- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Froome at pre-Tour de France 2017 press conference (picture credit Team Sky).jpgChris Froome case unlikely to be resolved in time for Tour de France
The case resulting from Chris Froome’s adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol at last year’s Vuelta a Espana is likely to rumble on beyond this year’s Tour de France. Team Sky had hoped the UCI would rule there was no disciplinary case to answer, but Le Monde reports that the argument was rejected, meaning the case will go to court with no date yet set for it to begin.
ASO is said to believe that the wording of its rules would enable it to exclude Froome from the race should his case still be ongoing, while Giro d’Italia organisers RCS Sport have been similarly keen to avoid a repeat of the scenario where Alberto Contador was disqualified as winner of the 2011 race after subsequently being handed a backdated two-year ban resulting from his positive test for clenbuterol at the 2010 Tour de France.
The UCI have reportedly considered imposing a provisional ban to prevent such scenarios, but for the time being Froome is free to race.
Nicolas Portal, sports director of Team Sky, told the Guardian: “For now he is focused on the idea of doing the Giro and the Tour. What he would like is that the UCI can give a decision right away. Because it’s not ideal to prepare for races like that.”
Froome’s lawyer, Mike Morgan, is reported to have requested and been refused access to anti-doping samples that the rider had provided in the days leading up to his adverse test.
Another possible defence would be to question the salbutamol test and the current limit of 1,000 nanograms per millilitre as determined by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada). However, Wada’s director general, Olivier Rabin, pointed out that “the rule has been established for a long time, the allowed level has not changed and similar cases have already been judged by CAS.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- BigDoodyBoy 1 sec ago
The argument in the beginning seems to be that cyclists will be a benefit to the high street. I guess that means that they are going there to shop...
- chrisonabike 11 min 33 sec ago
People who are subsidised* to make big holes in road (amongst other negative effects) complain about the holes in the road. Same people also...
- qwerty360 30 min 48 sec ago
Half expecting an eventual response on twitter from drivers about how the cyclist should be closer to the kerb (despite 1/3 the handle bar being...
- Flâneur 51 min 40 sec ago
Yes, obviously complain, a (registered) letter to the CEO perhaps? This should not have happened by Avanti's stated procedure....
- mike the bike 1 hour 4 min ago
If you ask the world's leading economic commentators how many people have been rescued from abject poverty by capitalism the average answer would...
- The Larger Cyclist 1 hour 29 min ago
loads of parking
- brooksby 2 hours 13 min ago
I hate it when I can't find the obvious source of a puncture.
- don simon fbpe 4 hours 17 min ago
Now, if we're talking gravel bikes, that's a whole different story. Gimme, gimme, gimme! Apologies for the Facebook link....
- wtjs 4 hours 20 min ago
The police are operationally independent, in fact the regional Police and Crime Commissioners have to swear in their oath of office that they will...
- brooksby 4 hours 24 min ago
"'Right", said Fred, "we'll 'ave to get a move on…"
Add new comment
7 comments
Christ on a bike! If he hasn't been able to replicate the conditions to demonstrate that he's not fucked up by now, then he never will. Just get the fuck on with it and as for team sky and their no disciplinary case to answer. Do you seriously want to turn fans off, if not to cycling as a whole, to Team SKY? Fucking idiots.
What a fuck-up. Almost as bad as Brexit!
He could go rowing with Bradley. I’m sure they will overlook any improprieties that happened prior. Simple thing to sort.
no drugs allowed in cycling whatsoever. If you can’t perform without medication, don’t compete. Tough but makes an even playing field.
It seems to me like the UCI haven't got the courage to take the case on and that Sky's are trying to bully the UCI into dropping the whole thing by making it drag on so long that it eventually becomes meaningless.
I think that Froome is in danger of being suspended at some time in the future which may cost him the chance to compete in 3 grand tours and i do wonder if Sky are acting in his or their best interests.
I can see the eventual outcome being a guilty verdict, the loss of the Vuelta title and a ban being imposed which will run over most of the off season at the end of this year. Everyone can then (depending on their particular stance in the whole mess) moan or say that justice has been served. It will be interesting to see if Froom is sacked by Sky if there is a guilty verdict handed down at the end of all of this mess.
''Team Sky had hoped the UCI would rule there was no disciplinary case to answer,''
Why on earth would they think there is no disciplinary case ... exceeded the limit and has no explanation other than ''I promise I didnt take too many puffs''.
This is the death by 100 cuts of the all parties. They should bury their own agendas and act in the interests of cycling.
It's beginning to look like Froome should have held up his hand last September, apologised for exceeding the correct number of puffs, and taken a six or nine-month suspension. He may have lost the Vuelta result but at least he would have been racing without distraction this season.
There is a hint of arrogance in his blind refusal to accept fault in all of this. Don't get me wrong, if I was as good as him I'd be a tad haughty as well but, for all of us, there is a time and place for humility.