Not to divert this conversation, but the Doc involved in Wiggins Blood Bag escapade said this morning “I felt like committing suicide”
Theres an obvious answer to that statement.
La Gazetta Dello Sport is reporting that Froome has been cleared in the Salbutomol case. (via @inrng on twitter)
"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."
Who knows?
Either way - they screwed up!
from the UCI
http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/
Also telling that when the author of that article ventures into the unknown, it generally tends towards the negative, e.g. "As a result, we have to ask what circumstances could lead an experienced asthmatic, working with a doctor, to exceed the upper limit by a factor of at least 2, and possibly much more?"
That last part is pure personal speculation on the part of the author. I'd treat the rest of the article with a suitably sized grain of salt.
As abov, gazeta dello sport reports froome cleared
UCI published too
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/
the Doc involved in Wiggins Blood Bag escapade
The what? You seriously need to stop making things up.
That does sound about right @mrlebowski. (I think you mean limit not recommendation though.). But those issues had been rehearsed elswhere, and I found the article a bit loose,and generally not adding much value, for me, to the issues. I do intermittently follow that site and there is some interesting stuff on it - the Caster Semenya issue for example. But sometimes there seems to be comment for comment's sake.
On a slight aside, it would be nice to see Sir Dave up on a drink driving charge and find out whether he defends it, what his defence is and which lawyer he instructs.
I bet they feel like a bunch of ****s now.
Cool, so now we have a proper cyclist to cheer on, and there's a lot of people with egg all over their faces.
Shake it all about?
On a slight aside, it would be nice to see Sir Dave up on a drink driving charge and find out whether he defends it, what his defence is and which lawyer he instructs.
Apples and oranges. The law is .08. How you got there is immaterial.
Froome better wear earplugs and waterproofs for this tour
Interesting. I think you have to accept WADA's conclusions, though I'm still sceptical about Sky overall.
I'd love to hear the evidence & I very much want to hear what Ulissi & Petacchi have to say on it!
So, he rides - which is ok for him & Sky but not great for the TDF as I think without him the race was more open.
I have to say I'd like to see the evidence as to why Froome isn't banned yet others were - though I doubt that'll ever see the light of day.
Certainly if I was Ulissi or Petacchi I'd be most unamused & itching to see it to!
Nest stop - the detailed reasons. It looks like the defence was based on attacking the assumptions in the regime about the relationship between what is in the blood and the allowed inhaled dosages. Which would be either attacking the underlying science, or the way it was done (and thus WADAs ability to prove the relationship).
Did ASO have notice and so issue the ban as a very Gallic gesture?
Have ASO actually said they will let him ride yet? Even if cleared, they could still decide he is a reputational risk on the Tour...
rachel
Is there a real concern about his personal safety? If I was Froome's employer, this would concern me.
That’s fine, if he’s cleared then I’m more than happy for him to ride.
Hope he does well.
Shame the UCI too so long in making the decision.
”blood bag” typo, my error.
I'm waiting for a Froome In thread.
And then a Froome Shakes It All About one.
Whitewash and a further nail in the coffin of pro racing.
What an absolute shit show.
Froome is now tainted for the tour when none of this should have been public in the first place.
I know Froome doesn't seem to attract the adulation of cycling fans generally, but whatever you think of him he deserves better than this clusterfrak
“It’s not about the money, money, money it’s about the price taaaaggg”
He's back in again ....
Even if cleared, they could still decide he is a reputational risk on the Tour…
They are the biggest risk if they make the event invitational
Whitewash and a further nail in the coffin of pro racing.
What else floats in water?
As you have not seen the evidence TJ, have not read what was submitted or had access to all the tests what are the reasons you are using to come to this conclusion, bearing in mind this is WADA making the call
The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). 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.
It appears that the quesiotn of reputational damage will be decided by the French Naitonal Olympic Committee (presumably there is an arbitration clause in the contract somewhere). With a further appeal to the CAS which there is unlikely to be time for. But the ASO will be bound by the first instance decision. I expect Sky are preparing an application to the French courts to enforce that decision if it goes their way and the ASO doens't change course. Fun!
Whitewash and a further nail in the coffin of pro racing
........without even seeing on what basis a panel of renowned experts have decided there is no case to answer,
Should have asked TJ as clearly he knows something, and saved all the cost and effort. What is it TJ, what do you know, or is it more speculation and muck throwing?
Innocent until proven guilty.
"Nest stop – the detailed reasons. It looks like the defence was based on attacking the assumptions in the regime about the relationship between what is in the blood and the allowed inhaled dosages. Which would be either attacking the underlying science, or the way it was done (and thus WADAs ability to prove the relationship)."
That's my suspicion too..
Oh, & Sports Science guy? Yep - I agree with you there too. Mostly good, but sometimes a bit too much waffle..
Why? Because its an obvious cop out of cheating - yes I have read everything I can find on it and hopefully more can come out but it is simply not plausible he got this high reading from normal salbutomol dosing.
Thats my opinion based on the evidence I have seen and I have seen nothing to change that.
Pro cycling is full of drug cheats. This was an opportunity to stamp down hard on them and the UCI chickened out of it. too afraid of the power of SKY
If there is a limit for a drug then thats it - over the limit should mean a ban
not great for the TDF as I think without him the race was more open.
You are so right, we should ban from all sporting events the best team or athlete at the time so we can all find the not quite the best but really still very good and give them a big shiny cup.
I think Froome should offer to withdraw if the French withdraw from the World Cup 🙂
the UCI chickened out of it
By involving WADA and abiding by their decision?
Thats my opinion based on the evidence I have seen and I have seen nothing to change that.
Very telling there, you have not seen anything Sky submitted to WADA or the UCI or what WADA told the UCI or anything else.
Pro cycling is full of drug cheats. This was an opportunity to stamp down hard on them and the UCI chickened out of it. too afraid of the power of SKY
It couldn't possibly be that you are trying to make the evidence fit your conclusions at all here TJ?
Maybe you should stop quoting folks out of context?
But hey, you’ve an agenda so crack on..
🙄
So, he rides – which is ok for him & Sky but not great for the TDF as I think without him the race was more open.
I dunno. Having Froome coming off the Giro takes some of the edge off him and the team, as does the drop to 8 riders. Bardet could possibly have won last year had he not time trialled like a muppet. His strava shows a lot more time on the TT bike this year so perhaps they have recognised that now too.
Why? Because its an obvious cop out of cheating – yes I have read everything I can find on it and hopefully more can come out but it is simply not plausible he got this high reading from normal salbutomol dosing.
Thats my opinion based on the evidence I have seen and I have seen nothing to change that.
WADA have said there's no case and they're the ones who set the protocol for the test. Glad to see that you're more of an expert having read a couple of news articles and forum posts.
Do not underestimate the knowledge of Mr tjagain, like many of us on here he knows all the details, all the solutions and all the answers. If we did talk like we knew it all this place would be so boring. If I'd have been WADA and the UCI I'd have checked this site out before making any decision, its quite clear the ex-spurts are.
Am sort of pleased for Froome and hope does well if the let him back in the TdF, I'm fairly sure he'll not win it though. His Giro efforts, the reduction in team size and the riders who have trained specifically to win the TdF.
Double post
😳
He'll ride the tour. I don't see how the ASO can cite reputational damage to the event if Froome rides now he's been cleared of wrongdoing by WADA.
I'd like to see Hinault's face now. I bet he's not a happy camper
Yeah, but Murdoch must have paid them off, right?
Now, where's my tin foil hat....?
I must say I admire Froome's mental resilience. Despite always claiming he was confident that he'd be proved innocent something like this, which could have ended his career, would prey on anyone's mind yet he's managed to train for and win a grand tour. Now the pressure is off I reckon he's going to monster the TdF.
I was unaware we had an expert analytical pharmacologist and world renowned PED expert in the house. Why did WADA and the UCI employ all those high priced experts when all they had to do was pick up the phone to TJ who's skills are so immense he didn't even need to read the evidence to come to a decision.
"I dunno. Having Froome coming off the Giro takes some of the edge off him and the team, as does the drop to 8 riders. Bardet could possibly have won last year had he not time trialled like a muppet. His strava shows a lot more time on the TT bike this year so perhaps they have recognised that now too."
We will see, but yeah - good points.
To what ends? What does stringing it out do? Doesn’t make sense
I was just assuming that delaying the outcome would suit Sky, because Froome would be clear to go ahead and ride the Tour before any decision was reached. As it turned out, they don't have to worry about that!
The timing of the decision is a surprise when the UCI president David Lappartient was quoted on 2nd June as saying he didn't believe a decision would be reached before the TdF started (due to the complexity of the process and the amount of evidence Sky had submitted).
Michael Hutchinson tweeted today that "Last Autumn a WADA source told a colleague that no one had ever overturned a Salbutamol AAF. Yet Sky always seemed very confident of this result". Sky must have presented some very compelling evidence to have turned things around so decisively in the last month.
Sky/Froome must think they are in with a good chance of winning or they could have self-suspended and saved face.
tj you are comical, like a stuck record.
We are all waiting for your public apology for slandering Froome.
"Yeah, but Murdoch must have paid them off, right?"
Hmmm....Armstrong & his donation ring any bells?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/oct/16/uci-donation-lance-armstrong
Sky must have presented some very compelling evidence to have turned things around so decisively in the last month.
If you read the UCI statement it seems that Froome's team submitted their defence at the start of June. Chances are their expert advice told them it was a better than even chance that they would win once the evidence was put together.
Froome should definitely have the info released into the public domain. That said, it wouldn't help with the armchair experts who wouldn't read it or wouldn't understand it if they did and would just use their opinion as somehow a valid argument point.
