Tour de France organisers have excluded four-time winner and defending champion Chris Froome from this year’s Tour de France, according to a report in the French newspaper Le Monde.
Team Sky will reportedly appeal to the French national Olympic Committee (CNOSF), with a hearing set for 9AM on Tuesday and a decision expected on Wednesday.
Froome returned an adverse analytical finding for twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol during last September’s Vuelta, which he won.
He has continued racing while the case is ongoing, which he is permitted to do since salbutamol is a specified substance rather than one that is banned outright.
Last month, he won the Giro d’Italia, making him just the third man ever to hold all three Grand Tour titles at the same time.
Under article 28.1 of the regulations of the Tour de France, and in compliance with UCI rules, ASO “expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in – or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.”
Froome insists that he has done nothing wrong and is confident he will be able to provide a satisfactory explanation for the elevated levels of salbutamol at the Vuelta.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Team Sky said: “We are confident that Chris will be riding the Tour as we know he has done nothing wrong.”
The last time ASO took such action was in 2009, when it sought to exclude Tom Boonen from the Tour de France after the former world champion’s third out-of-competition positive test for cocaine.
While that did not constitute and anti-doping rule violation, ASO believed that the Belgian’s participation could damage the reputation of the race.
However, the day before the Tour de France was due to start in Monaco, a court in Paris ruled that Boonen could take part in the race.
That precedent is likely to be seized upon by Froome and Team Sky’s lawyers, who would also be likely to highlight how Alberto Contador was allowed to ride the 2011 Tour de France, where he was defending the title he won the previous year.
At the time, an appeal by the UCI and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the Spanish national cycling federation’s decision to exonerate him in connection with his positive test for clenbuterol was still outstanding.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) eventually handed Contador, who finished fifth overall at the 2011 Tour de France a mainly retrospective ban and stripped him of his victory in the previous year’s edition of the race and his 2011 Giro d’Italia title.
95 thoughts on “Updated: ASO exclude Chris Froome from the Tour de France – Team Sky “confident” of winning appeal”
Hoorah! Someone stands for
Hooray! Someone stands for what is right!
lork wrote:
Until Wednesday at least 🙂
lork wrote:
Dupe
cdamian wrote:
Dupe
Dope?
Dope?
lork wrote:
Dupe
lork wrote:
So inquisition tribunals were right also.
In reality there is at the best as much PEDs with PROVEN effect like fingers on your hands. And no (something)but(something).
And also, there is not any substance enhancing your performance in multi-stage cycling race.
There are only some believed they do something. But it is faith or deceit, not science.
tulenik wrote:
Wot?
lork wrote:
And you know what is right?
burtthebike wrote:
Thanks for asking burt. Yes, I do.
lork wrote:
Thank you o lord, and I bow down to your superior wisdom and knowledge of all things. Are you a cult?
burtthebike wrote:
no. Though my forum name would be a good one for a cult leader. Are you a bike?
lork wrote:
No, but I try not to claim to know what is right before I know the facts.
burtthebike wrote:
We all know the facts! EVERYONE KNOWS THE FACTS! What the fuck are you talking about?? He tested POSITIVE for an excessive amout of a restricted substance!
lork wrote:
He didn’t test positive he had an adverse analytical reading for a substance which he, and many many more pro cyclists, are allowed to take. There is a difference, however slight.
Anyone who takes salbutamol would provide a “positive result” because it would be in their system, Froome provided an adverse result which menat it was above the legal limit.
Cue the Sky fan boys
Cue the Sky fan boys
dreamlx10 wrote:
Internet debating in nutshell. Play the ball not the man, eh?
This slightly confuses me.
This slightly confuses me.
There is no way of knowing if other riders have raced the TdF whilst they have had an AAF and subsequently been cleared.
Seeing as the UCI’s own rules allow Chris to race, how can he be prevented from racing? I’m not saying the rules are right (in fact, I think many of the UCI rules don’t work particularly well).
It’s possible that the entire nation of France can’t stand to see a successful non-French team and rider beating them at their own game, so they are using this to try and take away competition from Bardet.
It’s hardly like the TdF has much a reputation to protect, that was destroyed totally in the 90’s and 2000’s.
Canyon48 wrote:
It’s posturing by ASO, they haven’t a hope in hell of making this stick, because as you say CF competing is 100% allowed in the current rules.
Canyon48 wrote:
That’s where it hinges for me… shouldn’t all riders who are currently defending an AAF (but who’ve not been subject to a news leak) also be stopped from competing?
And yes, sadly where the TdF is concerned the ‘reputation’ boat has already sailed…
This slightly confuses me.
oops double post
They’ve had months to do this
They’ve had months to do this and yet it happens less than a week before the start and just a few days after Bernard Hinault sticks his nose in.
What a coincidence.
chelmsfordowl wrote:
Hinault’s had months to stick his nose in and yet this happens less than a w… etc, etc.
chelmsfordowl wrote:
Left to the very last minute to remove the possibility of the CAS appeal ruling in time to reverse the decision?
Also (literally) now Froome has been cleared they can’t exclude him surely?
pastyfacepaddy wrote:
They can exclude who they like, the ASO run the race, not the UCI. Wouldn’t stand up in court now, unless they could find some other reason (e.g. his riding style or his insistence on oval chainrings)
Just because the French dont
Just because the French dont like being beaten in their own country. Its flipping typical of the ASO to do this. And Hinault should remember where he comes from and what was happening when he rode. Just flipping typical.
Rules is rules! Perhaps not.
Rules is rules! Perhaps not.
Team Sky always play the rules to their maximum benefit. They are entitled to do so. Therefore, it seems only fair that ASO apply their rules to exclude Froome. They are entitlted to do so.
Swings and roundabouts!
I can’t quite believe a
I can’t quite believe a cycling organisation actually has a backbone!
This is an outrage! Kenya’s
This is an outrage! Kenya’s finest cyclist MUST be allowed to race. I’m thoroughly offended and I for one will be boycotting this year’s Tour by not watching it on the TV.
Aye right I will. Best Sunday ever.
Geraint’s chance to shine
Geraint’s chance to shine,sorry crash out again.
6 days before the race starts
6 days before the race starts? They taking the piss?
Zero class from ASO. Hinault was doped to the eyeballs else why would he refuse a drugs test? Hypocrisy happening here. As someone else has mentioned how many other athletes have competed under the same conditions as Froome that we don’t know about? Every last one should have their names stricken from the records if we want consistency and ‘what’s right’ here.
How can Team Sky know for
How can Team Sky know for certain he has done nothing wrong? Of course they can’t.
I don’t really buy the
I don’t really buy the argument that because mistakes were made in the past we have to continue this way.
This sort of rubbish that is
This sort of rubbish that is going on is what is ruining the reputation of pro road cycling.
The UCI isn’t progressive enough in making rules, many rules are ambiguous and rules are not always applied equally.
Take the rules on aerodynamic fairings for example, a fairly ambiguous rule as it says fairings can’t be integrated to the frame but permits aerodynamic structures/features on the frame. The rules on modification of parts certainly isn’t always followed (at least there is a large grey area which is exploited).
More frustratingly, its come to the point where TUE’s (an exemption due to a medical need) now occur a stigma to the point that some riders (Tim Wellens eg) have refused to take medication on a TUE because of all the flack he’d certainly receive for using it. YET, drafting a car and taking a “sticky-bottle” are things which, even though they are against UCI rules, are just accepted as being part of cycling.
Uran and Bennett were both handed 20-second penalties in last years TdF for taking illegal feeds, however, the decision was reversed so after it was pointed out that Bardet had also done the same. Sagan was DQ’d from last years TdF for swerving and the eventual collision between him and Cavendish, yet Demare swerved violently (forcing Bouhanni to stop) but didn’t receive a penalty. I’m not saying I do or don’t agree with any of these individual penalties, just pointing out that they aren’t applied equally.
On top of this, cycling, in general, cycling seems to be obsessed with a bygone era of cycling and cyclists but ignores the fact they were caught taking drugs – Merckx (doping), Hinault (refused drugs test – I wonder why…), Pantani (doping).
Along with this, there is a sort of snobbery/elitism that surrounds cycling (even at amateur levels), the ludicrous arguments that came out about disc brakes are a perfect example of this and the snobbery some cyclists have of those who aren’t using 11 speed, blah, blah, blah.
The fans aren’t much better, the stigma that surrounds asthmatics and those who suffer from hayfever isn’t far from playground bullying (eg people running around waving inhalers etc). The way Chris Froome was received (all the booing) when he cycled into the stadium in Marseille last TdF as the GC leader, is another example of the damaging reputation cycling has.
And we wonder why people think of pro cycling as having a bad rap.
This is getting a bit
This is getting a bit ridiculous.
Froome’s revised result was 1492, the ‘actionable’ threshold is 1200.
So Froome was about 25% over.
The maximum limit is based on a maximum does in 12 hours of 1600mcg or 8 puffs on an inhaler.
So at 25% over the maximum permissible level Froome stands accused of taking 2 additional puffs on his inhaler.
It’s hardly Festina mk 2.
Figures from Velonews:
http://www.velonews.com/2018/05/news/expert-new-salbutamol-study-not-game-changer-froome-case_465443
Rich_cb wrote:
Totally agree that such a minimal amount over the limit should be ignored, pretty much in line with Contador having levels so low that they shouldn’t have been picked up on, and the rest was all speculation and assumption. Now that’s sorted, we can give him back 2010 TdF and 2011 Giro titles then. I do expect there to be a reaction justifying Contador’s ban while holding Froomedog as a clean rider.
don simon wrote:
Froome tested positive for a ‘specified substance’ which doesn’t automatically result in a ban.
Contador tested positive for a ‘prohibited substance’ which does.
In fact according to UCI regulations Contador should have been provisionally suspended as soon as the finding became apparent making him ineligible for the titles he later won.
Contador’s case was handled very badly and not in accordance with UCI rules resulting in the ensuing fiasco.
Froome’s case is being handled in accordance with the regulations.
The only divergence being his loss of anonymity.
Rich_cb wrote:
Where are you getting this “actionable threshold” of “1200” (units?) from? It’s not in that link. Further, the WADA regulations state the threshold is 1000 ng/mL, see https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-at-all-times/beta-2-agonists:
“presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL … is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)”
1492 ng/mL is ~50% over the (generous) limit.
The recent dutch study on salbutamol was based on virtual, computer models, and is not consistent with actual human studies (inc. with deliberately dehydrated subjects), from what I’ve read from Ross Tucker. Even so, all those studies still indicate that very “high”/concentrated (i.e. many puffs in short order) inhaled doses, in excess of what would be therapeutically suggested, are required to see a /low/ rate of false positives (15.4%) within the /12 hour/ WADA-allowable salbutamol dose limit (800mcg) in the case of a /virtual/ *computer model* study, or _even lower_ false positive rates (1.2%) with /real/ subjects inhaling the /24 hour/ permitted dose (1600mcg) in short order.
Chris Froome at the time stated he’d had only 2 or 3 puffs of his inhaler.
Ventolin inhalers dispense ~100mcg per actuation it appears. Recommended doses for EIA are 2 puffs (180mcg) 15 to 30 mins prior to exercise, and a maximum of 800 mcg per day (24 hours).
Even if you believe the dutch, computer study, there is only a 15.4% chance of a false-positive, _IFF_ Chris was taking salbutamol in a manner *not consistent* with either _therapeutic use_ or _his own words_.
There is simply no way known to science – even the “dodgier” science – that Chris could have had that level of salbutamol in his urine due to use consistent with therapeutic use to treat EIA.
Paul J wrote:
It is in the link. Under the sub heading ‘Froome Levels Recalibrated’.
Even at 1.2% that would lead to regular false positives, at 15.4% the test is basically worthless.
Drug metabolism and excretion is not an exact science, there are myriad variables at work so any rule based on a set level is likely to be flawed.
Rich_cb wrote:
Huh, and where are they getting that figure from? The WADA threshold is 1000 ng/mL – not 1200 – as I quoted.
Note that 1.2% or 15.4% “false positive” rates still require puffing *4 to 8 times* more doses than the therapeutic guidelines. (And the 15.4% study is a computer model, and an order of magnitude out from the human study).
Even if Froome gets away with this based on those studies, there is _no way_ he can claim he was taking doses consistent with EIA treatment.
Paul J wrote:
Where are you getting this “actionable threshold” of “1200” (units?) from? It’s not in that link. Further, the WADA regulations state the threshold is 1000 ng/mL, see https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-at-all-times/beta-2-agonists:
“presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL … is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)”
1492 ng/mL is ~50% over the (generous) limit.
The recent dutch study on salbutamol was based on virtual, computer models, and is not consistent with actual human studies (inc. with deliberately dehydrated subjects), from what I’ve read from Ross Tucker. Even so, all those studies still indicate that very “high”/concentrated (i.e. many puffs in short order) inhaled doses, in excess of what would be therapeutically suggested, are required to see a /low/ rate of false positives (15.4%) within the /12 hour/ WADA-allowable salbutamol dose limit (800mcg) in the case of a /virtual/ *computer model* study, or _even lower_ false positive rates (1.2%) with /real/ subjects inhaling the /24 hour/ permitted dose (1600mcg) in short order.
Chris Froome at the time stated he’d had only 2 or 3 puffs of his inhaler.
Ventolin inhalers dispense ~100mcg per actuation it appears. Recommended doses for EIA are 2 puffs (180mcg) 15 to 30 mins prior to exercise, and a maximum of 800 mcg per day (24 hours).
Even if you believe the dutch, computer study, there is only a 15.4% chance of a false-positive, _IFF_ Chris was taking salbutamol in a manner *not consistent* with either _therapeutic use_ or _his own words_.
There is simply no way known to science – even the “dodgier” science – that Chris could have had that level of salbutamol in his urine due to use consistent with therapeutic use to treat EIA.— Rich_cb
You are largely right, up to your last sentence. “There is simply no way known to science…”
If you read the entirety of Ross’s posts you will see that there are plenty of ways to return a reading of > 1000 ng, and that the particular testing protocol is not particularly consistent. At least 2 previous riders have shown that they have returned levels of > 1500ng while still adhering to the dosage scheme.
It’s an imperfect protocol, but due to limits in practicality and cost, the best we have available at the minute.
And 15.4% chance of a false positive is, in medical terms, ridiculously high. You would never go to a doctor for a career ending procedure that only had an 85% chance of a successful outcome
madcarew wrote:
If you read the entirety of Ross’s posts— madcarew
You havn’t read my post.
No, while adhering to the *WADA maximum* dosage in a 12 or 24 hour period, except taking that dosage in one go.
The WADA maximum dosage, necked down in one go, *far exceeds* the recommended therapeutic guidelines, precisely to be very very generous and avoid false positives.
So, yes, Froome may get off based on those studies because /maybe/ he was just inside the _very generous_ WADA limit. However, there is still no way known to science that he was using an inhaler in a manner consistent with dosing recommendations for EIA.
It’s an imperfect protocol, but due to limits in practicality and cost, the best we have available at the minute.
And 15.4% chance of a false positive is, in medical terms, ridiculously high. You would never go to a doctor for a career ending procedure that only had an 85% chance of a successful outcome
— madcarew
Again, with those studies, the simulated subjects were taking 800mcg (the maximum dosage to be taken daily, per therapeutic guidelines) *in one go*. In the human study, some were taking 1600 mcg in one go. Chris said he took only 2, 3 puffs, i.e. the recommended 200mcg.
Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote. 😉
Paul J wrote:
Again, with those studies, the simulated subjects were taking 800mcg (the maximum dosage to be taken daily, per therapeutic guidelines) *in one go*. In the human study, some were taking 1600 mcg in one go. Chris said he took only 2, 3 puffs, i.e. the recommended 200mcg.
Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote. 😉— madcarew
Firstly the most commonly used Salbutamol inhaler is 200mcg per puff. So even if Froome only took 3 puffs as you claim (I have not see that claim elsewhere) then he will have inhaled 600mcg or 600000ng.
If 600000ng go in I think there is a pretty obvious way that 1500ng/ml could come out.
Rich_cb wrote:
If you read the entirety of Ross’s posts— Rich_cb
You havn’t read my post.
No, while adhering to the *WADA maximum* dosage in a 12 or 24 hour period, except taking that dosage in one go.
The WADA maximum dosage, necked down in one go, *far exceeds* the recommended therapeutic guidelines, precisely to be very very generous and avoid false positives.
So, yes, Froome may get off based on those studies because /maybe/ he was just inside the _very generous_ WADA limit. However, there is still no way known to science that he was using an inhaler in a manner consistent with dosing recommendations for EIA.
It’s an imperfect protocol, but due to limits in practicality and cost, the best we have available at the minute.
And 15.4% chance of a false positive is, in medical terms, ridiculously high. You would never go to a doctor for a career ending procedure that only had an 85% chance of a successful outcome
— madcarew
Again, with those studies, the simulated subjects were taking 800mcg (the maximum dosage to be taken daily, per therapeutic guidelines) *in one go*. In the human study, some were taking 1600 mcg in one go. Chris said he took only 2, 3 puffs, i.e. the recommended 200mcg.
Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote. 😉
— Paul J Firstly the most commonly used Salbutamol inhaler is 200mcg per puff. So even if Froome only took 3 puffs as you claim (I have not see that claim elsewhere) then he will have inhaled 600mcg or 600000ng. If 600000ng go in I think there is a pretty obvious way that 1500ng/ml could come out.— madcarew
Well that’s that sorted then. I can’t see what’s taking the experts with all the datas so long to sort it out.
don simon wrote:
We’re waiting for the experts to do the pharmacokinetic study.
Until then it’s all pure speculation.
It’s entirely possible that Froome stuck to the allowed dose and yet tested positive.
It’s also entirely possible that he exceeded the allowed dose.
Until we get the results of the pharmacokinetic study we simply don’t know which is true.
Rich_cb wrote:
Well that’s that sorted then. I can’t see what’s taking the experts with all the datas so long to sort it out.
— Rich_cb We’re waiting for the experts to do the pharmacokinetic study. Until then it’s all pure speculation. It’s entirely possible that Froome stuck to the allowed dose and yet tested positive. It’s also entirely possible that he exceeded the allowed dose. Until we get the results of the pharmacokinetic study we simply don’t know which is true.— don simon
So do you think it’s obvious or not? On one hand you’re pointing at an obvious conclusion and within seconds you’re coming in where the rest of the right thinking world is. Sort yourself out.
don simon wrote:
You’ve had a bit of a comprehension fail there.
I was replying to a poster who claimed it was impossible to test positive while adhering to the rules.
There is an obvious way for Froome to test positive yet not have broken any rules.
There is also an obvious way for Froome to test positive after breaking the rules.
Rich_cb wrote:
So do you think it’s obvious or not? On one hand you’re pointing at an obvious conclusion and within seconds you’re coming in where the rest of the right thinking world is. Sort yourself out.
— Rich_cb You’ve had a bit of a comprehension fail there. I was replying to a poster who claimed it was impossible to test positive while adhering to the rules. There is an obvious way for Froome to test positive yet not have broken any rules. There is also an obvious way for Froome to test positive after breaking the rules.— don simon
Isn’t the point that there are so many variables as to make it a particularly messy grey? That any attempts at replication (and therefore the results) won’t replicate entirely the conditions in which Froomedog took it in the Vuelta?
Doesn’t it follow that, if Froome hasn’t been able to replicate his AAF since, the detractors (and possibly the UCI/WADA) would see that as being evidence of foul play during the Vuelta, while Froome will claim that it’s only evidence of not being able to breach the limit under different circumstances?
That’s how messy this is. The bulk of this debate is polarised by Froome fanboys and Sky haters, who are contributing, and will get out, the square root of fuck-all. I’m a neutral, and I think the whole thing stinks. Not necessarily because Froome has done anything wrong, but because the world tour is still fucking its image up.
davel wrote:
Clearly the best thing for Froome to do is repeat the AAF a couple of times during the Tour and say, “Look, it happens under the conditions that I’m riding Grand Tours! I think I’ve proved my innocence.”
If I organise a party, book
If I organise a party, book the venue, the DJ, food and so on, and one of the rules of my party organising is that I get to choose who can attend, and decide you1, you2 & you3, but not4 you can come along, surely if you4 takes me to court in order to have them overrule my rights (as per my published rules) the the atmosphere when you4 rocks up is hardly going to be fabulous is it?
Regardless whether Mr Foome is innocent or was in the wrong, surely Sky are aware that by doing this, they’re bullying the ASO who’ve exercised (rightly or wrongly) their right not to invite a given rider for reasons that are documented and published? And given the teams are only now announcing their rosters, how could ASO have done this much earlier?
rswift wrote:
Why? Because they weren’t sure Froome would be chosen? Nonsense.
If the ASO had wanted to go down this route they could have done so weeks back. Considering his previous 30 year role within the ASO the timing of Hinault’s comments are no coincidence.
rswift wrote:
But conversely, if you organise a party, make it part of the UCpartI World Tour, you can hardly complain when you are held to UCpartI rules….
I was quite excited with the
I was quite excited with the anticipation of Saturday’s start, now even more intriuge, I don’t think I can cope.
I also notice Jiffy bag doctor’s book comes out very soon…
I don’t agree with this. He
I don’t agree with this. He may or may not be guilty but it has not been accertained yet because the UCI are being very slow to settle the matter. They could spin this out as long as they like and he is now being punished for something that has not yet been proven. Seems Napoleon runs the TdF.
I don’t think Froomie has
I don’t think Froomie has damaged the reputation at all, its the screaming, speculative, trial-by-newspaper kangaroo courts.
Was Tommy Simpson ever excluded? Or Marco Pantani? These and a number of others were “known” or “alleged” to take performance enhancing drugs. It matters not whether they were ever proven, their situation also therefore falls under the description of entrants “… whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event.””
If you are going to take this stance with competitors who have to take drungs – approved ones – for a medical condition then I’m sure there are a great many out there – and a greater proportion in the paralympics where some competitors can only get hrough the pain barrier with painkillers. Those competitors are, quite rightly, lauded for thier determination not pilloried for using the drugs they need.
This is just a great way for
This is just a great way for the organisers to ensure even more free publicity, which is probably the point. They know they are unlikely to win, but it’s all over the media, even those which don’t cover the TdF.
Meanwhile Virenque will be
Meanwhile Virenque will be welcomed and idolised by the French public and media as usual, Merckx is being honoured next year in Flanders and no doubt Vinocourov and his team will not have any questions asked about their conduct.
Such blatant hypocricy.
Kapelmuur wrote:
Yep.
It seems to me that the media (particularly the French media) has made it cool/trendy/whatever to despise Chris Froome/Team Sky and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. I don’t like or hate Team Sky more or less than any other pro team.
Suppose Romain Bardet had been caught out in similar circumstances and was subject to the same investigation as Froome – I wonder if the ASO would ban Bardet from the TdF… (of course we all know they wouldn’t!).
It can’t be a coincidence
It can’t be a coincidence that this story gets released today:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44654688
More shit to add add to the bubbling pot.
Even if CF is cleared, it is very likely that he’ll be in a yellow coloured jersey from stage 1, but it won’t be as GC leader.
Butty wrote:
Foolish Sky for going for the white tops
I’m a fan of Sky and i’m
I’m a fan of Sky and i’m confident Froome will be cleared, but probably on some form of technicality which cant be proven either way.
The ASO are within their rights (and written rules) to not allow a person to take part blah blah blah. However the timing of this stinks and it has been done deliberately to try and cause problems for Sky.
In the end, after his Giro ride, i dont think he would win, look at Quintana last year but if Sky succeed with the appeal it will hand Froome and the team a massive boost, a bit like an Alex Ferguson half time team talk.
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
Bans have been handed out before without the case being proven, let’s hope for some consistency. It wouldn’t sit well with me if one is dealt with one way, and another is dealt with differently, it shouldn’t with anyone else.
It’s a dick move from ASO.
It’s a dick move from ASO.
anything to give Bardet a
anything to give Bardet a chance. Where were the ASO when Froome was having piss thrown in his face? shame on you ASO.
I suggest they ban team sky
I suggest they ban team sky if ASO is turned down. Then there will be no time for a second decision about allowing the whole team before the tour starts. I should think ASO has had enough of Team sky’s bullying and self-righteousness.
Second option, arrest Froome on suspicion of doping just before stage 1 begins, doping is a criminal offence in France. Interrogated all afternoon, then he can start stage two should he be so inclined.
(No subject)
But the experts haven’t found
But the experts haven’t found the obvious. It’s taken 9 months because nothing is obvious. I assume his guilt as he can’t prove innocence. That’s the right way to go and might get Team SKY to be a little more forthcoming. Ban the cheat.
don simon wrote:
This is the cleanest way to go, for me. It will be deeply unsatisfactory and beset by counter-claims and possibly legal cases. But the alternative is messier and way worse PR.
Unfortunately, given the leak of the AAF, Sky botching their image over the last couple of years, the UCI’s silence and ASO’s hypocrisy, they’ve lost the luxury of being shakily lenient. They’ve got to be shakily strict.
No biochemist or test finding will resolve this. It’s a management failure, and the new, dynamic French guy who promised to sweep away Cookson’s dithering is being just as dithery.
davel wrote:
This is the cleanest way to go, for me. It will be deeply unsatisfactory and beset by counter-claims and possibly legal cases. But the alternative is messier and way worse PR.
Unfortunately, given the leak of the AAF, Sky botching their image over the last couple of years, the UCI’s silence and ASO’s hypocrisy, they’ve lost the luxury of being shakily lenient. They’ve got to be shakily strict.
No biochemist or test finding will resolve this. It’s a management failure, and the new, dynamic French guy who promised to sweep away Cookson’s dithering is being just as dithery.— don simon
I think there might be legal cases this way too.
Sniffer wrote:
Not just in this case either. ASO have the greatest chance as I guess they can invite who they want.
Sniffer wrote:
I reckon – I said as much ^
It’s horrible and messy either way, but I see Froome facing no sanction as more damaging to the UCI (even if it isn’t ultimately the UCI that makes the crucial decision) and world tour.
Ultimately, the UCI should have been all over it – no matter whose court the ball is in, the UCI needs to be protecting what reputation it has left.
don simon wrote:
Events seem to have overtaken us a little bit.
There was a clearly defined mechanism for Froome to prove his innocence, it seems like he has successfully done so.
Due process takes time, the Movistar rider who was suspended last week had his AAF about 18 months previously.
don simon wrote:
I hope you’re not selected for jury service.
Sky should just sabotage the
Sky should just sabotage the tour if they can’t run Froome. Go for a breakaway on day one. Team time trial the early stages. Ruin all the sprint stages. Run all the french riders over with the team car.
…..and day one of the Tour
…..and day one of the Tour the French media will roll out Richard Virenque to give his usual “expert” opinion.
chelmsfordowl wrote:
well, about 90% of Virenque, the other 10% still being other peoples blood.
Who said something about a
Who said something about a cycling organisation having a backbone? Clearly the UCI continue to be invertebrates….
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/
Anyone wanna withdraw their
Anyone wanna withdraw their comments now?
Liam Cahill wrote:
So does Hinault still reckon
So does Hinault still reckon the riders should go on strike?
Anyone feeling a little bit
Anyone feeling a little bit silly now after all those raging “liar” “cheat” accusations?
What surprise that the Froome
What surprise that the Froome lovers have stepped out from behind the like button to express their position. I’m still the same, he hasn’t proven innocence, just that UCI accepts the story. Still lacking inconsistency and it’ll be ineresting to see who else challenges now.
don simon wrote:
If i give you my address can you send on the WADA report and evidence that you have obviously reviewed in full?
I would love to take a look and see if i draw the same conclusion as your good self.
Cheers.
don simon wrote:
What is a surprise, is that you’re still posting on here saying you haven’t changed your position in the face of today’s events. Oh no, wait, haters gonna hate.
Though I notice you haven’t repeated your ‘ban the cheat’ line. .
700c wrote:
What is a surprise, is that you’re still posting on here saying you haven’t changed your position in the face of today’s events. Oh no, wait, haters gonna hate.
Though I notice you haven’t repeated your ‘ban the cheat’ line. .
— don simon
What am I hating? Well as UCI say he isn’t cheating, I have to accept that he’s not going to get a ban. Personally I believe that he’s as dirty as fuck, that Team SKY are dirty as fuck and that there is a rule for one and a second rule for another. There are going to be plently who think that they can have a pop at me and not the argument. I have no argument with the ruling and accept it so I will not be making individual replies to sad sacks that can’t “win” with grace, you’re embarrassing. Keep on dancing and looking like sad cunts!
And yes, ban him as he was over the permitted level. What’s the point of having a level if you can concoct a story to get youself off?
EDIT: Just got a couple more names to add to my thick gullible cunt list.
don simon]
There is no “permitted” level for Salbutamol in urine. It’s an action limit.
don simon wrote:
You’re a joke, mate. Calling people cunts you know you’ve lost the argument.. in other threads you conflate Contador’s case with Froome’s- banned vs restricted substance. Evidence heard and there was no AAF case to answer. Move on.
don simon wrote:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
I’d also recommend https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514132/ref=nodl_
As a genuine question, what would it take for you to change your mind about Chris Froome? Maybe not on this forum, you probably have too much “invested” in your stated opinion to be able to change your mind publicly, but perhaps elsewhere?
don simon wrote:
Froome was required to provide a satisfactory explanation for his AAF.
He has done so to the satisfaction of WADA and the UCI.
That is good enough for me.
If the correct procedures had been followed he would have been given anonymity throughout this process.
We have no idea how many other anonymous riders have successfully challenged an AAF.
We know only of the unsuccessful.
Ergo there is no evidence of inconsistency.
don simon wrote:
As I think I said elsewhere, I hope you don’t find your way onto a jury.
Duncann wrote:
As I think I said elsewhere, I hope you don’t find your way onto a jury.— don simon
It’s OK, I gnored it the first time for being a rather silly comment too.
don simon wrote:
I think it’s a great analogy
The Doome lovers, whilst
The Doome lovers, whilst still out in force, are finding their heads are spinning violently at this point in time.
Evidence, or lack of it, for their blinkered points of view, however, won’t stop them peddling their half-truths and lies about one of the World’s top athletes.
For any athlete, with this amount of press and social media pressure, to be able to perform at this level for so many years now (at this point in time we believe a drugs free perfomance) is absolutely astonishing, delightful and motivational to ANY aspiring sportsman or sportswoman.
Have a great TdF Froomy!
T
So Don, since you mention sad
So Don, since you mention sad people, what evidence do you base your belief about Froome being dirty on? You wouldn’t be basing that on something without having evidence for it would you because that would make you look like a real sad c—t. I can only assume that you have seen all the evidence or that you are talking out of your arse.
Welsh boy wrote:
About as much evidence as you have.
Now I know what it feels like to be the invited guest at a bukkake party.
don simon wrote:
The evidence that this did not constitute an AAF is initially based on the UCI statement regarding the advise they received from WADA
There is nothing yet to suggest that decision is wrong – so it’s hard to see that saying “as much evidence as you have” has any basis unless we decide our opinion carries more weight than WADAs evaluation. We don’t have access to all the data, so we can’t drill down any further alas – i’m not convinced that would make much difference for many anyway..