Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

Macy0161

Lumen wrote: »

What's to stop them from dosing him orally with Salbutamol during the tests?

Surreptitiously? Officially they can only use up to the maximum permitted dose in permitted methods.

I think I said earlier in the thread just off the cuff about whether all the South African kilometers on strava was to prepare for the test - I was listening to a podcast over the weekend where someone had compared the rides he'd posted to the vuelta stages, and they're remarkably similiar apparently!

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

What's to stop them from dosing him orally with Salbutamol during the tests?

Nothing, nothing at all, which is why such a test is pointless.

Lumen

Macy0161 wrote: »

Surreptitiously? Officially they can only use up to the maximum permitted dose in permitted methods.

Cheaters gonna cheat!

MPFGLB

CramCycle wrote: »

This has been yet another colossal PR f*ck up from Sky. All they had to do at the very start was say that while they believe in Chris and that he is clean, we also respect due process and are holding him back from competition until his name is cleared. They could have knocked up a quick PR statement about it not being a banned substance, just regulated, and that it has been flagged to authorities before, and if he gets banned, what kind of a message does that send to millions of asthmatics around the world, are you telling me they are not allowed dream. Maybe Chris could come out as a secret Asthma UK sponsor and get snapped sitting in with GPs when they break the bad news to newly diagnosed asthmatics.

Marginal gains, I would be surprised if they could organise a piss up in a brewery.

SKY dont care about cycling fans or indeed cycling journalists

They care about the British press and British public

If they accepted culpability and suspened Froome then it would look like an admission of guilt ...no other message to the British public.... who only half pay attenetion to any detail

But if they fight they appear innocent until proven guilty...no matter the consequence to cycling
And if they draw it out then the British public may forget the issue and beleive in their innocence as they continue to fight

But I cannot see how they can win....

Kaisr Sose

MPFGLB wrote: »

SKY dont care about cycling fans or indeed cycling journalists

They care about the British press and British public

If they accepted culpability and suspened Froome then it would look like an admission of guilt ...no other message to the British public.... who only half pay attenetion to any detail

But if they fight they appear innocent until proven guilty...no matter the consequence to cycling
And if they draw it out then the British public may forget the issue and beleive in their innocence as they continue to fight

But I cannot see how they can win....

SKY care so much about the British Public that they don’t broadcast any cycling? The Britishness is pretty much a joke.

SKY only care about their brand in Europe where they are not a dominant player.

SharpshooterTom

Its interesting that some of you guys are quite certain he'll get a lengthy ban, on British forums I post on, their confident he'll either get off or at worst, only be banned for a few months in the off season so he wont be miss any races.

Different opinions depending on who you talk to regarding this. But British forums seem to think he's innocent and a ban is unlikely.

Lusk_Doyle

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Its interesting that some of you guys are quite certain he'll get a lengthy ban, on British forums I post on, their confident he'll either get off or at worst, only be banned for a few months in the off season so he wont be miss any races.

Different opinions depending on who you talk to regarding this. But British forums seem to think he's innocent and a ban is unlikely.

Science must not be their forte.

RobFowl

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Its interesting that some of you guys are quite certain he'll get a lengthy ban, on British forums I post on, their confident he'll either get off or at worst, only be banned for a few months in the off season so he wont be miss any races.

Different opinions depending on who you talk to regarding this. But British forums seem to think he's innocent and a ban is unlikely.

They are wrong

Time will tell but anyone thinking this came from 2-3 puffs of an inhaler is deluded......

harringtonp

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Its interesting that some of you guys are quite certain he'll get a lengthy ban, on British forums I post on, their confident he'll either get off or at worst, only be banned for a few months in the off season so he wont be miss any races.

Different opinions depending on who you talk to regarding this. But British forums seem to think he's innocent and a ban is unlikely.

And why is their collective opinion so different to the collective opinion here, after all both media have access to the same raw facts ?

Is is that they are colored by the fact that both he and them are British or is this forum colored by the fact that they don't like what he and sky have been doing to grand tours ?

They may not be objective but reading some of the stuff here would lead you to think he is almost as bad as the most blatant cheaters the sport has ever seen. Where have the shades of grey gone lads.

dragratchet

He may not be blood doping like lance but it appears again and again that he and sky are at the vanguard of a new type of doping where the rules are manipulated to get the same edge as blatant dopers did in the passed.

Leroy42

harringtonp wrote: »

And why is their collective opinion so different to the collective opinion here, after all both media have access to the same raw facts ?

Is is that they are colored by the fact that both he and them are British or is this forum colored by the fact that they don't like what he and sky have been doing to grand tours ?

They may not be objective but reading some of the stuff here would lead you to think he is almost as bad as the most blatant cheaters the sport has ever seen. Where have the shades of grey gone lads.

Or it may be that simply they look back on past cheats and how they got away with slaps on the wrist or bans during the off-season.

not just in cycling, every sport is guilty of this.

lissard

Returning twice the limit for a controlled drug is not venturing into some sort of grey area - it's very clear-cut ban territory. I just don't buy any of this 'it's a complex area' nonsense and precedent would suggest as much. I doubt many people thought it was a complex issue when Diego Ullissi got busted in the Giro a few years back.

ford2600

harringtonp wrote: »

And why is their collective opinion so different to the collective opinion here, after all both media have access to the same raw facts ?

Is is that they are colored by the fact that both he and them are British or is this forum colored by the fact that they don't like what he and sky have been doing to grand tours ?

They may not be objective but reading some of the stuff here would lead you to think he is almost as bad as the most blatant cheaters the sport has ever seen. Where have the shades of grey gone lads.

Being twice the limit for an anabolic steroid isn't really a grey area. (especially in the context of his transformation as an athlete who despite losing a lot of weight has kept all his power)

Not being a complete cnut like Lance is a poor start to a defence

harringtonp

And if it is as simple, plain and obvious as all this why aren't they seeing it over on the British forums ?

wanderer 22

harringtonp wrote: »

And if it is as simple, plain and obvious as all this why aren't they seeing it over on the British forums ?

Maybe people posting in British cycling forums are more likely to be fans of British cyclists? It's not exactly a mystery . I would imagine Russian Athletics forums are full of people claiming none of their athletes have ever doped.

at1withmyself

Any chance you could link to these forums? I'm not too familiar with them all but the few I've read seem to have a reasonable number of disbelievers from what I see.

harringtonp wrote: »

And if it is as simple, plain and obvious as all this why aren't they seeing it over on the British forums ?

Russman

harringtonp wrote: »

They may not be objective but reading some of the stuff here would lead you to think he is almost as bad as the most blatant cheaters the sport has ever seen. Where have the shades of grey gone lads.

Some of those most blatant cheaters never tested positive. I can't see how twice the allowed amount of a substance isn't fairly blatant tbh.

That said, I do think a way will be found to get him out of it. It'll be dragged out and eventually passed off as some sort of "technical" infringement, not really worthy of serious sanction, poor Chris he got a bit unlucky there, if he wasn't so ill with all these unfortunate ailments etc. etc.

Unless Sky throw him under the bus of course !

1bryan

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Its interesting that some of you guys are quite certain he'll get a lengthy ban, on British forums I post on, their confident he'll either get off or at worst, only be banned for a few months in the off season so he wont be miss any races.

Different opinions depending on who you talk to regarding this. But British forums seem to think he's innocent and a ban is unlikely.

they think he's innocent or they think he won't get banned?

I don't think he's innocent but I also think there's a fair chance he won't get banned.

A lot of the UK cycling fora are very sanitised. They had to moderate like hell during the lance years that they had little option but to ban or drive out all the 'naysayers'. I'd suggest reading your forum, then go read the clinic. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between the 2.

CramCycle

There have been positives before that have been let off at the pro tour level that they have banned amateur riders for. The excuses were beyond comprehension.

I imagine it will depend on who is heading the anti doping investigation and if they want to make a name or make money in some other fashion.

If they want to make a name, he will get the full term, if they don't, he will get a short ban, they will find someone comparable, state his cooperation and trying to repeat the conditions, it could happen to anyone. Probably 6 months, maybe even backdated even if his team didn't provisionally suspend him.

Either way, i'd be surprised if he put in a good performance at the tour this year.

brocbrocach

Ulissi and Petacchi were two huge favourites with the tifosi that were done for almost exactly the same thing.
They won't like the Tour champ being linked with a drugs ban (again) but they'll have to suck it up and give him 6 months to a year.

CantGetNoSleep

harringtonp wrote: »

And why is their collective opinion so different to the collective opinion here, after all both media have access to the same raw facts ?

Is is that they are colored by the fact that both he and them are British or is this forum colored by the fact that they don't like what he and sky have been doing to grand tours ?

They may not be objective but reading some of the stuff here would lead you to think he is almost as bad as the most blatant cheaters the sport has ever seen. Where have the shades of grey gone lads.

I'd disagree with you - I consider him and Sky equally as bad as the cheaters who took amphetamines and coke in the 60s to Lance and the more sophisticated doping of 10 years ago.

Winning races in such dominant fashion with some of the most debilitating illnesses known to man, the most scientific approach to cycling ever seen but no medical records and needing to go back to the UK to buy a standard prescription medicine available anywhere, lying and defensiveness when questioned (almost identical to the last dominant GT rider)

All that before looking at YouTube clips of him cycling around a bend up a mountain and seeing how he can barely keep control of the bike.

Macy0161

harringtonp wrote: »

They may not be objective but reading some of the stuff here would lead you to think he is almost as bad as the most blatant cheaters the sport has ever seen. Where have the shades of grey gone lads.

There's few points for me...
1) Because of how they came into the sport and how they were going to do it clean, and how they've continually let down that promise. From faux "zero tolerance" to TUE's to this.
2) You'd have to be extremely naive (imo) not to have been raising eyebrows at Froomes transformation and subsequent performances.
3) I think the (mainly British) fanboys do have a part to play in that, plus whether we like it or not, we have to put up with bias british media view regarding my first two points.

Most of my cycling heroes were dopers. They're still really my cycling heroes (or rather why they might not be isn't really doping related!).

SharpshooterTom

Interesting that there doesn't seem many bookmakers taking money on TDF right now, the ones that do have the TDF without Chris Froome (both ladbrokes and paddypower have this currently as their only market).

PaddyPower though still have a market available for Chris Froome to win both the Giro and the TDF this year at 7/2. Good odds? He'll be 33 this year and you'd be wondering how long he has left before his legs begin to go a bit.

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/cycling

SharpshooterTom

brocbrocach wrote: »

Ulissi and Petacchi were two huge favourites with the tifosi that were done for almost exactly the same thing.
They won't like the Tour champ being linked with a drugs ban (again) but they'll have to suck it up and give him 6 months to a year.

If he gets 6 months he'll only lose the Vuelta and would be available for selection for the 3 main Grand Tours this year. 8 months would the minimum needed for him to be banned from the Giro.

CantGetNoSleep

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

If he gets 6 months he'll only lose the Vuelta and would be available for selection for the 3 main Grand Tours this year. 8 months would the minimum needed for him to be banned from the Giro.

Will it definitely be backdated if the didn't provisionally suspend him?

gordongekko

harringtonp wrote: »

They may not be objective but reading some of the stuff here would lead you to think he is almost as bad as the most blatant cheaters the sport has ever seen. Where have the shades of grey gone lads.

He's either cheated or hasn't. There is no grey area

Kaisr Sose

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Its interesting that some of you guys are quite certain he'll get a lengthy ban, on British forums I post on, their confident he'll either get off or at worst, only be banned for a few months in the off season so he wont be miss any races.

Different opinions depending on who you talk to regarding this. But British forums seem to think he's innocent and a ban is unlikely.

Agh yes. I remember this nugget for days past:

“I read it in the Daily Sport, it must be true”

Eamonnator

gordongekko wrote: »

He's either cheated or hasn't. There is no grey area

Is this a bit like Schrodinger's Cat?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QisnPsu7_Uk

RobFowl

gordongekko wrote: »

harringtonp wrote: »

They may not be objective but reading some of the stuff here would lead you to think he is almost as bad as the most blatant cheaters the sport has ever seen. Where have the shades of grey gone lads.

He's either cheated or hasn't. There is no grey area

Sport like life is rarely black and white. You can exist in a near constant grey area.

Raymzor

RobFowl wrote: »

Sport like life is rarely black and white. You can exist in a near constant grey area.

Yellow card then!

MPFGLB

RobFowl wrote: »

Sport like life is rarely black and white. You can exist in a near constant grey area.

But rules are black and white

He broke the rules...whether it was deliberate or by accident is neither here nor there ....

All that matters is he was above the legal threshold (twofold above it) and unless he can prove it was not by design then there will be a ban

So balck and white it kinda is

Everything else including comparisons to other cheats is immaterial

koutoubia

RobFowl wrote: »

Sport like life is rarely black and white. You can exist in a near constant grey area.

Why dont tweet Froome and ask him directly.
He hasnt blocked you or anything . Or has he?

RobFowl

MPFGLB wrote: »

But rules are black and white

He broke the rules...whether it was deliberate or by accident is neither here nor there ....

All that matters is he was above the legal threshold (twofold above it) and unless he can prove it was not by design then there will be a ban

So balck and white it kinda is

Everything else including comparisons to other cheats is immaterial

If rules are so black and white why isn't he suspended

Personally think he's been juiced for years but there you go. Thinking 999 is fine and 1000 bad and that there is a massive difference between the 2 is, let me be polite, naive.
The present system doesn't work and lab based testing needs to be part rather than all the system.
At one end of the Spectrum there are completely clean athletes who don't even push the limits of permitted techniques and at the other end the likes of Rumsas who doped and probably encouraged his kids to dope. In between (and possibly even at those extremes) its shades of grey.

RobFowl

koutoubia wrote: »

Why dont tweet Froome and ask him directly.
He hasnt blocked you or anything . Or has he?

Went to follow the fooker and despite never having had any interaction with him found I was pre blocked !
Bit like those credit cards you used to be pre approved for

CramCycle

RobFowl wrote: »

If rules are so black and white why isn't he suspended

Personally think he's been juiced for years but there you go. Thinking 999 is fine and 1000 bad and that there is a massive difference between the 2 is, let me be polite, naive.
The present system doesn't work and lab based testing needs to be part rather than all the system.
At one end of the Spectrum there are completely clean athletes who don't even push the limits of permitted techniques and at the other end the likes of Rumsas who doped and probably encouraged his kids to dope. In between (and possibly even at those extremes) its shades of grey.

I would disagree, I would say that lab based testing needs to be the be all and end all. I tested animals for years, if an animal failed a test or it was unusual, all the crying and poor me from the farmer in the world didn't change anything.

A positive is a positive, the lines are drawn, cross them, your done.

The only issue with anti doping at the minute is the lack of testing, no different than the road traffic act, the only issue is enforcement. Targeting single athletes at a race or a game is idiotic. If an anti doping agent turns up at a race, every rider who signed on that day should be tested. If they turn up at a GAA game, every player who is on the tea sheets and so on.

All the current single athlete targeting system tells us is that they don't want to catch alot of people in certain sports.

RobFowl

CramCycle wrote: »

A positive is a positive, the lines are drawn, cross them, your done.

Here we have Schrodingers cat though !
Froome has failed a test but has an out if he can prove it.
There seems no timeframe set so while he drags it out is he banned or not banned?

Also re testing in labs, they never caught LA that way, nor Rasmussen, nor Valverde...

Macy0161

ThomasFlynn wrote:

If he gets 6 months he'll only lose the Vuelta and would be available for selection for the 3 main Grand Tours this year. 8 months would the minimum needed for him to be banned from the Giro.

It's a whole other clusterf**k if it's backdated without a provisional suspension. Even contadors was backdated to the date of the original suspension, while the appeal was going on.

TheBlaaMan

Froome is due to ride the Ruta del Sol next month, so I dont see how any future ban could be backdated to some months ago.

CramCycle

RobFowl wrote: »

Here we have Schrodingers cat though !
Froome has failed a test but has an out if he can prove it.
There seems no timeframe set so while he drags it out is he banned or not banned?

Also re testing in labs, they never caught LA that way, nor Rasmussen, nor Valverde...

Well they did actually catch LA but the test was swept under the rug. The issue here is the sports leaders being involved at all.
There should be no out, the limit was high as it was. Anyone who takes that amount to race is not really fit to ride. If the lab is accreditated and the sample shows the same result when retested in another lab, job done.
It should all be done by an independent testing company, who are independently accredited to ISO and whatever the INAB equivalent in their country is.
Samples should be 100% anonymised with a. Third party having the only way to identify. The lab identifies the positives, notifies third party (not the sports body or even WADA at this point) who contacts the athlete directly and asks do they want their B sample checked. A guilty plea gets the 4 years, 2 years if under 21. A B sample test positive gets a 10year ban.

CAS are a joke, letting someone off because they have a competition in a year or two is BS. There should be no arbitration. If a sport wants to advertise as clean, those are the rules, if they don't then just f@ck off and accept that some of your competitors are doping, have no testing and no punishment.

RobFowl

CramCycle wrote: »

Well they did actually catch LA but the test was swept under the rug. The issue here is the sports leaders being involved at all.
There should be no out, the limit was high as it was. Anyone who takes that amount to race is not really fit to ride. If the lab is accreditated and the sample shows the same result when retested in another lab, job done.
It should all be done by an independent testing company, who are independently accredited to ISO and whatever the INAB equivalent in their country is.
Samples should be 100% anonymised with a. Third party having the only way to identify. The lab identifies the positives, notifies third party (not the sports body or even WADA at this point) who contacts the athlete directly and asks do they want their B sample checked. A guilty plea gets the 4 years, 2 years if under 21. A B sample test positive gets a 10year ban.

CAS are a joke, letting someone off because they have a competition in a year or two is BS. There should be no arbitration. If a sport wants to advertise as clean, those are the rules, if they don't then just f@ck off and accept that some of your competitors are doping, have no testing and no punishment.

Don't disagree with any of that !
TUE system not just open to abuse but seems designed to legitimise it.
To me intelligence and whistle-blowers should be used far more often.
Testing misses far too much.
Also new meds should be banned by default until approved !
The should be a see list of permitted meds for specified conditions, none of this molodium nonsense where was permitted for years for dubious reasons.
That said quite proud of my analogy between Froome and Schrodingers cat

https://twitter.com/ConorTMcGrane/status/957574942501097473

kevingonewest

'Britain's Cycling Superheroes: The Price of Success' is repeated 6pm today, BBC2. I was impressed with this 1st time round, questions asked which are still hanging around.

Cheers forgot that was on again, gas hearing Liggett on commentary in some of the clips. Wasn't he still cheerleading Armstrong long after the fact? Used to love is commentary as a young lad but my opinion of him soured over the LA support.

kevingonewest

Still liked hearing P & P on Tour Down Under earlier, though am very happy not to hear them on the Tour anymore. Just had a quick look at this prog but am hooked again, excellent job done BBC. Hard to beleive SKY still with us.

1bryan

any thoughts on Froome's latest strava ride?

seems legit, no?

magicbastarder

link?

el tel

Weepsie wrote: »

https://www.strava.com/activities/1379317668

Someone has flagged it

"Empty the Tank".

Yeah the salbutamol tank down your gullet :P

mamax

Here's one for the conspiracy theorist's in this thread :rolleyes:

Could they possibly find a connection :eek:

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-01/wada-investigates-potential-integrity-issue-with-new-generation-bereg-kit-geneva

Andy Magic

1bryan wrote: »

any thoughts on Froome's latest strava ride?

seems legit, no?

I was thinking the same, was it in a group or team training spin?

1bryan

Andy Magic wrote: »

I was thinking the same, was it in a group or team training spin?

from what I can gather from his instagram (cos I'm blocked on twitter), it's all solo.

Andy Magic

1bryan wrote: »

from what I can gather from his instagram (cos I'm blocked on twitter), it's all solo.

Surely motor pacing then? That avg speed and distance is super human?