Tour de France 2018 - General Thread

gmacww

CramCycle wrote: »

So basically it is a free for all for everyone to use Salbutamol?



I laughed hardest at this statement because, the simple fact is that it is exactly what an AAF is.

Well it already is really. If you look at the number of "asthmatic" athletes that took part in the recent winter olympics it's astonishing. I read a stat somewhere that 95% of the Norwegian cross country skiers were asthmatic. What country regularly cleans up on the cross country skiing medals?

It's up there with the time Major League Baseball cleared a particular medicine that is used to treat ADHD. Overnight there was a 3000% increase in the number of players registered as ADHD. Why? The medicine was a very strong steroid.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

I laughed hardest at this statement because, the simple fact is that it is exactly what an AAF is.

CramCycle

Weepsie wrote: »

Yup the previous banned athletes should be getting straight onto their legal teams as they've opened up a huge can of worms IMO.

Depends on if they admitted it or not, if they didn't admit it, then they have a chance, if they admitted it for leniency, then they will essentially be punished for (eventually) doing the right thing.

TheBlaaMan

Its open season on WADA. This isnt just about Salbutamol and cycling/UCI, it surely means that anyone with the means to tied up the process in spurious studies and 1000s of pages of 'evidence' can runs now subvert what was a flawed but successful process.

Maybe its a good thing.
Maybe its time to switch off, dont engage with the TdF, get out on the bike for those hours that you were going to watch the Tour.

I suspect fans will be giving Sky a hot reception during the race.

RobertKK

Cycling needs and needed a zero tolerance approach, all this does is have a negative impact on the sport. It says there can be questionable use of drugs but its ok.
Sky or Froome should not think this makes them clear in the eyes of the public who had their trust in how genuine these sports stars are tested, over and over and over again. Fool me once...

Macy0161

gmacww wrote: »

Well it already is really. If you look at the number of "asthmatic" athletes that took part in the recent winter olympics it's astonishing. I read a stat somewhere that 95% of the Norwegian cross country skiers were asthmatic. What country regularly cleans up on the cross country skiing medals?

Not really. There is medical support that endurance athletes are more prone to exercise induced asthma, and allergen problems in general, due to prolonged exposure to them outside. There's also no evidence that treatments work, in the allowed doses by inhaler, work for non-asthmatics.

In my own case, it generally means less coughing up mucus/ less snot rockets, and mainly when the pollen count is really high.

What the ruling does potentially do is open up the use for the banned uses - nebulizers and injection - where it does have a performance benefit.

godtabh

i am not surprised especially about the timing.

I hope he gets hammered at the race. Probably wont.

coco0981

https://twitter.com/carltonkirby/status/1013718632101220353?s=19

MPFGLB

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1013725303670296576

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/phlaimeaux/status/1013733367597207553

godtabh

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/phlaimeaux/status/1013733367597207553

I think people do care but the people who do care are getting fewer and fewer based on things like this.

Professional bike racing will soon be seen in the same was as pro wrestling. Sports entertainment only. At least pro wrestling is doing something about drugs.

pelevin

Think that's me fully done with pro-cycling. Left it in disgust years ago, doing so again now.

Sprinter Sacre

I mean I expected him to get away with it but it still leaves an awful taste in the mouth. Digger's twitter will make for great reading today.

Froome and Sky have singlehandedly destroyed the chance of the sport redeeming itself. Instead they've sent it back even more.


https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/1013715936996515840

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/1013720926804901888

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/1013731663220756481

Lumen

Is there anything more than the UCI press release available which describes how they justify this decision?

Lumen

The important bit seems to be this:

"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."

The UCI are surely in the clear if they can pin this on WADA.

1bryan

Has it been confirmed that Froome is starting the race? If the rule they were proposing excluding him under was to do with being 'bad for the image of the race', surely there are still grounds to exclude him?

And seeing as the hearing wouldn't be resolved in time for the start of the race, it would mean him not starting.

At this stage I wouldn't really want to ride if I were Froome. I can imagine the hostility will be off the scales, especially up Alpe d'Huez.

Sprinter Sacre

Some karma being served on Alpe D'Huez would be lovely

MPFGLB

I hope there are no physical attacks on SKY, Froome or any rider in the Tour

I disagree with UCI ruling but at the end of the day its just sport

NeedMoreGears

So here we go again. One of the greatest shows on earth is about to take place and we're all distracted yet again by off-the-bike issues. Good grief it's so annoying.

It seems amateurish to me that there can be a "soft" limit for things like salbutamol. Surely there should be a limit, over which no explanations are required - you just get banned?

coco0981

MPFGLB wrote: »

I hope there are no physical attacks on SKY, Froome or any rider in the Tour

I disagree with UCI ruling but at the end of the day its just sport

This 100%
Hope there isn't a repeat of the urine incident etc. Like most on here I don't believe in the Sky/Froome fairytale, but Froome has always seemed ok himself

velo.2010

It seems that someone's human right to compete now overrides any adverse finding against them. And its not just Froome we're talking about.

The Peruvian footballer who was allowed to compete after he tested positive for cocaine - The Swiss supreme court overruled CAS to allow him to play at the World cup. So even CAS are no longer the final arbiters in sports anti-doping governance!

You could imagine a scene where Froome, banned by the UCI/WADA and upheld by CAS, would end up in front of a Swiss judge looking to be cleared for the Tour because 'its his right to compete'.

The ASO's calling for him to be removed from the Tour was a face-saving exercise which will blow up in their face.

I won't be renewing my Eurosport subscription even if I can get the cheaper deal. Carlton 'the prick' Kirby helped make up my mind.

I'll watch the Roubaix stage on TG4 and keep across the race but I'm disgusted with that today.

1bryan

MPFGLB wrote: »

I hope there are no physical attacks on SKY, Froome or any rider in the Tour

I disagree with UCI ruling but at the end of the day its just sport

It ceases being 'just sport' when big money becomes involved, sadly. This can make mere slights seem like major injustices.

I still reckon it could be the cobbles that prove Froome's downfall, not the French public who, let's face it, are more likely to just dress up in surgical gear and run alongside him with giant inhalers than actually physically harm him.

I'm going to put him and Thomas in my Velogames team. They're bound to do terribly then.

magicbastarder

velo.2010 wrote: »

It seems that someone's human right to compete now overrides any adverse finding against them.

well, the courts operate in a legal framework of 'innocent until proven guilty' which doesn't translate well into elite sports. introduce an element of doubt and hey, you're innocent.

Sprinter Sacre

https://twitter.com/carltonkirby/status/1013718632101220353

This the crap being shovelled down people's throats. Can you imagine the amount of tears and the amount of roaring into the mic that clown will be doing as the washing machine ETs up the mountains? I won't be watching on ES that's for sure.

Do TG4 still do live coverage with the two lads talking about Nigel's Cycles, ag ithe na ceapairí ar na sléibhte agus Tommy Voeckler while being almost oblivious to any action going on?

el tel

Sprinter Sacre wrote: »

Some korma being served on Alpe D'Huez would be lovely

Fixed that

death1234567

Cycling is still miles cleaner than the world cup and everybody seems to be enjoying that.

terrydel

godtabh wrote: »

i am not surprised especially about the timing.

I hope he gets hammered at the race. Probably wont.

I'd love if he lost by 1 second to someone out of their tits on goofballs, just to see their reaction!

terrydel

Lumen wrote: »

Is there anything more than the UCI press release available which describes how they justify this decision?

Ah will you stop! Who needs anything like that?!!

terrydel

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, the courts operate in a legal framework of 'innocent until proven guilty' which doesn't translate well into elite sports. introduce an element of doubt and hey, you're innocent.

Exactly what Sky have done, spent enough money to find that bit of doubt.