I’ll be very interested to see what happens with the nay-sayers if Froome is found innocent, will they then accept that verdict ?

Yes, absolutely. I’ve no problem at all with a verdict of not guilty. After all all I seek is a properly run investigation, and whilst that investigation is running against the athlete that they do not enter nor be invited to participate in events run under the UCI banner.

I personally am sick to death of riders/athletes participating in sports whilst under investigation, then have bans that take away thier result and other results going back in time. It nullifies the race/event IMO and seems pointless running the event when athletes are being investigated yet allowed to ride.

All I seek is a clear position on AAF and infringements, it’s a simple ethical position. If an athlete is under investigation, they can not participate in any UCI event until the conclusion of the investigation. The result of the investigation is a secondary issue IMO.

The only significant facts at the moment are that Froome has returned a Salbutamol result that is well in excess of the permitted amount, and so far, he has not explained how that happened.

To that (and Weeksy’s point that the result may already have been explained) I’d add significant facts that

1- a process that is supposed to be confidential was leaked by persons unknown and for reasons unknown so that this is taking place in the public eye when it should be being handled (or some would say, should have been handled by now) in private.

2- we have no idea who else is riding under an AAF and for what substances,

If Froome is expected to step aside when he is adamant of his innocence, so should anyone else.

As for the ‘every time someone posts a different opinion to me on a thread specifically to discuss people’s opinions on this matter I’m going to go and “drop a turd” (stay classy) in the racing thread’….. we get you don’t like Sky, but you don’t have to break all the other toys as well. Were you an only child by any chance?

If an athlete is under investigation, they can not participate in any UCI event until the conclusion of the investigation.

All of them? Including the ones that are (properly) being kept confidential right now? And the ones that actually are due to duff testing and methods, but are waiting for due process to reveal that?

And the ones that actually are due to duff testing and methods, but are waiting for due process to reveal that?

I think you will find that all cyclists are guilty until caught then they are proper guilty .

No, only ones in black / blue / white jerseys (or more recently, Yellow, Red and Pink ones)

That’s right h8ters……. all of them. He holds every single one right now

“That’s right h8ters……. all of them. He holds every single one right now”

Oh do grow up!

Has he not ? Are you sure ? Based upon what ? He may have explained it in the 1500 page report.

OK, for the pedantic, there’s been no public explanation. The point is that no one knows if he has a plausible excuse or not.

It’s striking in that BBC interview linked above, how open and chatty Sky were about their approach and the tactics they used to win the stage. Contrast that with the evasion and dissembling whenever they’ve been asked difficult questions about the jiffy bag, Salbutamol, etc. It’s a carefully done bit of PR.

Indeed.

A reminder for a few who may need it:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/team-sky-report-david-brailsford-inquiry

“If Froome is expected to step aside when he is adamant of his innocence, so should anyone else.”

But of course! I don’t know why this isn’t done anyway???

But of course! I don’t know why this isn’t done anyway???

How many are racing under AAF’s? How many riders have one and are found clean? How many AAF’s are more serious?

How many are racing under AAF’s?

Not sure we have any idea at all do we ? It may be 1…. him…. or it may be 200 !

It may be 1in …. him…. or it may be 200 !

“and as they come round for the eighth lap of this circular argument, still no clear leader”

When ‘him’ = Froome, or someone from Sky / Brailsford – who cares about the rest!

All of them? Including the ones that are (properly) being kept confidential right now? And the ones that actually are due to duff testing and methods, but are waiting for due process to reveal that?

ALL OF THEM.

Its a simple concept.

Being investigated = no participation.

That particular process shores up any confusion, and also gives WADA or other investigation authorities both the time and due process to come to a conclusion.

This grey area of confidentiality or leaks to the press is a symptom of poor privacy issues, not the actual due process of the investigation.

I would go as far as saying the team of the rider should also be suspended from entering/participating, because it’s also thier responsibility to provide riders/athletes who should be able to enter events … because they’re not being investigated.

It’s a hard line I take, but our sport has suffered endless issues well documented and it’s become a rolling farce freewheeling itself into oblivion if nothing is done to stop the rot.

“How many are racing under AAF’s? How many riders have one and are found clean? How many AAF’s are more serious?”

All of them!

Zero tolerance.

It’s not a hard concept to grasp..

All of them!

Zero tolerance.

It’s not a hard concept to grasp..

It’s not a black and white concept though, Drug Testing has rules and limits, these things are in the hard to measure/factor/analyse grey areas which is why they are in a separate section of the drug testing world.

OK, for the pedantic, there’s been no public explanation. The point is that no one knows if he has a plausible excuse or not.

And we don’t need to no either. Providing he can explain the adverse results to the relevant authorities we should never have known anything. The general publics involvemnt should only happen if he can’t and recieves a ban/sanction.

I struggle with long sentences… but…

For those who think he was cheating, what benefit does salbutamol have for ONE day of abuse? You’d have to assume if 1000ng is legal for inhaler use then they can test for it accurately (blah blah about whether it’s a fair test can be left to the UCI and CAS) that they’d have popped him if he’d been abusing the drug for the entire race.

If we accept that the tests didn’t find anything suspicious either before or after the day in question, how was that single day benefitting him?

All the arguments about Froome using salbutamol either intravenously or in tablet form don’t answer what he’d get out of it for such a short time. I get it if he’d been over the limit for half the race or even between races but it seems the reported ability to lose weight, build muscle, whatever would require a bit more than one day of trying to cheat.

All the arguments about Froome using salbutamol either intravenously or in tablet form don’t answer what he’d get out of it for such a short time. I get it if he’d been over the limit for half the race or even between races but it seems the reported ability to lose weight, build muscle, whatever would require a bit more than one day of trying to cheat.

Rationally you’re right, but strictly speaking, the issue isn’t whether he benefitted from exceeding the WADA limit on inhaled Salbutamol, it’s just whether he exceeded the limit. It might seem counter-intuitive, but he doesn’t need to have obtained a performance advantage, just to have consumed too much of the stuff.

So in terms of the rules, it doesn’t make any difference whether he benefitted or not, just that he potentially broke the rule. The rest of it is down to a combination of personal opinion and carefully selected ‘google facts’ that support whatever you believe to be true.

I’m loving the obfuscation from the fanbois…..you guys are finding it really hard to even accept the concept that Froome might have cheated….

Laughable.

I think it is a really tricky one, but the main thing is that it needs to be cleared up soon, it has been left hanging far too long and there needs to be a definite answer or statement from ASO and WADA.

What rarely seems to be addressed is why this was leaked, and how these hackers came from Russia trying to fling as much muck as possible just before the Olympics where they as a team were banned, seemingly as a smoke screen to what is pretty much the state-sponsored doping of the Soviet era?

I suppose i can speak with a little authority, in that i did my BSc in Sports Science and dissertation on drugs in sport (although it focused mostly on my sport of rugby, but was mainly on steroid usage).

I am no Sky fan-boy at all, i was happy as larry when Yates was doing well, and genuinely thought it would be good for the sport if Froome didn’t win the Giro, i’d love to see one of the French riders win TdF again i think it would be great for the sport.

But, i think that Sky have the money (although Katusha and BMC aren’t far off at all in budget) to explore every option open to them, i do think that they have operated in that grey area a few times with Tramadol and the like and i do think that Brailsford can be his own worst enemy, constantly talking like a marketing man and failing to really address the Wiggins issue, i’d much rather listen to David Millar reporting or to Mitchelton-Scott’s Matt White, as despite both being ex-dopers, they at least seem to say what they think not what people and sponsors want to hear.

The one thing i cannot get round is this “is the tiny gain that Froome may have got from an increased Sabutomol usage for one single stage, worth the immense risk to his image, to the team and to his future career knowing full well as leader and a GC contender that he would be tested at the end of the stage?”

My thought there is no, he hasn’t failed a “dope test”, he had an anomaly, that’s why it’s not made public, it’s for the rider to try to explain this anomaly. In the same way that a body builder is not going to gain anything from a single dose of anabolic steroid before a gym session, Salbutomol isn’t anabolic, it’s effects for a single large dose for one day would hinder more than help, it can cause a dry mouth, it can mess up kidney function and can make the heart race harder, all things that would be of no use to him?

For anyone that has that type of inhaler, try taking about 10 puffs in a row, see what it does to your heart rate and back of your throat?

I just cannot see what gain he would of got from a single stages overdosing, when the risk was just to high. The test is a simple one, and a number of sports scientists have come back saying the test is flawed, because the same dosage taken under different conditions, gives different results.

So i am not defending Froome, i am talking from my limited understanding and have had a good read of a number of my old text books and a number of good sports science websites (not Cycling Weekly!)

Why are people not as angered by Astana being at the start line, from memory they have 5 riders banned which meant they definitely not taken part last year, but got round it by 4 having taken PED’s and the 5th having taking cocaine, which is not down as a PED?

I loved watching an in-form Contador race and dancing on the pedals up a hill, but why was he no treated with the same scorn? This is what i don’t understand, not defending Sky, but don’t understand why the hatred for only one team from here (and the French!)

Can’t see the performance benefit from Salbutomol, having been on an inhaler and before that tablets for years but still don’t think he should be riding till its resolved.  There are plenty of other riders like Petacchi who have been caught out by this in the past.

On the other hand keeping a professional sportsman in limbo for 9-18months because the process is overcomplicated or underfunded seems ridiculous.

If an athlete is under investigation, they can not participate in any UCI event until the conclusion of the investigation.

All of them? Including the ones that are (properly) being kept confidential right now? And the ones that actually are due to duff testing and methods, but are waiting for due process to reveal that?

This. So yes, he should race and be allowed to race until he has been found to be doping.

And we don’t need to no either. Providing he can explain the adverse results to the relevant authorities we should never have known anything. The general publics involvemnt should only happen if he can’t and recieves a ban/sanction.

I’ve no argument with that. The point I was making is that despite all the speculation, no-one here knows anything about the detail of the case, so we have to wait for the outcome of the AAF process.

For anyone querying how Salbutamol could be a performance enhancer, have a look at the WADA web page that has been referenced previously. WADA’s view is that Salbutamol can enhance performance when it is not used in the permitted fashion, i.e. large doses orally or intravenously, rather than via inhaler. I’m not a doctor or sports scientist, so I can’t explain the science, but that’s why there’s a test.

i find it funny how butt hurt all you sky fanboys are getting. It’s not just your cheating **** we want rid of, it’s all of them. Otherwise it would be hypocracy, which is your dept. 😉

Plus how many were arguing that because Wiggins doping TUE wasn’t cheating because it was ‘approved’ (even Sutton admitted it as gaming the system ffs). Now froome has an AAF higher than that others have had bans for, you want to not apply to him?

And please, dope tests are letting people through because fancy lawyers can be bought to argue that the test is flawed (no test is 100% water tight). Past dopers have called out how testing is an IQ test and how they can be gamed (classic not in for the testers, maybe the hotel didn’t notify them….). Lance Armstrong never tripped the BP on his come back, you think he did that clean?

As a thought.  In an effort to prove why the anomaly occurred, does that mean that Froome has had to spend a lot of time training in a lab somewhere, taking very high dosages of Salbutamol?

Effectively this is just one massively drawn out plot by Sky to get the long term benefits of high usage, which so far is working well.

Effectively this is just one massively drawn out plot by Sky to get the long term benefits of high usage, which so far is working well.

Really ? You think ?

Froome might have cheated

Neither WADA or the UCI think that he cheated, he hasn’t failed a drug test. WADA have essentially said “this is odd, can you explain please?”

i find it funny how butt hurt all you sky fanboys are getting. It’s not just your cheating **** we want rid of, it’s all of them. Otherwise it would be hypocracy, which is your dept.

As Metalheart ramps up one must wonder if he is taking something to enhance his performance here.

If you read the posts I would say people are trying to establish the facts and what has gone on.

You however already know what has happened, why and what for – evidence seems to play no part in it.

Really ? You think ?

No, I don’t as it happens.  I think he’s racing clean and should be allowed to continue to race until evidence to the contrary.

I would be genuinely interested to know how they would begin to prove the anomaly though without inadvertently gaining an advantage.

Despite it being quoted so, Sky can’t try and replicate the issue with Froome, i think the rumour came after Froome was seen doing some really long rides in very hot conditions in SA on Strava.

There is no way they can replicate exactly the conditions, the fatigue, the drug levels etc with enough control to satisfy any sports scientist. Plus if it does have a performance gain, then they are not going to let him take a load more of it. My issue he tested fine for all other stages, a single stage of taking a large amount will do very little, it is like going to a single bike ride in a month and thinking you have grown fitter. Something with such a small gain if any, needs to be accumulative, such as going for 3 bike rides a week for 3 months, and he tested low the rest of the days, which is what confuses me.

My issue he tested fine for all other stages

Assuming that the clean samples are legit.  My gut feeling, vox populi, tinfoilhat suspicion is that something was done that meant it wasn’t over the limit in the other samples and whatever was done didn’t work or wasn’t done properly on the day he tested over the limit.

So for the people who think Froome shouldn’t race and no other riders with AAF should race either….

What happens if Froome is found to be clear of the AAF but he didn’t race? Sky will have lost out their sponsorship opportunities, the team will have lost out on their main target of the year – so all riders are impacted financially and commercially. Froome himself will miss out on millions from winnings and sponsorship opportunities. Does he get that money back? (If he is found to “guilty” then any prize money will be paid back, pretty sure sponsors will have caveated their deals as well)

Another similar question, what if it is a Trek rider or a Wanty rider who had an AAF but are subsequently cleared of it, someone who is fighting for their contract, paid low amounts of money and limited sponsorship which would be affected by not being allowed to race the TDF. Someone who has actually done nothing wrong but just needs to go through the process to clear the AAF.

So, should both riders not be allowed to race? At this stage surely we don’t know enough information as to make that call? Personally I think the process should be followed, at the end of the process then the decision of a ban and who won what races can be made.

If I thought I was clean and hadn’t taken anything that would result in a ban, then I would fight it and at the same time I would expect to be allowed to race and earn my living.

In this thread I don’t really see Sky Fan Bois per se, just people saying process needs to be followed and that the rules should be applied equally whether it is a Sky GC contender or a domestique of a smaller financed team.

I’m not a Sky fan, I have a genuine dislike of Sir DB, I don’t trust anything he says. In fact, whenever he speaks I generally think that he is lying and covering something up – even if he was reading out a shopping list I’d still think he was lying. His article on the BBC isn’t nice to read, at least to me, but that’s just because it seems like usual Sky PR nonsense. But we should still treat Sky and Froome the same as any other team and rider.

Neither WADA or the UCI think that he cheated, he hasn’t failed a drug test. WADA have essentially said “this is odd, can you explain please?”

That doesn’t explain why riders with lower levels have received bans in the past?

That doesn’t explain why riders with lower levels have received bans in the past?

They have a process for deciding this, that is what they are going through at the moment.

Rationally you’re right, but strictly speaking, the issue isn’t whether he benefitted from exceeding the WADA limit on inhaled Salbutamol, it’s just whether he exceeded the limit. It might seem counter-intuitive, but he doesn’t need to have obtained a performance advantage, just to have consumed too much of the stuff.

I’m mostly interested in the “why” as a driver for whether he may have done it or not. I’ve not read anything that says that there’s any SHORT term gain based on science not the gamut of opinion between “My mate Dave reckons it makes you ride uphill like a rocket” or “I’ve got asthma and it doesn’t do anything at all”. I don’t particularly like Froome (I do applaud his attempts to “animate” races though after being called boring) but it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense to me with the evidence available.

He’s either going to be able to prove (or obfuscate adequately to an equivalent level) that he did the right thing but it produced the wrong result or he’s getting banned. Sadly the argument becomes more about hysterical screaming from the usual suspects who will never be satisfied with any outcome short of Froome being banned.

Anyway, I’m sure this will be settled before he retires from cycling in a few years. Maybe.

An alternative view is they said explain your technical infringement of our anti doping rules to our satisfaction or we’ll need to sanction you (like we have to do to others in a similar situation).

We can all play whatabouttery. No doubt you won’t like mine either.

And I notice no-one wants to take on testing not picking up Lance. Funny that.

Koolaid all round it is then. Chin chin.

“It’s not a black and white concept though, Drug Testing has rules and limits, these things are in the hard to measure/factor/analyse grey areas which is why they are in a separate section of the drug testing world.”

Be very careful what you wish for!

The next thing you’ll hear is “so & so needs x powerful steroid shot for y symptoms….”

Hang on, we’ve been here before haven’t we ‘Brad’??

You may have a heart of metal, but seem to have a brain of cheese…(winky emoji!)

as to why the anti-doping tests didn’t pick up Lance? Do you not think testing has changed slightly since? Not saying it is perfect, but the Passport system has come in now where every athlete has to document where they are 24 hours a day (how Lizzie Armistead got into trouble – cannot see anyone tearing her apart for bad diary keeping?), they are are tested after every race and a lot more off season now if they are a GC contender, you can’t compare the Armstrong years to now, thankfully.

I am not saying everyone is clean, far from it, but i would hope that things have moved on a great deal at least, the very fact that we are waving our handbags about a slight infringement for Salbutomol and not massive amounts of every PED under the sun washed down with some juicy blood bags, shows things must have changed for the better a bit?

I am no defender of anyone taking any PED. I played pretty high level rugby for a premiership club in Union, paid my way through uni playing rugby league and then for the army, i watched time and time again where my opposite number on the front row of the scrum was smaller than me at the end of one season, only for him to come back the next season twice my size, spotty and with a bad attitude, at one point steroids were absolutely rife, and testing was non-existent even when it was abused really badly.

My favourite is bodybuilding, have you ever seen the size of a Mr Olympia contestant compared to a Natural Mr Olympia contestant?!

 (how Lizzie Armistead got into trouble – cannot see anyone tearing her apart for bad diary keeping?),

You missed the thread here then…

about a slight infringement for Salbutamol

It wasn’t just a slight infringement, was it? Froome’s supporters keep saying this (and trying to downplay the rather superhuman way he rides) but it doesn’t make it true.