Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[rich p]

Glad to see a decision has finally been made. I assume the TdF organisers will be reversing their decision not to allow him to compete.

Just a minor aside: the use of this inhaler is apparently not covered by TUEs:



BBC

So it could be said that this whole saga should be in another thread.

All that has been known by everyone interested from Day 1.
If you read previous posts you'll see that the ASO acceptance has been commented upon.

 

[Bollo]

Statement from WADA.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ppeal-uci-decision-in-christopher-froome-case

WADA’s position is as follows:

1. Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
2. WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.
3. In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).
4. Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

• the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
• an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
• the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.

It's still very much "Not Proven" in the style of Scots law and it's certainly not going to persuade the French cycling public to be pouring their carefully accrued buckets of pish down the poorly functioning plumbing.

 

[brommers]

The court of French public opinion may not have closed the case.

Who gives a f**k about them?

 

[lazybloke]

Who gives a f**k about them?

I wouldn't mind a comedy giant inhaler. I'd be worried about more "direct" protests.

 

[Adam4868]

Can we just move on and let Froome carry on being the best GC rider of his generation.

 

[brommers]

He's had a load of crap aimed at him in previous years, so I don't think he's going to be too bothered.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Mr Pro tour Punditry

I obviously bow to your better memory, however, the fact remains that the TdF organisers, for decades, did very little to address the drugs cheats in the nineties , in my opinion. The loss to revenue by excluding the star racers of the day, mostly drug fuelled, was too much to risk.

If you look at the Valverde decision you'll see that highlighted that 1) you need to be guilty of something and 2) you can't be punished twice for the same thing, or something like that.

As for the 90s, the UCI and everyone else protected the dopers.

As for Froome, I don't need to live by the Valverde ruling and think he's a doping twat.

 

[Beebo]

Well ... I dunno about that. I'm happy to accept WADA's statement. Afterall, they are WADA. I was happy enough to accept their "reasoned decision" over another famous rider.

I'm a bit less happy that it's (probably) come about in this case due to the superior resources that Sky could bring to bear in his defence, resources sufficient to make WADA retract requirements of the testing protocol (the requirement for the PK test) I imagine (but don't know) that Petacci and Ulissi could well have got off given access to similar resources.

But hey ho, that's really nothing new. As the old song goes "it's the same, the 'ole world over, isn't it a blimmin' shame".

Tyson Fury’s infected boar meat case threatened to bankrupt UK Anti doping before they agreed a compromise.
It does seem that you can just spend your way out of a problem and the authorities don’t have the resources to defend cases.
How many thousand pages of evidence did Froome’s lawyers submit?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Only one

 

[rich p]

I can't help wondering that if this was a natural excessive overdose, then it may well happen again in similar circumstances. I wonder if the UCI would issue another AAF.
Or indeed for any other rider.

 

[FishFright]

Only one

Was it a cheque ?

 

[DRM]

I think this leak just fed into the U.K tabloids deep seated desire to build someone up, then drop from in it from a great height just for the fun of destroying them, as far as I'm concerned I hope Froome wins the T de F again, accompanied by a podium full of British riders, let's see how the French like that!.
I know that Sky are going to suffer some serious abuse on the road, sadly I don't think the authorities will do much to protect them.

 

[Milkfloat]

If it is truly an inconsistent test then all riders/teams should be happy that Sky had the resources and profile to get it sorted. However, if the bullied their way to the conclusion then it is yet another sad day for cycling. The problem is, as usual we have no real way to know.

 

[Adam4868]

I can't help wondering that if this was a natural excessive overdose, then it may well happen again in similar circumstances. I wonder if the UCI would issue another AAF.
Or indeed for any other rider.

I'd be pretty sure it has happened before to various riders,but just not leaked as this was.Froome would of been a big catch so to speak.But there was nothing to catch again.
How many times have we heard about Froome ? From having a hidden motor to that wasn't a natural climb,blah blah and yet I haven't seen anything to prove other than he's a unbelievable racer ! I'll stick with taking him at his word,if he never won anything again what he's achieved is still some feat !
The meticulous planning and the actual ride of Froome in stage 19 of the Giro and the overall victory left most gobsmacked.
As for the French haters angle I sort of get it,they crave a winner and all they see is the British riders getting a taste so to speak.Skys dominance in grand tours is hard to crack.
There time will come I'm sure,maybe just not when Froomes riding !

 

[Daddy Pig]

I can't help wondering that if this was a natural excessive overdose, then it may well happen again in similar circumstances. I wonder if the UCI would issue another AAF.
Or indeed for any other rider.

Urine tests for this sort of drug are pretty useless as dehydration can have a huge impact on the accuracy of the results.
The stated maximum amount you could take and get away with is 8 puffs in a 12 hour period. If you have asthma you could use that number in less than 10 minutes let alone what dehydration will do to alter the results.

As he got tested numerous times and never had an adverse result, added to the fact that this only helps those with asthma then this is and always has been a bu11sh1t story IMHO. Hopefully he'll give the frogs a damned good thrashing...