You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
....but still no guilt proven (or disproven)
Oh bugger, was just too slow posting my thread 😀
Oh bugger, was just too slow posting my thread 😀
you need to up your intake of salbutamolin then...
😂
I bet he rides in the end - "great" publicity for teh tour though
Good.
Oh god, I can hear the stampeding footsteps of the purists rushing to the thread to declare justice having been done.
I wish someone more eloquent than me could explain why cheating, nefariousness, shadiness and general human nature go hand in hand with sport. I think VAR is a good example of why it's sometimes more entertaining having villains getting away with things and general injustice going unpunished, rather than a whiter than white spectacle of fair play and transparency.
Anyway, like I said, if someone with, like, good words and stuff could just take that and make it into a nice convincing argument I would be much obliged ; )
It'll really open up the race if he's out. I reckon he'll still ride though.
After Hinaults comments I Imagine ASO probably scared of ugly scenes
you need to up your intake of salbutamolin then…
😀
Funnily enough was recently prescribed salbutamol, clearly doing nothing for me.
As much as I like Geraint, I really doubt he’d be a serious GC contender
As much as I like Geraint, I really doubt he’d be a serious GC contender
You could see him being in yellow for the first week though.
You could see him being in yellow for the first week though.
Certainly!
mrlebowski
Worth a read:
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/09/albuterol-salbutamol-doping-works.html
/blockquote>
I had no idea it was available in pill form!
This week could be a fun game of Froome Hokey Cokey. 😆
Can you imagine the disappointment if Froome doesn't start for the fans who have spent hours preparing inhaler costumes and devising ways to keep these costumes hidden until the camera bikes pass? [sadface]
If he ends up being cleared after been blocked from racing it makes the result just as much of a farce as if he does race and is subsequently stripped
The other question for me is are the organisers also banning anyone else with a dodgy test hanging over them (would they know)? If it's one rule for froome and another for everyone else, and he is subsequently cleared, then he has every right to sue them Imo.
Wow that's big news.
I suspect ASO have a bit more insight into the ongoing UCI investigation than the rest of us. If it's looking likely that the UCI will act to ban Froome then I guess ASO think it's better to remove him from the race than have yet another final TdF result changed after the race has finished.
It's a shame for so many reasons. Bernard Hinault can do one though.
Edit: more info here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aso-try-to-block-chris-froome-from-racing-tour-de-france/
The ASO has cited article 28 of its rules, which "expressly reserves the right to refuse participation in - or to exclude from - the event, a team or any of its members whose presence would be such as to damage the image or reputation of ASO or the event."
What a mess.
Im sure the French fans will be holding onto all the bottles of piss they've got stored in case the appeal is successful
Mature decision made by ASO IMO.
Saves the “name” of the race and sends more of a poinient message to those that are under investigation that you can’t join in until a clear pass decision has been made.
However, Sky are insisting they are going to fight the decision. I hope it comes to nothing and the ASO sticks to its ethos.
I’m not sure the ASO know anymore than we do about the result, but regardless the result ought to come from WADA them being the testing body after all. I’m sick of these “leaks” and “informal press releases” Once a decision is made, announce it once and once only.
I think if ASO were serious they would have announced this earlier. I'll believe Froome is out when he doesn't roll out on stage 1.
Hopefully he won't be racing but regardless I think ASO had to do it - even if they're forced to let him race they can state that they tried to prevent it when he does (probably) get banned.
My gripe is why do these things take so long to sort? I think he was caught in September last year, so some 9 months on and still not sorted it out.
IMO if the authorities cannot get their act together, the rider should be given the benefit of the doubt until the case is heard and resolved.
If they have evidence to ban him, then ban him now and dont drag the thing on.
With Froome not racing, are we going to see him podcasting/commentating (alongside Mr Millar perhaps?)
Hinault should keep his opinions to himself, the guy was as flawed (and as brilliant) as the best, but his role at ASO doesn't require home to mouth off.
As for the ASO role, reading Charly Wegelius story I think WADA really need to take the lead. INRG has some good pieces on doping in cycling.
As for the ASO role, reading Charly Wegelius story I think WADA really need to take the lead
Yes the ASO should have been all over the UCI and WADA to get this sorted in a timely fashion.
I wish someone more eloquent than me could explain why cheating, nefariousness, shadiness and general human nature go hand in hand with sport
Not saying I'm more eloquent and knowing this is unlikely not to have crossed your mind, but it's simply ego X money isn't it.
Sky shouldn't fight it imo. Be better to accept their image isn't great as it is and figure out what to do about that. But ego and money will mean they carry on as they do.
My issue is the lack of consistency and rational for the ban though. He's not been banned because he's under investigation, hes been banned because everyone knows he's under investigation. Which is the result of a leak that should never have happened.
There may be other riders also under investigation who we don't know about and who are able to ride. That's not correct.
And if he doesn't ride and is subsequently cleared then the winner will have a huge asterisk against his name given the circumstances.
There may be other riders also under investigation who we don’t know about and who are able to ride. That’s not correct.
Given the number of adverse findings mentioned in another thread that seems inevitable. So how about leaking those too and deciding if those riders should all be told they are unwelcome. Especially if one or more turn out to be French.
There may be other riders also under investigation who we don’t know about and who are able to ride. That’s not correct.
Except that ASO is attempting to bar Froome because of potential reputational damage to its event. If there are other riders in a parallel situation, ASO wouldn't know that and their participation wouldn't cause reputational damage, because their situation isn't publicly known.
It's all a bit Catch 22.
I get what you're saying btw, but if you look at it from ASO's standpoint, there is an internal logic to what they're doing even if you think it's unfair on Froome.
It’s all a bit Catch 22.
Kafkaesque more like, they're barring him because they know of an investigation (remember Froome isn't yet guilty of anything) ASO only know as the investigation was made public, presumably there are more riders under investigation that ASO (and the idiotic Hainault) don't know about that are free to compete but may or may not (depending on the likelihood of them winning presumably) be banned from racing?
Risky for them as the chances of being sued if Froome is innocent must be pretty high? Plus this very same tactic last time they used it (cocaine use by Boonan) didn't work.
Mad scenario.
If it’s one rule for froome and another for everyone else, and he is subsequently cleared, then he has every right to sue them Imo.
Very much this. I'd bet on him riding though. I can't see independent arbitration seeing his exclusion as anything but an injustice.
Better he rides and is stripped of the title, than not being allowed to ride and then found innocent.
@slowoldman and tpbiker I'm with you on that. Any investigation/ban needs to be based on facts and it must be timely. The ASO shouldn't be stopping riders based on perception. That's a very slippery slope. (And yes I realise I'm sounding like a Lance apologist.)
I imagine he will be allowed to ride.
I also question why they are banning him, I certainly don't believe it's motivated by his nationality!
I'm just not enough of a "Little Englander" to subscribe to that POV I'm happy to say..
They may have a sniff of what's coming & are acting pre-emptively.
Certainly under the rules his AAF should never have been made public - I'd argue that they all should be.
Except that ASO is attempting to bar Froome because of potential reputational damage to its event
I absolutely get that rational. But conversely if he misses out then is found innocent the entire result becomes pretty much null and void which will make a complete mockery of the event.
Personally I think that would have a greater affect on its reputation than letting him ride, obviously the organisers think otherwise.
On a side note, I'm astounded froome would want to ride the tour under these circumstances. Clearly they don't want him there, the French fans are hostile at the best of times, and it'll be absolute misery for him for 3 weeks. If it was me I'd sit it out and ride the veulta instead.. The Spanish fans clearly don't care if you are cheating or not.. And he will still have the chance to go for 2 grand tour wins in the year. Unless his plan is to go for all 3 of course.
On a side note, I’m astounded froome would want to ride the tour under these circumstances.
He is in the category where the measure of greatness is how many TDF's did you win, each one is another level up really.
There is no real right answer to this one, he rides and wins then gets banned? We have 2 grand tours that have no winner because of the impact he made. They ban him and he is innocent then it's a tour win without the main contender.
The biggest issue for the ASO is not ending up with a farce where they have to nullify a number of stages after somebody knocks him off or throws tacks on the road.
My issue is the lack of consistency and rational for the ban though. He’s not been banned because he’s under investigation, hes been banned because everyone knows he’s under investigation. Which is the result of a leak that should never have happened.
There may be other riders also under investigation who we don’t know about and who are able to ride. That’s not correct.
You're right. My post saying was the sort of reaction that many who don't read into the detail of all this, or care for that detail, might have. Fairly or not. And that's why the ASO is banning him I guess, because whatever the points related to the leak, Sky have a dodgy rep these days and that's what many know about, this adverse test result is just part of all that. Much of the value of the TDF is with people who simply watch a bit of sport or know little about cycling apart from the tour, perhaps that's why they want him and Sky out if this isn't all cleared up.
In short, this might not just be about Froome, who may well have done nothing wrong himself.
why would you want to race where you are not welcome, the reaction would have been bad before this decision if he "forces" way onto the roster using sky financial muscle and a posse of lawyers the french fan reaction is not going to be welcoming
i bet that if Froome was french it would be a different story.
i bet that if Froome was french it would be a different story.
Perhaps. Different reaction from UK TDF fans, or from the ASO?
To me, this is all about how fantastically useless the UCI is.
The chatter has focused on Froome but it's the UCI that is the problem. Either their rules are crap, their security is crap, or their ability to sort this out is crap. Pick any one.
And to ask Froome to fall on his sword, just because the UCI can't sort this out, is pathetic.
ASO tried the same thing with Tom Boonen after his Peruvian Marching Powder incident in 2009. The UCI cleared him to ride (remember Froome is also clear to ride just now despite the AAF) but ASO tried to ban him from the TdF and they lost on appeal. Same thing likely to happen here. Expect Froome to be on the starting line
It's going to be like the Hokey Cokey all this week!
At the end of the day the Tour is ASO's baby and I guess it's up to them who they allow to play with their toys irrespective of all the other official bodies that may be involved [they also own l'Equipe so a good story is always good for publicity]. There will be a few lawyers better off by the end of the week, that's for sure.
I still think the real issue is the UCI. The incident under investigation took part 10 months ago. How much longer do the powers that be need to determine a riders innocence or guilt? It is appalling it got leaked, and who knows how many other riders especially team leaders and their 2 chief domestiques are also under investigation but cleared to ride? I dont suppose Froome is the only one.
If the ban is upheld I wonder if Sky will race at all? Im sure they have a plan B incase this does happen. Do they give one of the others the chance to win, do they switch to a stage winning strategy and forego the CG, assuming they have the riders to do this. Do they start and then withdraw at some stage? Lots of options for them.
how many other riders especially team leaders and their 2 chief domestiques are also under investigation but cleared to ride?
This.
I still think the real issue is the UCI.
how do we know it's not being delayed by sky and their legal team ? have they been given time to collect evidence make their defense ? I don't know, legal stuff usually takes a while as lawyers like to charge by the hour.
how do we know it’s not being delayed by sky and their legal team ? have they been given time to collect evidence make their defense ?
UCI are in charge of the process. Sky has presented it's evidence.
Sky has presented its evidence and there's a lot of it. The UCI outsources its legal work so I guess the lawyers they use have other jobs and fit the UCI stuff in when they have a bit of spare time. In this day and age I would have thought the UCI would have its own legal department.
do we have a date on that and how much evidence was presented ?
The UCI outsources its legal work so I guess the lawyers they use have other jobs and fit the UCI stuff in when they have a bit of spare time. In this day and age I would have thought the UCI would have its own legal department.
would it not just be lawyers though, you'll need medical experts to critique the evidence too.
And to ask Froome to fall on his sword, just because the UCI can’t sort this out, is pathetic.
Noone is suggesting he does that though are they. That's not the same as questioning why on earth he'd want to ride, for the reasons already mentioned
The date is out there somewhere, it was about a month ago I think but now it's being done properly and behind the closed doors.
The implication of this is huge for the UCI if they show the test is not a reliable test, it's a very big deal for them and they will be wanting to get it right.
The Sky stringing it out line doesn't really make sense as he could have copped a ban at the time and served it through the off season just losing out on the Vuelta title. They now risk losing the all 3.
The Sky stringing it out line doesn’t really make sense as he could have copped a ban at the time and served it through the off season just losing out on the Vuelta title. They now risk losing the all 3.
it's got nothing to do with a ban or otherwize... it's to do with clean or dirty and the implications for froome and sky and the relationship between them
do we have a date on that and how much evidence was presented ?
A few weeks ago and it ran to 1500 pages
Re the test or lab accuracy. They started out claiming he had 2,000ng/ml now revised substantially down to 1400ng/ml. Doesn't exactly give one a lot of confidence about the lab or the test
it’s got nothing to do with a ban or otherwize… it’s to do with clean or dirty and the implications for froome and sky and the relation between them
You could have gone with we were using this drug during this time, we used this dose and the amount in the test was not representative of what we were using. We don't trust the test but accept the decision. To go this far with the defence they have to be confident they have the evidence to defend their position because coming this far can rolling the dice to see what ban you get doesn't add up in any way
Still think of Sky don’t get Froome in, Sky will pull the funding plug.
I think ASO expect to lose the appeal, but they have hedged the risk here. If Froome is found guilty, they can say "well we tried", if he isn't then they can say "justice has run its course". Cute move. The risk for them is if they win the appeal. Then they will be sweating on the Froome case outcome.
UCI president David Lappartient said: "I have always said we would make known the general position of the UCI before the Tour and that will be the case.
"It begins next Saturday so we shall explain our position during the coming week."
It'll be interesting to hear what their "general position" actually is.
It’ll be interesting to hear what their “general position” actually is.
Well if they can manage to only upset half of the people it will be a start....
They may have a sniff of what’s coming & are acting pre-emptively.
Amusingly the most recent Cycling Tips podcast included speculation that Froome could be cleared by the UCI before the Tour... they'd heard mutterings and rumours. Or something. It seems unlikely, but hey, stuff happens.
Still think of Sky don’t get Froome in, Sky will pull the funding plug.
Didn't you reckon they were going to merge with BMC? I guess you have inside information.
I really can't see what stating a "general position" can do for the UCI other than make things worse, Their position is clear from the public documents available (their rules). They cannt say anything that goes against those. And they cannot say anything about the case until there is a final decision.
Wait and see what the French CAS have to say. How many other riders are riding with an AAF? He should be treated the same as any other rider.
And if he doesn’t ride, pity the winner. There will always be a footnote next to the record.
This could be like that Tyson Fury boxing case. Sky could have a lot of very expensive/good lawyers waiting to take them to the cleaners. Especially if any of the other contenders, their domestiques or stage winners are on the same list as Froome.
Ultimately 9 months is a mental time for this to drag on, bearing in mind it's someones career.
why would you want to race where you are not welcome, the reaction would have been bad before this decision if he “forces” way onto the roster using sky financial muscle and a posse of lawyers the french fan reaction is not going to be welcoming
Just because someone doesn't like you doesn't mean you should walk away. I suspect a lot of Hinaults talk is to get the Sky team out of the TdF to maybe help Bardet etc. and get a homegrown winner. Given his way I'm sure every team would be composed of just French.
That would be the same Hinault who refused a drugs test. I wonder why he did that...
Bardet's no TDF winner. He might get on the podium, hell he might even get a stage, but Thomas (opps I fell off again) is more likely to win than Bardet. And frankly Thomas is as likely to win as a...
Meanwhile the decision making processes need to be clarified and sped up. It's completely bonkers to have people's livelihoods left hanging because of amateurs bickering.
So... as per my earlier post, The Times is reporting that a verdict on the Salbutamol case is imminent and likely to remder the whole ASO process irrelevant:
It's behind a pay-wall, but if you can be arsed, registering gives you a couple of free articles per week. Also Richard Freeman has been interviewed by the BBC's Dan Roan. Takeaways include that he has documentary proof of the theft of his lap-top in 2014.
Anyway...
The Sky stringing it out line doesn’t really make sense as he could have copped a ban at the time and served it through the off season just losing out on the Vuelta title. They now risk losing the all 3.
Then again maybe they figure Froome will actually be vindicated.
This really is all down to the UCI. They are the governing body. If they say Froome is free to ride then he is free to ride. If I were managing Sky that would be my stance. I would take a very dim view of an officer of the ASO stirring up the issue.
I only really watch TdF for the helicoptering scenery shots anyway. Not bothered frankly.
Talking of Sky..... You can get odds of 9/4 for Froome winning the TDF on Sky Bet.
Maybe they know more than others.
Surely the ASO can't act against the rules of the UCI without the latter declaring the whole TdF out-of-bounds to UCI affiliated teams?
@slowoldman that was the gist of my post and later one, you don't head down this road unless you have confidence in the outcome.
Re the test or lab accuracy. They started out claiming he had 2,000ng/ml now revised substantially down to 1400ng/ml. <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Doesn’t exactly give one a lot of confidence about the lab or the test</span>
I believe that's a standard adjustment they make for the specific gravity of the sample, to reflect the effect of dehydration. The 2000 value was the raw result. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the testing process.
I think the Salbutamol test is pretty well established, and no one has seriously challenged its validity. Even with the adjustment, Froome was way over the limit. The comments I have read from people who seem to know what they are talking about suggest it would be well nigh impossible to generate that test result from legal use of an inhaler. I assume Sky are therefore struggling to put together a convincing defence, hence not opting for the pharmo-kinetic study and presenting 1500 pages of evidence, which will spin things out as long as possible.
I think the ASO are doing this to force the UCI to get their backsides in gear and either pee or get off the pot regarding their ruling. Whether Froome is in or out they just want the ruling to have been announced so they are clear the correct the decision has been made. They don't want Froome in with this hanging over his head so either want him to be in and cleared by the UCI or out and officially banned. I think the UCI have said they're going to announce before the TdF so hopefully it will come in the next couple of days.
+1
That's how I see it too. UCI are useless. In or out, make your mind up UCI.
Hinault should keep his opinions to himself,
Like that's ever going to happen, plus let him with out sin and all that.
I believe that’s a standard adjustment they make for the specific gravity of the sample, to reflect the effect of dehydration. The 2000 value was the raw result. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the testing process.
I think the Salbutamol test is pretty well established, and no one has seriously challenged its validity. Even with the adjustment, Froome was way over the limit. The comments I have read from people who seem to know what they are talking about suggest it would be well nigh impossible to generate that test result from legal use of an inhaler. I assume Sky are therefore struggling to put together a convincing defence, hence not opting for the pharmo-kinetic study and presenting 1500 pages of evidence, which will spin things out as long as possible.
If this is true (not doubting you kcr, just no expert here myself and tbh haven't been following all this very closely either), and the ASO have a clause that says they can exclude teams or riders for disrepute, are the UCI dragging this out in a similar as letting LA and USPS continue riding - ie we know there's something wrong but calling it means putting another big cloud over past events and pro road racing in general? I'm speculating and it's a bit 'daft conspiracy theory' of course, but based on past events with both sky and the UCI, why not.
I think technically, the UCI at this point has limited control over the process, so while Lappartient would love to bring it to a head, it's in the hands of the UCI Anti Doping Tribunal whose judges are - quote -
'fully independent from the UCI and were nominated in view of their outstanding expertise in the field of anti-doping and dispute resolution.'
It's a bit like giving a package to the post office, you may have sent it, but once it;s in the system, there's precious little you can do about it, or something like that. So neither the ASO or the UCI can decide the timing of the process, it'll take as long as it takes.
And as above, there's a Times article out there suggesting that the verdict may be out before the Tour and suggesting that Froome will be cleared. And if that happens, it's hard to see how ASO could justify excluding him.
And if that happens, it’s hard to see how ASO could justify excluding him.
Only if they have a very large chequebook, one would imagine