Chris Froome tests positive for Salbutamol

el tel

So whats the story, was he twice the permitted level, or just 19% over as Sky claim?

If the former, it would have been good if someone had taken steps to correct the misinformation that was being bandied about

Inquitus

el tel wrote: »

So whats the story, was he twice the permitted level, or just 19% over as Sky claim?

If the former, it would have been good if someone had taken steps to correct the misinformation that was being bandied about

Double the stated limit, but only 19% more than the limit when adjusted for dehydration as far as I understand it. Based on what I have read the latter is the one that matters with regard to an AAF not the former.

magicbastarder

Full UCI statement on clearing of Chris Froome



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.

end

that last sentence is a little ill-advised!

RobFowl

Zoncolon wrote: »

This whole administration of cycling reminds me of sleeping with the woman you love knowing she's cheating on you... You just always wish it could be different...

Depends on who the woman is.
MrsFowl so hot I'd settle for her

Davina McCall as well..

ednwireland

what happens to ASO stance now on froome's participation on tour de france ??

Chips Lovell

If you read the statement, the UCI is essentially saying it was WADA, not they who made the call.

Leroy42

I guess we were all wrong about Froome so. Looks like we are witnessing the greatest Grand Tour rider ever.

el tel

Leroy42 wrote: »

I guess we were all wrong about Froome so. Looks like we are witnessing the greatest Grand Tour rider ever.

Certainly the greatest since Armstrong :pac:

RobFowl

el tel wrote: »

Certainly the greatest since Armstrong :pac:

Armstrong didn't win the Giro or Vuelta ! (Froomes asterix's are effectively gone )

terrydel

Inquitus wrote: »

Double the stated limit, but only 19% more than the limit when adjusted for dehydration as far as I understand it. Based on what I have read the latter is the one that matters with regard to an AAF not the former.

So 19% doesnt count? Good ****ing grief.
How come this context was never applied in previous cases of Salbutamol abuse?
Everything about this team would make you want to vomit.

Kristopherus

ednwireland wrote: »

what happens to ASO stance now on froome's participation on tour de france ??

Last I heard about it is that one crowd sre saying he cannot partake in TDF, whil another crowd are saying he can.Sky & Froome are appealing some decision, and imo, the farce is getting more farcical:D.

letape

So frustrating. As of yesterday froome wasn’t riding the tour and I for one was really looking forward to the race.

I have limited interest in it now, or anything he takes part in.

Chips Lovell

ASO have confirmed they’re no longer blocking him since the case is now closed.

C3PO

I can understand that the UCI might have a vested interest in Froome being cleared but I don't see that WADA would have? I would be very interested in the reasoning behind their decision.

loyatemu

I for one look forward to watching him peddling furiously up Alpe d'Huez with the relaxed demeanour of a man sitting on the loo reading a newspaper.

Raam

https://twitter.com/ukcyclingexpert/status/1013691755479339008

terrydel

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

ASO have confirmed they’re no longer blocking him since the case is now closed.

They absolutely knew they'd never have to follow thru on this, it was a statement for optics only. They knew this was coming down the tracks and leaked about banning to appear like they were being hard on drug cheats.

mamax

So the facts are then

Froome has never tested positive and he is on course to being the greatest cyclist of all time

Have I missed anything

Brian?

mamax wrote: »

So the facts are then

Froome has never tested positive and he is on course to being the greatest cyclist of all time

Have I missed anything

This is borderline trolling, but I’ll answer this on it’s merits.

Froome needs to start winning monument classics to ever be in the conversation for “greatest cyclists of all time”.

Currently he isn’t even course to be he greatest Grand Tour rider of of all time.

There’s this chap named Eddy Merckx. You should google him.

When you’re finished reading about him, go on and google Bernard Hinault.

ednwireland

mamax wrote: »

So the facts are then

Froome has never tested positive and he is on course to being the greatest cyclist of all time

Have I missed anything

i for one am looking forward to see how many more grand tours he can win on the trot !

Brian?

I imagine Petacchi is on the blower to his lawyer right now. He won’t be alone.

This is a complete injustice to the others who’ve served their time for being over he limit for salbutamol. All I’ve ever wanted was consistency from the UCI. This is a disgrace.

marklazarcovic

Didn't merckx fail 3 or 4 doping tests

Inquitus

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Didn't merckx fail 3 or 4 doping tests

He did indeed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx#Doping

odyssey06

ednwireland wrote: »

i for one am looking forward to see how many more grand tours he can win on the trot !

He only won one of them on the trot, in fairness.

el tel

terrydel wrote: »

So 19% doesnt count? Good ****ing grief.
How come this context was never applied in previous cases of Salbutamol abuse?
Everything about this team would make you want to vomit.

If that were true i reckon they'd be working a TUE move on that very basis...

mamax

Brian? wrote: »

This is borderline trolling, but I’ll answer this on it’s merits.

I stated the facts and , if both the uci and wada says froome did not dope then I'm happy with that
Maybe you are letting your personal opinion of froome get in the way of the facts
Can't wait for the tour to start

wanderer 22

Passive aggressive smilies should be banned

fat bloke

Have pity on the moderators. They've 9 months of Froome doping allegations and speculations to trawl through for retroactive bans.


And was it not Dumoulin that had the trots...?

coco0981

mamax wrote: »

So the facts are then

Froome has never tested positive and he is on course to being the greatest cyclist of all time

Have I missed anything

It's funny how it took Froome till 26 to show any sign that he was not just a decent domestique, he was in fact the greatest rider of his generation

fishfoodie

C3PO wrote: »

I can understand that the UCI might have a vested interest in Froome being cleared but I don't see that WADA would have? I would be very interested in the reasoning behind their decision.

Ditto!

I have a feeling the UCI cherrypicked the 'evidence' they wanted from whatever WADA passed onto them.

So the UCI would ask if it was possible that someone who was dehydrated, & who took 8 puffs off an inhaler, would immediately afterward return a test with 1000ng; & WADA said; yeah, its possible; but the person would be so sick they'd be in a hospital bed with that level of dehydration.

Then the UCI just took the bit the wanted, & discarded the rest.

I think we shouldn't be giving Froome credit for the Vuelta & Giro; those wins were by the Sky Legal team, not the Cycling team :mad:

I guess I'll stick to watching the golf this summer.