HardyWeinberg

I am with you 100% here. Anybody with asthma knows.

Scarbo

You know, I always thought that Contador got the shaft in that decision given the fact that clenbuterol is a substance that continues to be used in Spain in order to enhance growth of lean mass in livestock (in the US as well, though you won't find anybody admitting to such in the open). In fact in 1990, in Spain, 135 people were reported to have come down with ill effects due to having ingested animal products that showed residual amounts of the steroid. Presumably, in those cases, those people would have shown amounts of clenbuterol in their bloodstreams that far surpassed the infinitesimal amount found in Contador's system.

You're right--I do think the UCI is being extraordinarily solicitous on Froome's behalf, especially given the fact that he has been known to have evaded drug tests in the past.

We shall see how this turns out for him.

ttusomeone

Yeah in Contador's case I tend to believe that it really was something in the meat. I also tend to believe with Froome he was taking the maximum allowed dosage and his body didn't process it all out. Regardless of the reason, my gut feeling is that Sky is able to scientifically show that he can take up to the allowed dosage and still produce that test result and he won't receive an adverse finding on his record.

HardyWeinberg

Not true it is banned in the US and the EU in food animals.

But I agree, relative to Froome, Contador got the shaft and Froome is getting beyond a kid-glove treatment for a test result that passes no honest person's red-face test. There is literally no honest way for Froome to test that high. If he was having that much of an asthma problem combined with dehydration and whatever his British Dr Ferrari can dream up, his asthma was not being treated right and he shouldn't have been able to ride at all.

Scarbo

I agree that it is banned.

CliffordK

Well, he wasn't really disqualified. He was just temporarily ejected from the race. Then 6 months after the end of the race the UCI said "oops", and that all was good.

It also only applied to a single multi-stage race.

In this case, the Vuelta Espana is all over. And, Froome isn't considered a menace to other riders.

No matter the outcome for 2018 races, I'd give it a high probability that Froome's 2017 Vuelta Espana results will be deleted. Perhaps other races too.

Maelochs

I think the UCI went after Contador because he weasled out of Operacion Porto. There were rumors of athletes eating contaminated meat form China and (I think) South America or Mexico .... the amounts Contador showed were barely above experimental error and could easily have been by passed ... in fact the Spanish Federation gave him a pass, as I recall, and either UCI or WADA went after him a second time.

Thing is, Contador Certainly doped at least a little, because he was int he era ... and was one of the last big names not to have been caught.

As for banned substances being used .... That would Never happen ... not Ever. We all know that.

Scarbo

Well, who know how it will all shake out.

I must say that, for my part, I'm quite surprised. If I suspected Froome of doping it was of mechanical doping, if anything. Maybe he did that too? History will shed its light on things in due time.

bogydave

I thought he claimed a mechanical at the bottom of the last , steepest climbs in one of the mt stages
to get a new bike with a better gearing. When he stopped to change, one rider took off , a Skye rider yelled "MECHANICAL"
So he waited for Froome to catch back up. Froome's cadence sure seemed faster to me after the bike change.
Not illegal, but a tad underhanded.

No proof, but it seemed suspicious to me.
Maybe its "Smart" to fake/cause a mechanical, in the lead pack to
get a bike set up better for the last few miles of a steep climb.
Making a break on a leader who's having a mechanical is an unwritten taboo.

All fair in love , war & possession of the yellow jersey

Pemetic2006

@bogydave. I believe this is what you're referring to.
Tour de France: Chris Froome feared he would not retain yellow jersey - BBC Sport

roadwarrior

No taxes. Which is nice when you make a boatload of money.

roadwarrior

I know it's been a little while since you wrote this, but this is one of the most insightful posts ever out here.

BTW...I was on the Puy d'Dome when Eddy got hammered. The team I was on had been in a race close by so we went over to watch.

Your comment about pissing off the right people is spot on.

work4bike

The pressure is on...

https://www.bicycling.com/racing/uci...e3195e9e5e3ecd

Gallo

This quite obviously will not go away soon. I am not one that hates Froome for being good. I loved his moxie of sprinting up Ventoux. I was looking forward to seeing him in the Giro where the possibility of being isolated is increased and serious climbing comes at the end of the tour. I hate that the sport is still being dogged with doping and resign to the fact that it always will be even though that does not make me happy.

CliffordK

Now, that's quite a cop out. The UCI either can't, or won't suspend Froome, so the President says that the team should suspend him instead. Which, of course, would be equal to an admission of guilt.

It sounds to me more like David Lappartient has a bone to pick with Froome, and has chosen not to follow protocol. Was he the one that leaked the results of the test to the press?

Is Lappartient related to Donald Trump?

How long has this been going on for? It is time for that pharmacokinetic study, and actual hearings and appeals for this case.

Maelochs

Exactly my thought.

But really ... UCI cannot do a thing because Sky knows how to game the system.

Sky will go through endless tests and retests and appeals and debates and hopefully (for the team not the sport) keep Froome on his bike until he is 35, when they will voluntarily suspend him for three months---his off-season--and surrender the 2017 time trial bronze medal. Of course by that time Froome will be slowing and no one will even remember 2017.

Sky showed its level of honor and honesty when they tried a few different explanations before deciding that the "reversed kidney" defense had the best chance. of course, it also happens to be the truth, right? Which is why it is about the third different "honest explanation" they have come up with.

I don't doubt there is all kind of politics at play here ... but no one can deny (or at least no one is denying it ... who knows what's to come?) that Froome tested at Twice the legal limit, A and B samples.

I don't even blame Chris Froome. Like Lance, he had a ton of physical and mental gifts and wanted to use them to the maximum in an environment which demanded turning a bling eye to honor and honesty.

What Lance did which was so wrong wasn't the doping (which was wrong, still, but not the real evil.) Lance lied, pressured others, threatened others, bribed, cheated in every possible way to cover his cheating, ruined the careers of anyone who didn't join him in massive and soul-destroying cheating ... and still acts like all he did was dope when everybody else did.

I don't know enough about Chris Froome to even guess what he is thinking right now.

All in all ... I think that Lappartient and the Movement for a Credible Cycling (MPCC) have it right. Froome and Sky are so soiled now, a voluntary suspension might seem like the most honorable solution.

The further this gets into lies about lies and lawyers lying to lawyers, the farther it gets from anything clean and decent, and the more it poisons the sport and tarnishes Chris Froome, who, salbutamol or not, is an amazing athlete.

CliffordK

There are too many questions, and not enough answers.

It is likely nobody will ever admit whether Froome was actually doping, or simply took a couple too many puffs on his rescue inhaler. Perhaps the true story will come out in a biography in a couple of decades.

We also don't know if Froome's urine was as concentrated as a castaway out to sea for a week without water, or whether the UCI normalized the results with respect to apparent urine concentration.

Assuming Salbutamol has been tested in Froome's urine 1000 times, we also haven't seen all of those other tests published (along with urine concentrations, and perhaps other relevant details). Maybe cross-correlate Froome's results with other asthmatic patients.

Perhaps David Lappartient has all the answers, or thinks he has the answers, but I think he has stepped way out of line on this one.

If this is treated as well as the Sagan elbow case... this may well be a bigger black mark on the UCI than on Froome or Team Sky.

Maelochs

Making a black mark on the UCI's reputation is like writing on a black-painted blackboard with a black sharpy.

Gallo

now that is funny

HardyWeinberg

Sounds like he's going to fess up in hopes of leniency:

Chris Froome could accept salbutamol responsibility in hope of lenient ban | Cyclingnews.com

I don't see how there can be any question of his guilt. He was peeing out at least 20 inhalations worth (setting aside the amount he metabolized), and that 20 alone is more than can be therapeutically justified, least of all from someone with the kind of medical care he gets.

work4bike

Didn't the cycling world use to have a zero-tolerance policy towards doping? What happened...?

Maelochs

I think it had a zero-tolerance policy about publicizing doping.

Leinster

There still is a zero tolerance to substances that don’t have a possible thereapeutic reason to take them, epo, steroids, etc.

The grey area comes in with meds like salbutamol that, apparently, have some therapeutic but no performance benefit in small doses.

Wildwood 

The French President of the UCI and many others have stated their opinion that Froome be suspended by his Team until the matter is resolved. YES - every cyclist + Team + investor has legal rights to be protected under the existing rules. However, every rider should protect the integrity of the Sport by withdrawing until the case is resolved.


Froome was twice the legal limit!!!! Common sense, man -- Common sense! An Italian sprinter was disciplined for being over the limit by much less than Froomie - was it Pettacchi??? No decision shows No leadership in cycling. Letting Froome off with No suspension shows leadership has (1) not defined anti-doping protocols adequately; and (2) they have No enforcement authority.

CliffordK

So the team should suspend Froome?

No competitive cycling on December 25th? Will that work?

If this UCI thinks this should be a UCI matter, then they should take it up. What do the organizers of the Vuelta a España say about Froome's win?

Time for Froome's pharmacokinetic study, then hold some hearings, and get it all over with.

I do think Froome, and his team should come up with a new treatment plan to prevent this from happening again, and publicly declare the new treatment plan. Other drugs? Less "rescue inhaler use"? Leave themselves a quiet out, if it is non-functional.