Please put all your drug related posts here and let folk talk in the TDF thread about a bike race for once.

Thank you.

Well it appears it will be up to the ASO as Sky are not going to withdraw and for unknown (to me) reasons the legal process may not be resolved in time.

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.  Maybe they will just work out which option is likely to make the most money for them,.  They are a commercial organisation, after all.

Could be interesting ion the courtrooms for sure.

Possibly more interesting than the race…

A bit of perspective needed on this topic, I think.

This isn’t EPO, HGH, testosterone, etc.

He spent a considerable time in the leaders jersey during the Vuelta, every day of which he was tested. And he ‘failed’ that test one day only. Now, given the alleged advantages of the overuse of Salbutamol, it makes little sense that he would be abusing it during a 3 week race at all, let alone for one day only.

From what we know, it is in no way comparable to the systematic and casual doping we have seen in the past. We don’t yet know if this is anything more than an inaccuracy in the test (it has already been re-calibrated to some degree) or a god’s honest mistake.

Absolutely, it should be investigated. And if found guilty, he should be punished. But I think he has every right to continue racing until found guilty.

His 1 day of Salbutamol abuse will not give him any performance advantage in either the Giro, or the TdF.

If he is found guilty, he will serve his ban in due course. I don’t see how that makes a mockery out of anything.

Not a banned substance so probably yes to race.

i think that if it hadn’t been leaked by the press this would have stayed between the team and UCI until a decision made which means there’s could be others riding with a similar unusual reading. (Not sure if this is 100% fact or not).

No, he shouldn’t ride.

Not because I think he’s guilty but because he’s very much in a grey area & Sky have way too many clouds hanging over them currently. It would be better for the sport if he didn’t,

Yes, he is entitled to ride but morally I think he’s making a bad choice & one he may come to regret (i’m very much with the author of the second link on this).

Salbutamol isn’t just useful as a puffer. If ingested or taken by IV it can act in a similar way to an anabolic steroid. There’s a reason why he’e being investigated:

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4053/salbutamol-can-be-performance-enhancing-says-wada

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/3924/into-the-detail-looking-deeper-into-the-froome-salbutamol-case

That is the problem.  If the justification for not inviting him is to occupy the moral high ground and see that justice is done, then anyone else undergoing non-public enquiries needs to be “invited to withdraw” as well.  The damnest scenario would be for them to not invite Froome/Sky and for it to later emerge that there were other riders in similar situations riding in the race.  That would confirm to the sceptics that all ASO, UCI etc care about is appearances.

I am miles away from being an insider in this business – does anyone have an idea as to how confidential these investigations are?  Would people at ASO have a fair idea of who might be under investigation?  Would there be a back-channel of some kind?

Yes – if he’s cleared but doesn’t race the TDF then whoever does go on to win it will always appear to have won it by default.

Am I right in thinking that we only know about this because of a leak? If so, how many other riders at the Giro were racing while being investigated? How many at the Tour?

If we’re going to stop people riding ahead of a clear result, let’s make it the same for everyone.

From my perspective he has not got this high reading by taking an inhaler – its nebulised of injected or taken by tablet.  the maximum allowed is very high anyway and he doubled it

~so for me no – he should not be racing

cycling is far too soft on dopers.

I hear Sky have presented their evidence of around 1500 pages so far. Sounds like it will either be a quick or very slow process to resolve it and could have a serious implication on the Urine test and it’s validity.

I don’t think he should have been racing, but it should have been resolved by now if only for the credibility of the sport.

Please put all your drug related posts here and let folk talk in the TDF thread about a bike race for once.

Thank you.

Who made you the Boss?

As is No, he shouldn’t enter ANY race until the paperwork has been sorted and he’s proven innocent.

Is that OK Boss?

I don’t think he should ride, but the problem is the shit system. He’s failed a drugs test and as far as we know hasn’t proved anything to the contrary yet.

It’s a massive thing though so the UCI should be setting much more strict deadlines to get sky’s information. But it seems like sky can just dawdle until the authorities go away…..

Anything other than sulbutamol, (because of how WADA treat it) we wouldn’t be here. But the UCI rules say he can race and he (and Sky) clearly want to. So, that’s that really

Whether it’s “moral” is just opinion. He may come to regret the decision to race, but he’s clearly free to do so.

Just to add something, it wasn’t leaked BY the press, it was leaked TO the press. We only know about Froome’s AAF because of the leak to the press. If anyone is ever cleared of an AAF then we wouldn’t know about it as these are and should always be confidential.

Personally I think the investigation into how this was leaked to the Press is more pertinent than whether he should race or not. My view is that he should be allowed to race until (or if) he gets banned. If he is cleared then he misses out on the opportunity to win another TDF, not just on having the win but all of the benefits that come with winning (financial mainly).

Innocent until proven guilty. All that said, I don’t like it, its rubbish for the sport. I don’t trust the team or the principles. But that is just my personal view of the team, and to be fair, of most teams. My dislike of the team (actually mainly Sir DB) shouldn’t cloud the fact that as of yet he hasn’t been found guilty of anything and there is a process to go through.

My understanding is the normal way AAF’s are handled is completely private without media and public knowledge until the verdict gets handed down.  The rider in question is allowed to carry on competing during the investigation and any sentence handed out as a result of the AAF is applied retrospectively.

The big problems with Froome’s case are firstly he has not been afforded the same conditions as other riders in the way his case is being handled which in turn demonstrates that all AAF cases are not being investigated equally.

As a result of the public announcement to the AAF fellow riders and teams will naturally be resentful that he is still competing because it’s Chris Froome, the top GC contender whose presence will cause other competitions to modify their approach to racing.

I hope whoever leaked the AAF result is no longer in their position as I think the leak has done far more damage than the offence itself, as a result we are now having to debate about morals and grey areas when the focus should be just about the result of the individual case.

Weather Froome himself should ride is down to him, morally he believes that he as done nothing wrong and therefore why should he stop competing when he is in his prime.  If it is discovered that there was systematic abuse then the punishment should be adjusted to take into account his previous protestations as well.

I think he and team Sky should be able to ride in the same way all the other riders are able to when their AAF’s are being tried, we cannot change the rules half way through the process.  I would be more than happy to see a rider suspension for any AAF moving forward, I just care about all cases being treated equally.

Who made you the Boss?

It seems to be a common feeling that those of us who want to talk about the racing don’t want to have to wade through 2 pages of entrenched doping views that are a cut and paste from the previous 10 threads on the topic.

. He’s failed a drugs test and as far as we know hasn’t proved anything to the contrary yet.

Not to play technicalities but it’s an adverse finding. If it was a failed test he would have been banned. the evidence/plan as I understand it is that the test is not reliable – hence why he was fine for every day except one as the body holds and releases at rates that do not relate to the pattern of use.

It’s a massive thing though so the UCI should be setting much more strict deadlines to get sky’s information. But it seems like sky can just dawdle until the authorities go away…..

In the post Giro interview he said it was under way, the discussions and case were ongoing but it’s confidential, given it was a leak that got the news out it’s probably been watched a lot more closely and the UCI are following their rules.

I just love stuff like this;

So yeah, crack on for me. The French already dislike him, so there could be plenty of fun and games  🤗👍

But hopefully less of the wee throwing 🧀🏳🐒

Everything butcher said, above, times a gazillion.

It pains me to see how ‘controversial’ this has all become, when the idea that Froome was ‘cheating’ in this instance simply makes no sense at all.

As I’ve said before, it is not like we are talking about anything anywhere near the bad old days of industrial-strength doping.

Let the guy race. I, for one, will cheer him on.

the maximum allowed is very high anyway and he doubled it

I believe the re-calibrated level based on urine concentration is now 1,429nl/ml

As is No, he shouldn’t enter ANY race until the paperwork has been sorted and he’s proven innocent.

Guilty until proven innocent eh? There’s an idea that could catch on…

i think he he should do what anyone else with an outstanding AAF would do. You know, the ones that are kept confidential.

For clarification:

”

Adverse analytical finding

The LADS receive an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF, in other words, a prohibited substance was detected in a sample) from the CADF.

On the basis of an examination of a potential breach by the CADF, the LADS informs the rider, his or her National Federation, the NADO of his or her country and WADA of the advent of an abnormal result. If the substance discovered is “non-specified” (as opposed to “specified” substances – it is unlikely that the presence of “non-specified” substances can be explained by a credible reason not linked to doping), the rider is provisionally suspended (although this does not insinuate prior proof of guilt). The provisional suspension is reported on UCI’s website. The UCI Management is informed at the same time. Not only is it useful to make a provisional suspension public, but an appropriate communication in this situation contributes to the UCI’s transparency in the subject of anti-doping.

At this stage, the rider may request the LADS to order the opening of the B sample. If this confirms the AAF of the A sample, or if the rider dispenses with this option, the LADS request the rider to explain why the sample has returned an AAF.

In all cases, the LADS then consult the external legal counsel without revealing the rider’s identity. Two situations are then possible:

• The external legal counsel and the LADS both consider that there is cause to open disciplinary proceedings. In this case, the rider is informed of the applicable sanction. If the rider accepts the sanction, the LADS informs the UCI Management as well as the external legal counsel (which is then informed of the rider’s name). If the rider rejects the sanction communicated by the LADS, the case is referred to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.

• The external legal counsel and the LADS both consider that the case should not be pursued. In this case, no disciplinary proceedings will be initiated. The UCI, NADO, National Federation and WADA are informed accordingly.”

http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/anti-doping/

It would appear that it’s unclear whether AAF’s should be kept confidential as it only mentions suspensions..

Saxon – twice the very high threshold?  There is no way that happened from normal inhaler use IMO.  Thats why to many of us its clear cheating.

given what we know about team sky and its gaming of TUEs ( at the very most benign interpretation) I think its a certaintly he cheated and there is a frantic cover up going on.  Remeber he has high potency steroids on a TUE before previous wins and so did Wiggins.

Saxon – twice the very high threshold?  There is no way that happened from normal inhaler use IMO.  Thats why to many of us its clear cheating.

TJ

What you understanding on the update and release of the drug from the body for different athletes and the effectiveness of a urine test to relate to the uptake vs the total concentration, would you agree that if the body does not excrete it via urine at  the rate it takes it in then the test may be called into question.

mike – that is correct which is why the threshold is set at such a high level.  a level that normal inhalor use would never get close to is my understanding.

so Froome exceeding the level by such a large amount shows he did not get that reading by using an inhalor.

so Froome exceeding the level by such a large amount shows

Something…we will find out when the results are made public, without all of the other information it’s speculation.

Saxon – twice the very high threshold?  There is no way that happened from normal inhaler use IMO.  Thats why to many of us its clear cheating.

I appreciate you were probably typing this when I posted the re-calibrated levels above, but that just goes to show how unclear it is, when the original test was so far off the mark, failing to take into account something very simple. But the general public have already made up their minds.

Transparency is a great thing, but it’s understandable why these cases are normally kept confidential.

Who made you the Boss?

Nobody. That’s why I asked. If I was the Boss I would have said folk had to stop jamming up threads that other people were enjoying. It’s not like anything new has surfaced since the Giro thread so why go ruining other peoples day?

There again I suppose I’m ruining your day by asking you not to do it.

Just out of curiosity, how many people have actually had to take Salbutamol at the kinds of dosages we are talking about.?  As has been pointed out, it’s unlikely that the dosages talked about were purely from inhaler usage, which leaves a nebuliser, injection, or tablets to get to those levels.

I had pretty severe asthma as a teenager and was hospitalised more than once and put on high dosages of ventolin(salbutamol) as well as having tablets kept at the nurses office in school and at home.

Having had to take the kinds of dosages in question I can say that performing at any level, let alone those required to win a grand tour stage are very unlikely.  Any (minimal) performance benefits are completely overwhelmed by the side-effects..  I would get dizzy, limbs would be very shaky, to the point I couldn’t write and walking was something that took concentration (assuming I was in any fit state to walk at all!)

I can’t for a minute imagine why any athlete would essentially overdose this drug for any reason.  As far as I have read it’s only real performance related use is to aid in muscle tone and weight loss and that’s something you would do at low levels over an extended training camp type situation..

Therefore, given that this one a one day spike in a raft of daily tests, I am inclined to believe that something else is going on, either an issue with the test or something else physiological with Froome himself.

Just my thoughts..

Innocent until proven guilty

Sorry, he’s returned an AAF twice the permitted maximum. He’s guilty until he can prove himself innocent. That’s how the system works.

And if people would open their eyes and see how the cycling profession reacting to him ‘doing a Landis’ then you’ll maybe wake the **** up. This is NOT NORMAL.

Name the last person to win three consequtcon GTs. Name someone who has done it four times.

Froome is hiding in plain sight and trolling us to boot.

Yes he should race.

If he doesn’t, then no one else with current AAF should either. Why should other teams benefit from the leak of a confidential process? Far too open to abuse that way.

Name the last person to win three consequtcon GTs. Name someone who has done it four times.

Berhard Hinault..  Eddy Merckx

Not refuting your opinions but I don’t really think claiming that anyone who does something that’s never been done before is an obvious sign of cheating..  That kind of invalidates pretty much all sporting achievement throughout human history not mention pisses all over everyone’s Strava PB’s.!

There again I suppose I’m ruining your day by asking you not to do it.

Don’t give yourself any credit, barely scratched the surface of any ruining my day.

And if people would open their eyes and see how the cycling profession reacting to him ‘doing a Landis’ then you’ll maybe wake the **** up. This is NOT NORMAL.

Do you mean one off the cuff comment from George Bennet that didn’t make any suggestion of doping?

There has been lots made about Froome’s ride on the Finestre in the Giro, and it was quite incredible to watch. And I’ll be honest, it raises an eyebrow when compared to his performance in the first weeks (though his crashes alone can explain that). Do we remember Gilbert going from 50k out in the Tour of Flanders? That was quite possibly a bigger feat given the terrain, yet I never heard his performance questioned once. Froome put out pretty much the exact same power figures as Dumoulin on the Finestre. He’s a few kilos lighter however, and naturally a better climber.

I think he should be racing but 2 things standout.

1. Who leaked it and why? What did they hope to get out of ir

2. Why on earth has it taken the authorities sooooo long to consider the evidence and make a ruling. The event took place 9 months ago. Why has it not been resolved yet.

Under the rules he is perfectly entitled to race the TDF if  it is before his case comes to trail. Those talking about morally he shouldn’t ride because it is bad for cycling should be directing their anger at the UCI who allowed the leaking of the AAF in the first place . The UCI is supposed to be representing the sport and if they can’t adhere to their own rules then  what does that say about cycling?

I don’t think he should be racing.  But I also think that if an athlete has an AAF then it should be made public anyway – to this end I think Froome has been unfairly treated.  On Froomes test, it’s twice the allowed limit and as mentioned, to have that quantity in your body would take more than just an inhaler. Does it point to something more sinister?  I have no idea, but for the sake of the sport they should withhold the rider from competition until it’s cleared.

I also don’t get this TUE nonsense either – from my very simplistic way of looking at things, these riders need a TUE to allow them to take medication which in turn allows them to perform.  On that basis, I’m fat and useless and therefore for me to be a pro rider I need a motor in my bike to allow me to keep up on the big climbs.

I think the evidence might involve physiological experiments to show the relationship between inhaler use, the state of the athlete (how exhausted/dehydrated etc) and the test result.  That could involve quite a programme, and interpreting the results could involve quite a lot as well.  If that is what Sky have been up to, it will have taken a while.  Ideally the protocol for the testing should have been agreed with the authorities, who should have had the option to take part and observe (to minimise the opportunities to quibble about the test procedure etc.)*  If that is what has been going on, I am not surprised it has been taking ages tbh.

*this is based  on my experience of dealing with technical issues requiring tests to be carried out in civil dispute resolution, which may be the angle the parties’ lawyers come at it from

I’m up for Froome being in but comparing one day race’s to the big tours isn’t realistic.

Do we remember Gilbert going from 50k out in the Tour of Flanders? That was quite possibly a bigger feat given the terrain

Gilbert himself is very clear on the difference.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/paul-kimmage/paul-kimmage-who-should-we-cheer-the-guy-who-never-wavered-on-doping-or-the-guy-who-cant-make-up-his-mind-35645369.html

Yes. He is not guilty (yet) and asking someone to stand down in the peak of their career whilst an overly long investigation takes place into something you vehemently deny is neither sensible or realistic.