- 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 (photo credit LaPresse).jpgChris Froome cleared in salbutamol case - Tour de France champ says he "never doubted" he would be exonerated
Chis Froome has been cleared of anti-doping charges following a urine test at the Vuelta a Espana last year when he was discovered to have twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol in his system. The Team Sky rider has said he had "never doubted that this case would be dismissed for the simple reason that I have known throughout I did nothing wrong."
> Read the reaction from around the cycling world on our Live blog
In a statement this morning, world cycling's governing body, the UCI said that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had told it that in light of "the specific facts of the case" it accepted that Froome had not committed an anti-doping rule violation.
Yesterday,. Tour de France organisers ASO were reported to have excluded four-time winner and defending champion Froome from the Tour de France, which starts on Saturday, due to the potential damage his participation could cause to the image of the race.
> ASO exclude Chris Froome from the Tour de France - Team Sky "confident" of winning appeal
Team Sky confirmed yesterday that they are confident of winning an appeal against that decision, scheduled for tomorrow in Paris.
Clearly whether or not that hearing now takes place will depend on ASO's reaction to today's news.
In a statement released by Team Sky this morning, Froome said: "I am very pleased that the UCI has exonerated me. While this decision is obviously a big deal for me and the Team, it’s also an important moment for cycling.
"I understand the history of this great sport – good and bad. I have always taken my leadership position very seriously and I always do things the right way. I meant it when I said that I would never dishonour a winner’s jersey and that my results would stand the test of time.
“I have never doubted that this case would be dismissed for the simple reason that I have known throughout I did nothing wrong. I have suffered with asthma since childhood. I know exactly what the rules are regarding my asthma medication and I only ever use my puffer to manage my symptoms within the permissible limits
“Of course, the UCI had to examine these test results from the Vuelta. Unfortunately, the details of the case did not remain confidential, as they should have done. And I appreciate more than anyone else the frustration at how long the case has taken to resolve and the uncertainty this has caused. I am glad it’s finally over."
He added: “I am grateful for all the support I have had from the Team and from many fans across the world. Today’s ruling draws a line. It means we can all move on and focus on the Tour de France.”
Team Sky principal Sir Dave Brailsford said: “We have always had total confidence in Chris and his integrity. We knew that he had followed the right medical guidance in managing his asthma at the Vuelta and were sure that he would be exonerated in the end, which he has been. This is why we decided that it was right for Chris to continue racing, in line with UCI rules, while the process was ongoing. We are pleased that it has now been resolved.
“Chris’s elevated Salbutamol urine reading from Stage 18 of the Vuelta was treated as a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) by the UCI and WADA, which triggered a requirement for us to provide further information. After a comprehensive review of that information, relevant data and scientific research, the UCI and WADA have concluded that there was, in fact, no AAF and that no rule has been broken.
“We said at the outset that there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol. This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled. A review of all Chris’s 21 test results from the Vuelta revealed that the Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation and therefore consistent with him having taken a permitted dose of Salbutamol."
Following his Giro d'Italia victory last month, Froome is just the third man ih history - the others are Bernard Hinault and Eddy Merckx - to hold all three Grand Tour titles at the same time.
Brailsford continued: “Chris has proved he is a great champion – not only on the bike but also by how he has conducted himself during this period. It has not been easy, but his professionalism, integrity and good grace under pressure have been exemplary and a credit to the sport.
“The greatest bike race in the world starts in five days. We can’t wait to get racing again and help Chris win it for a record-equalling fifth time.”
Here is the UCI's statement in full:
The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) confirms that the anti-doping proceedings involving Mr Christopher Froome have now been closed.
On 20 September 2017, Mr Froome was notified that a sample collected during the Vuelta a España on 7 September 2017 was reported to contain a concentration of salbutamol in excess of 1000ng/ml.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List provides that inhaled salbutamol is permitted subject to a maximum dose of 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours (the permitted use), and that a concentration in excess of 1000 ng/ml is an abnormal finding which is presumed not to be the result of a permitted use. The WADA Prohibited List further provides that the athlete can establish that his/her abnormal result was the consequence of a permitted use, in which case it will not be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF).
The UCI instigated disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), during which Mr Froome exercised his right to prove that his abnormal result was the consequence of a permitted use. The proceedings started with an evidentiary phase, with the UCI and Mr Froome agreeing that the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal would decide whether certain information could be provided to Mr Froome in preparing his defence. The UCI already sought WADA’s advice at that stage, during which a significant number of expert and scientific reports were submitted on behalf of Mr Froome.
After the evidentiary phase, Mr Froome requested additional information from WADA about the salbutamol regime. Following receipt of information from WADA, Mr Froome then filed his explanation for the abnormal result on 4 June 2018, together with significant additional expert evidence.
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.
Whilst the UCI would have obviously preferred the proceedings to have been finalised earlier in the season, it had to ensure that Mr Froome had a fair process, as it would have done with any other rider, and that the correct decision was issued. Having received WADA’s position on 28 June 2018, the UCI prepared and issued its formal reasoned decision as quickly as possible in the circumstances.
The UCI understands that there will be significant discussion of this decision, but wishes to reassure all those involved in or interested in cycling that its decision is based on expert opinions, WADA’s advice, and a full assessment of the facts of the case. The UCI hopes that the cycling world can now turn its focus to, and enjoy, the upcoming races on the cycling calendar.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Keykey1985 56 min 36 sec ago
He wasn't brake-checking me, he was trying to get me to stop. Nothing good would have come from me stopping.
- PRSboy 1 hour 14 min ago
It was designed around 28mm tyres but there's lots of clearance and could certainly take bigger tyres.
- Cugel 1 hour 17 min ago
A dinosaur version is shurely for the kiddies. Myself I'd like The Hindenburg. There may be The Freisian, filled with methane rather than hydrogen,...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 18 min ago
No evidence on the video of any interaction between themselves and the cyclist so possibly they simply didn't get the reg number?
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 31 min ago
When I see SLOW HORSES I always think ah, so this is where the ones I bet on are kept...
- ktache 2 hours 6 min ago
The proximity to the Transport Research Labs at Crowthorne means that the area often gets weird new stuff.
- chrisonabike 2 hours 12 min ago
No great mystery in either case, surely? Both US politician and the motor trade say "choose us and your life will be better and easier!" And other...
- stonojnr 4 hours 24 min ago
theres an attitude I encounter alot locally, and demonstrated in bucket loads by drivers on my commute home tonight, that cyclists shouldnt be on...
- Keesvant 5 hours 44 min ago
If the chains snap that is lack of build quality or material.....
- Hirsute 6 hours 40 min ago
"Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good."
Add new comment
68 comments
I'd be happier with the mudslinging/booing etc if the science itself was transparent, but while the anti-doping authorities cast themselves as the good guys with crime-fighting tools, the scientist behind the salbutamol threshold figures has admitted that it accounted not a jot for dehydration, and effectively assumed that all sports place the same demand on the body as swimming does, which is clearly nonsense.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/07/opinion-why-wada-and-the-ucis-handling-o...
It's a clear point and one fundementally I don't disagree with. Transparency could and should be just that, transparent.
However am I missing something? Since when does joe public and joe internet expert get to dictate to an organisation or business how they should conduct it'self. To such a bent stuck in the mud one like the UCI, or the chronically underfunded WADA? Why should you or I or cycling tips 'expect transparency'? Since when is that a thing? When did anyone in this process promise transparency?
How are the bans different though? All three riders posted results which EXCEEDED the limits set by WADA of a "prohibited substance" (their words, not mine).
Ulissi tested positive as his urine showed nearly double the limit of 1,000ng/ml. His team explained at the time that he was using an inhaler with Salbutamol, took two puffs ahead of a stage, and a paracetamol from the race doctor. A ban was issued due to his own admission of negligence here.
Petacchi also tested positive for Salbutamol used under a TUE and the discovered amount was 320mg/ml above the limit allowed by his TUE. A ban was issued even after CAS's own lawyers said there was no intention to overdose with the case being presented to CAS by CONI with support from WADA.
Froome posted results for an amount exceeding the WADA limits (exact amount variable dependant on your source) and, we presume, via his inhaler. Gets off due to circumstance. Or, more likely, because WADA knew they were no match for Sky's budget and legal defense.
The main thing that needs adressing here is the utter fucking farce this makes of an anti doping system and just how flimsy the actual rules in respect of this medication are. And how cash can make it go away
You are your own worst enemy here, you say something sensible, then ruin it by insinuating something else.
Please re-read the statement, some of which has been re-iterated in a later statement:
QUOTE: Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. <snip>
Whilst the UCI would have obviously preferred the proceedings to have been finalised earlier in the season, it had to ensure that Mr Froome had a fair process, as it would have done with any other rider, and that the correct decision was issued. <snip>
The UCI understands that there will be significant discussion of this decision, but wishes to reassure all those involved in or interested in cycling that its decision is based on expert opinions, WADA’s advice, and a full assessment of the facts of the case.
The statement has been issued by the Frenchies, very carefully worded, to try and exclude all efforts for people who may wish to continue to 'burn the witch' despite the absense of sense or reason.
Which bits of that aren't clear? Your tone purports that having cash is a bad thing, it doesn't mean that he 'brought his way out of it like a salacious Rothchild' it means the 'right decision' was found.
Other riders who've had AAF's for Salbutomol will I'm sure make their own minds up whether to raise their heads above the parapet I'm sure in good time. However I personally believe the UCI needs a bigger shake up than opening a couple of historical cases up would achieve.
Just to pick up on this; Who are the experts? And what are the facts?
If you are satisfied that this confirms that he is clean, then you stop anyone who doubts and idiot. No one in their bile filled responses can answer this.
As far as I can see, some bloke has said that this issue should be got rid of, and that has happened. And he is clear to race, and just to repeat that based on those facts I am happy for him to race.
I'm also cool if you think that that draws a line unbder the case and that he's 100% clean based on this. You're entitled to a different opinion.
Interesting article from the professor who developed the test for Salbutomol:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-tes...
Basically it's not fit for purpose and has been questioned for the last ten years by the guy who created it.
Go Chris
SKY will get penalised at every opportunity, sticky bottle, drafting, any infringement however minor will get brought up, over the top technical scrutiny, massively more than every other team.
The whole thing shows up the sport due to the amateurism of those that run it, their inability to get their house in order and run by dinosaurs who still have rules with no real definition to them or simply be able to interpet them subjectively or worse be so out of date as to be utterly useless/irrelevent.
If shit goes down I can see SKY taking legal action against ASO, maybe there might be a breakaway organisation that wants to actually run things in a professional manner, we can then look at rider safety, soft 'cheating' that is ignored all the time and say X is allowed only in x situation and is the same for all riders/all teams. If that means a race leader goes out the back, well that's unlucky but we have to have rules that are fair and also backed up by science in terms of what riders can/can't take and how much particularly when there's is a lot of dispute over what constitutes getting an advantage over and above a normal healthy person.
Change or die, ASO need to move on from this, stop being bogged down by their old dogatic ways and start afresh for the sake of the sport and the athletes themselves.
Well, no case to answer then - except -
There is still the issue of bringing the sport into disrepute. Not by Froome, but by whoever leaked the test results, who I guess was selective about whose results he/she leaked.
Does it usually take this long to sort out, or has there been some foot-dragging somewhere?
Problem in a nutshell - Regulate what goes into a human body, measure what comes out... duh!
So...
Anyone else think ASO's 'ban' was created in the full knowledge of his upcoming exoneration, purely for PR purposes, just to give the impression that they 'did something'?
Filling in the blanks...
Did somebody say 'cynical?'
WADA's statement (https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-will-not-appeal-uci-...) is very FACTUAL and based on EXPERT evidence, so I'm 100% sure that it will satisfy everyone who doubted Froome's innocence!!
What I don't understand, and maybe someone, could explain, is that this whole shitshow was really caused by a UCI leak of information that should have remained confidential to the parties immediately involved. But I have never read of any investigation as to how/why this happened and how the UCI will address this failing of theirs that may have further damaged the reputation (as it is) of the sport they are supposed to govern.
"Colin Lynch
✔ @FormerTTchamp · 3h
I know a few cycling forums and twitter feeds that are going to self-destruct today. #Froome"
Looks like quite a few people on here who leap to conclusions owe Froomie an apology.
Nothing like a bit or pre-tour controversy
I wonder what Mr Hinault is going to say now. I admired Bernard Hinault enormously as a rider but have been saddened by his comments in this affair. He has mentioned "rules being broken", which is not the case. The fact of the matter, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, was that according to the rules Froome was allowed to continue to compete whilst the AAF was being investigated. I believe that Hinault just doesn't wan't Froome to win four Grand Tours on the trot which Hinault never did. Very sour grapes IMO.
Chris Froome quoted in The Times in response to Hinault: “I can’t say anything bad about Bernard,” said the Team Sky leader. “He’s one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed, but if I see him I’ll very happily explain it all in a bit more detail.”
Classy guy that Froomey.
Brilliant!
Why wouldn't he be cleared? He didn't do anything wrong!
How anyone can think of Salbutamol as performance-enhancing is beyond me.
It lets you breathe, for chrissakes!! Any asthmatic knows this.
In that case I hope to see the bans posthumously (sp?) overturned for Petacchi & Ulissi and any loss of earnings, results etc given back to them as a result. It simply cannot be a rule for one and a different rule for others.
I saw this farce described as the Brexit of cycling earlier which made me chuckle.
If they have, or had, similar contemporaneous test results and whatever other evidence was presented by Sky - then why not. That might be a big if, but it's still one rule for all.
WADA's statement goes to great pains to stress the 'unique circumstances' of Froome's case multiple times.
Exactly.
It's not necessarily a different rule but please don't let facts - or a clear statement by WADA - let that get in the way of your irrational response. Here is part of WADA statement, I've put the most relevant part in bold text.
It does not matter what you or a million sad small-minded haters think. Unfortunately you just love to bury any half-intelligent discussion (remember them?) under a deluge of dumb assertions based on nothing more substantial than blind prejudice. "I hate therefore I am". I'm sure there's a tattoo parlous willing to etch that on your brow.
It's still not consistent though. If that's WADA's stance then the Petacchi & Ulissi bans (issued for less of the same substance) should be overturned.
The rule should, ideally, be that if there's any discrepancies then you must be forced to sit out any races until it's resolved. Sky made Henao do this due to internal protocol but not Froome which I find a bit odd. They also said they'd make the Henao report available but that never happened. I'd be interested in reading all of the submisisons in this farce of a case.
It what way is the procedure inconsistent ? The result of the investigation is what dictates the outcome, not the substance in and of itself - the limit is there to trigger an examination of the situation and the data and a decision is made based on that. If the others had similar data and circumstances then of course they should expect a similar outcome - but just because the same trigger limit was reached it doesn't automatically imply that the same decision should be reached. - that would be obviously ridiculous. Also we may have to bear in mind that we simply don't know which other riders have been found to have nothing to answer after an initial AAF.
With you in principle, but it does matter, unfortunately. The public feel that cynicism, and reputation does matter.
The UCI botched this initially with the leak. They need to find out how and why and not do it again - but it really shouldn't have happened in this case.
They continued to botch it through either a) letting it drag on for so long, or b) neglecting their relationship with ASO to the extent where ASO thought there was mileage in announcing a Froome ban from the TdF, and were prepared to make that announcement and balls to the consequences.
ASO doing the right thing by ASO and possibly the TdF, but probably not by cycling's image, also needs to be questioned.
Yet again, cycling's already battered reputation has been given a public kicking thanks to being in the charge of people who are pretty poor at crisis and reputation management.
The fact that their bans were different tells you some of what you need to know though surely?
Different amounts of adversity in the findings, potential different bodily responses and the potential for misuse (tablets to mask other drugs) could all play a factor.
I wouldn't waste your time with facts, they're not welcome here (not by that clown, at least).
For a lot of people Froome was guilty as hell all along, they just needed a scandal. This was handily provided by the leak, and so the media and twitter trolls can frame it appropriately so that the talentless bastard on the arrogant super-rich team can be hoist by their own petard.
Forget the UCI, WADA, expert opinions, accuracy, balance and fairness, they just want the public flogging and hanging they asked for!
Absence of apologies from the keyboard warriors so far.
Pages