by the UCI or out and officially banned. I think the UCI have said they're going to announce before the TdF so hopefully it will come in the next couple of days.
+1
That's how I see it too. UCI are useless. In or out, make your mind up UCI.
Hinault should keep his opinions to himself,
Like that's ever going to happen, plus let him with out sin and all that.
I believe that’s a standard adjustment they make for the specific gravity of the sample, to reflect the effect of dehydration. The 2000 value was the raw result. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the testing process.
I think the Salbutamol test is pretty well established, and no one has seriously challenged its validity. Even with the adjustment, Froome was way over the limit. The comments I have read from people who seem to know what they are talking about suggest it would be well nigh impossible to generate that test result from legal use of an inhaler. I assume Sky are therefore struggling to put together a convincing defence, hence not opting for the pharmo-kinetic study and presenting 1500 pages of evidence, which will spin things out as long as possible.
If this is true (not doubting you kcr, just no expert here myself and tbh haven't been following all this very closely either), and the ASO have a clause that says they can exclude teams or riders for disrepute, are the UCI dragging this out in a similar as letting LA and USPS continue riding - ie we know there's something wrong but calling it means putting another big cloud over past events and pro road racing in general? I'm speculating and it's a bit 'daft conspiracy theory' of course, but based on past events with both sky and the UCI, why not.
I think technically, the UCI at this point has limited control over the process, so while Lappartient would love to bring it to a head, it's in the hands of the UCI Anti Doping Tribunal whose judges are - quote -
'fully independent from the UCI and were nominated in view of their outstanding expertise in the field of anti-doping and dispute resolution.'
It's a bit like giving a package to the post office, you may have sent it, but once it;s in the system, there's precious little you can do about it, or something like that. So neither the ASO or the UCI can decide the timing of the process, it'll take as long as it takes.
And as above, there's a Times article out there suggesting that the verdict may be out before the Tour and suggesting that Froome will be cleared. And if that happens, it's hard to see how ASO could justify excluding him.
And if that happens, it’s hard to see how ASO could justify excluding him.
Only if they have a very large chequebook, one would imagine
hence not opting for the pharmo-kinetic study and presenting 1500 pages of evidence, which will spin things out as long as possible.
To what ends? What does stringing it out do? Doesn't make sense
are the UCI dragging this out in a similar as letting LA and USPS continue riding
It seems really unlikely - even if you don't believe the UCI's anti-doping tribunal's judges are genuinely independent, Lappartient seems to be borderline hostile to SKY and stood on a platform of cleaning up the sport. You'd think he'd jump at the chance to be seen to be exposing SKY as cheats.
Very good, long, article on this here explaining a lot of the really quite subtle nuances in this case:
Bottom line & I quote "Sky are so far beyond any ethical line that we may as well not waste time even weighing up legal vs ethical. Ethical is clear-cut. Legal, now, maybe heading that way too. In the wrong direction."
A somethingion I agree with.
It seems really unlikely ...
Yeah I expect so. Daft speculation, as I said. In a way I'm just playing the disinterested punter opinion here, I'm not following the details (ie the UCI tribunal judges point - didn't know that) as tbh I don't really care. I love the TDF as an event but the chemical gamesmanship involved seems like an ongoing farce. Sky are just another part of all that, which is a shame as I'm sure in among it all there are some great, genuine performances. Which ones they are though, who knows.
Bottom line & I quote “Sky are so far beyond any ethical line that we may as well not waste time even weighing up legal vs ethical. Ethical is clear-cut. Legal, now, maybe heading that way too. In the wrong direction.”
A somethingion I agree with.
Agreed here too, due to the above. Teams now are either part of the problem or not, there's no grey areas. I'd rather see riders place 10th w/o a shadow of doubt than winners on a wheeler dealer team witth all the legal fine point juggling and dog-eaten homework. More to it than winning.
I could'nt find much of use in that Science of Sport article. As the writer noted, he couldn't be arsed to put together something cohesive, and tbh it shows. At one point we have "the law is the law" at another "doping is doping". He probably has equally cutting insights into Brexit...
"I could’nt find much of use in that Science of Sport article. As the writer noted, he couldn’t be arsed to put together something cohesive, and tbh it shows. At one point we have “the law is the law” at another “doping is doping”. He probably has equally cutting insights into Brexit…"
Well, he's made a better fist of it than you it seems.
Perhaps you just didn't understand it.
I'll admit there are subtleties to this case & I think he does a good job of distilling it down.
Well I would say the article is too long to be called a distillation of anything, and when faced with subtleties rather goes round in circles. I read it a few weeks ago and didn't come away any more informed about the issues than I already was from reading this (edit: I mean the other ) thread. I have studiously avoided making any type of fist of it on this thread or anywhere else, by the way.
It is long & I've had to re-read it a number of times to get the gist.
The gist I think being is:
1. Salbutamol can be a PED & there's research to prove it.
2. The threshold level is a touch arbitrary but better than none.
3. Why Salb when inhaled is different to when ingested.
4. How it may also be a masking agent.
5. A pharmokinetic case is almost impossible to recreate.
6. Measurement by urine excretion is not an exact science.
7. Others have been banned for this AAF.
8. The difficulty Froome faces when trying to explain how he had nearly double the daily recommendation of Salb.
9. Sky's possible defence.
10. Sky's "no needles" policy.
11. Why the team with the best funding & best athlete have somehow managed to F up something as simple as an asthma medication.
Sound about right?
11. Why the team with the best funding & best athlete have somehow managed to F up something as simple as an asthma medication.
But if you are questioning how they could have possibly done that ‘innocently’ then you seriously have to question how they could F up if they were cheating.
have we done this?
"BREAKING according to @Gazzetta_it sources @chrisfroome will be cleared today for the salbutamol case @LeTour more soon on our website @TeamSky"
