Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

MPFGLB

Pa8301 wrote: »

I think a big question that needs to be asked Froome, the UCI and Sky is; Has it happened before?
Bear in mind that this may well not have come out if the Guardian and Le Monde hadn't reported it and there was no onus on the UCI to make it public.
Also bear in mind Froomes behaviour from the day he found out about the adverse finding. He was acting like nothing had happened. He finishes third in the world championship TT then goes to the far east for some lucrative criteriums. He then announces his intention to ride the Giro, despite the fact that on the face if it he must be fearing a ban that will rule him out of riding there. Maybe he was acting like nothing happened because he expected nothing to happen.
It's also interesting that in the midst of this, Cookson came out with his plea for Sky and Wiggins to have their reputations restored after the whole jiffy bag fiasco.

Maybe I'm just being cynical!

Yes it is posible it has happened before and

1. Only SKY knew
2. UCI & SKY knew and managed it between them ...accepting an explanation


yes it is weird that Frome is still ploughing on as if nothing has happened ..SKy too

Lampre suspended Ulissi immediatly and Twitter went to town on him and the team ...
But Froome acts as if its all a misundestanding that he and SKY will clear it up before the Giro ...not sure how they can think this given the historical cases and suspensions

I always thought Froome though polite and gentlemanly has a weird and detached personaily ...maybe its his way of coping ...deny reality till it bites you

But then we know someone who was very good at denying reality till it bit him in the bum in 2012 on a certain TV program

What we believe and what we know of course are two different things

I cannot see Froome not getting a ban

Also will he return to SKY is a big queston given their zero tolerence policy

And then there is the on going saga of marginal gains and what exactly that is

That riders with pre existing conditions can get drugs that gve them leg ups in training and racing...(and they are leg ups) ...I think someone needs to coin a phrase for this type of advantage

MPFGLB

Vicenzo Nibali: "Here we all know where the limit of Salbutamol is"

http://www.marca.com/ciclismo/2017/12/16/5a34f884e5fdeac1118b4695.html

koutoubia

MPFGLB wrote: »

I cannot see Froome not getting a ban

If he doesnt get a ban...IMO. It will kill off any interest in any Grand Tour that he competes in.

morana

MPFGLB wrote: »

Yes it is posible it has happened before and

1. Only SKY knew
2. UCI & SKY knew and managed it between them ...accepting an explanation


yes it is weird that Frome is still ploughing on as if nothing has happened ..SKy too

Lampre suspended Ulissi immediatly and Twitter went to town on him and the team ...
But Froome acts as if its all a misundestanding that he and SKY will clear it up before the Giro ...not sure how they can think this given the historical cases and suspensions

I always thought Froome though polite and gentlemanly has a weird and detached personaily ...maybe its his way of coping ...deny reality till it bites you

But then we know someone who was very good at denying reality till it bit him in the bum in 2012 on a certain TV program

What we believe and what we know of course are two different things

I cannot see Froome not getting a ban

Also will he return to SKY is a big queston given their zero tolerence policy

And then there is the on going saga of marginal gains and what exactly that is

That riders with pre existing conditions can get drugs that gve them leg ups in training and racing...(and they are leg ups) ...I think someone needs to coin a phrase for this type of advantage

the UCI have form in covering up positives. Contadors clen positive only became public knowledge when a german journalist got the story. SO anything could have happened with UCI and the bigger riders.

RobFowl

When Lampre have better form in dealing with positive tests then you know you have a problem #TeamSly

walshb

walshb wrote: »

I noticed that too.

Hand on heart I believe Froome to be a clean and honest man riding fair and square and within the rules.

Whatever happened here is odd and needs real explaining, He can try explain it...

I honestly do not believe that he intended to cheat and break the rules for enhancement.

Ah, jaysus.

Weepsie

morana wrote: »

the UCI have form in covering up positives. Contadors clen positive only became public knowledge when a german journalist got the story. SO anything could have happened with UCI and the bigger riders.

Did they cover it up? They released the news in September 2010 about 2.5 months after that test. Also, McQuaid was president then.

RobFowl

For all that this is important, read this and there is more to life and cycling
https://twitter.com/mattmcgeehan/status/941978646532763648

morana

Weepsie wrote: »

Did they cover it up? They released the news in September 2010 about 2.5 months after that test. Also, McQuaid was president then.

well according to the rules the ban should have been applied when he tested positive in the tour. They didnt and werent doing anything until as i said a journo was going to release it.

MPFGLB

This is mental

https://www.aol.co.uk/sport/2015/12/28/katusha-doctor-claims-use-of-sleeping-pills-worse-than-doping-in-cycling/

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, jaysus.

So the only answer here is that he is a deliberate intentional cheat?

MPFGLB

MPFGLB wrote: »

This is mental

https://www.aol.co.uk/sport/2015/12/28/katusha-doctor-claims-use-of-sleeping-pills-worse-than-doping-in-cycling/

Was only reading about lotto talking action against 3 riders for taking sleeping meds earlier

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lottonl-jumbo-to-decide-on-dismissal-of-lobato-tolhoek-and-eenkhoorn-over-sleep-aid/

Weepsie

walshb wrote: »

So the only answer here is that he is a deliberate intentional cheat?

No, but he, and he alone is responsible for what goes into his body. Not a doctor, not a soigneur, not a DS, just him.

If it metabolises differently because of dehydration, or whatever or bs he wants to try, then I imagine there are circumstances in which loads of them would be failing more routinely.

He should get the 9 month ban that was given to others and have results from that date forward removed.

pelevin

Well the moment Lampre learned of Ulissi testing for a little less than Froome's level, they immediately suspended him themselves. Sky did no such thing & I think the sentence should be longer than the 9 months Ulissi got seeing as in effect that sentence was added to the suspension the team administered. Whether that matches up in technical terms or not, it would seem fair to me given the much more helpful & humble attitude of the relevant teams. Sky/Froome otoh are bringing in the heavy legal artillery & have shown zero culpability with Froome even denying that there was any infraction at all. "I certainly haven't broken any rules."

Lusk_Doyle

koutoubia wrote: »

If he doesnt get a ban...IMO. It will kill off any interest in any Grand Tour that he competes in.

He better not ruin the Giro. Best of the three.

Macy0161

pelevin wrote:

Well the moment Lampre learned of Ulissi testing for a little less than Froome's level, they immediately suspended him themselves. Sky did no such thing & I think the sentence should be longer than the 9 months Ulissi got seeing as in effect that sentence was added to the suspension the team administered.

Teams provisionally suspend as any ban starts from that date, not the date of sanction, if one was to happen. It isn't really accepting guilt.

If froome had been provisionally suspended after the first adverse test, a nine month ban would've had him clear to race 2018 tour.

Raymzor

Is there a timeframe associated with a response from Froome or Sky? I’m guessing the clock started ticking once the B sample returned a positive?

theoneeyedman

Raymzor wrote: »

Is there a timeframe associated with a response from Froome or Sky? I’m guessing the clock started ticking once the B sample returned a positive?

Take that back, or the Team Sky lawyers will be in touch. Chris 'didn't test positive' for anything, he had an 'adverse test result'!!

Is it possible the dosage in his cartridge was much higher than he believed?

RobFowl

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it possible the dosage in his cartridge was much higher than he believed?

No, it's a standard dosage.

odyssey06

Chris if you need to take ventolin once an hour, the proper procedure is to rest and request medical care. Dont compete in a professional event. Or amateur. In any sport. Including snooker and darts.

Eamonnator

odyssey06 wrote: »

Chris if you need to take ventolin once an hour, the proper procedure is to rest and request medical care. Dont compete in a professional event. Or amateur. In any sport. Including snooker and darts.

I understood that ventolin was only available on prescription, that is to so say that it would be necessary to consult a doctor before taking Ventolin. Taking the Ventolin in that case would enable sufferer to play Darts, Snooker or Tiddly Winks or Cycling without any further medical consultation.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it possible the dosage in his cartridge was much higher than he believed?

The world's best performing cyclist taking medical assistance at unknown doses - I suspect not.

velo.2010

Ross Tucker ripping apart every possible combination and timing of inhaler puffs. No matter how you work it, the output comes nowhere close to the 2000ng/ml limit, assuming the input is below the allowed threshold.

It points to a much larger input which would be very difficult to achieve by inhaler alone. Anything above the allowed inhaled threshold is banned and anything other than using an inhaler is banned.

Apparently, via David Walsh - Froome's doctor is claiming he took 2 to 3 puffs before talking to the media in order to appear 'healthy' and not give too much hope to his rivals. Still doesn't add up according to Tucker.

Froome is still scheduled to appear on BBC SPOTY tonight, with a live interview from Majorca.

Eamonnator

Apparently, via David Walsh - Froome's doctor is claiming he took 2 to 3 puffs before talking to the media in order to appear 'healthy' and not give too much hope to his rivals. Still doesn't add up according to Tucker..

That should be easy enough to verify. When a rider is chosen for dope testing at the end of a race, a chaperone waits for the rider at race finish and accompanies him until the the rider is delivered to Doping Control.

paddyref

velo.2010 wrote:

Froome is still scheduled to appear on BBC SPOTY tonight, with a live interview from Majorca.

velo.2010 wrote:

Apparently, via David Walsh - Froome's doctor is claiming he took 2 to 3 puffs before talking to the media in order to appear 'healthy' and not give too much hope to his rivals. Still doesn't add up according to Tucker.

velo.2010 wrote:

Ross Tucker ripping apart every possible combination and timing of inhaler puffs. No matter how you work it, the output comes nowhere close to the 2000ng/ml limit, assuming the input is below the allowed threshold.

Dr Ross Tucker is just brilliant at cutting through all the bull**** waffle of Sky's 'misinformation' team.

MPFGLB

I beleive SKY might use the Petacchi defense of inadvertently ingesting the drug while enhaling ?

Lusk_Doyle

MPFGLB wrote: »

I beleive SKY might use the Petacchi defense of inadvertently ingesting the drug while enhaling ?

From what source though? As in, how does one accidentally inhale such a substance?

Edit: I got it. A salbutamol sauna!

MPFGLB

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

From what source though? As in, how does one accidentally inhale such a substance?

Edit: I got it. A salbutamol sauna!

Here it is ..the Petacchi defense

https://twitter.com/friebos/status/942383326891044864

RobFowl

Froome would have declared the use (and dose taken) when he gave the drug test.
Hard to backtrack from that.