Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[hoopdriver]

I think the authorities knew, or at least suspected, there were flaws with this test and that Sky were prepared, and had the resources, to take this all the way.

As far as Froome goes, even if one was prepared to doubt his integrity - and I personally don’t - you’d also have to believe him to be extraordinarily stupid to “dope” with something that not only would have no beneficial effect but to do it in such a way and under such circumstances that being caught would be a certainty.

I think justice has been served, but I also think Froome is extremely lucky that it panned out this way. A lot of face was at stake for many people.

 

[Bollo]

My take on it all is that Sky pushed the current rules to the edge, made a mistake and got caught out. I doubt they're the only team seeking competitive advantage through the loopholes in the TUE and dose-restricted drugs rules, but they were the ones that were caught. Personally I don't buy the ethics argument that Lappartient put out - if the advantage is there and technically within the rules then teams and riders will always look to exploit it. I don't think any worse of Froome and Sky for the incident, but at the same time I don't have a particularly starry-eyed view of professional sportspeople.

I do think there's a real issue with rider safety for this edition. Whatever the hypocrisies and history, Team Sky are a new US Postal as far as the French are concerned. I don't want the TdF to turn into a cycling-themed remake of The Warriors.

 

[hoopdriver]

I might agree with you as regards Sky's ethics and willingness to push things as far as the letter of the law allows, but what possible marginal gain are they going to get by Froome's inhaling 19% too much salbutamol? At worst its was a screw up in terms of measuring dosage - more likely, as seems to have been the case, the test itself is flawed.

 

[lazybloke]

My take on it all is that Sky pushed the current rules to the edge, made a mistake and got caught out. I doubt they're the only team seeking competitive advantage through the loopholes in the TUE and dose-restricted drugs rules, but they were the ones that were caught. Personally I don't buy the ethics argument that Lappartient put out - if the advantage is there and technically within the rules then teams and riders will always look to exploit it. I don't think any worse of Froome and Sky for the incident, but at the same time I don't have a particularly starry-eyed view of professional sportspeople.

I do think there's a real issue with rider safety for this edition. Whatever the hypocrisies and history, Team Sky are a new US Postal as far as the French are concerned. I don't want the TdF to turn into a cycling-themed remake of The Warriors.

I'd agree to the extent that mysterious jiffy bags, missing medical records, and discrepancies about the no needles policy (etc etc) all look extremely dodgy.
But Froome has so far been shown to be more transparent ; eg the Fancy Bears leaks only confirmed details he'd previously discussed in public.

I see @hoopdriver has beaten me to my point: the AAF fiasco would have been more damning if it was related to performance-enhancing medication. Just look at the outcome of Contador and his clenbuterol test.

Sky could help to recover their reputation by loudly/proudly & actively promoting and facilitating testing of their riders at any time.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Sky have that much money if they wanted to they could independently test all their riders everyday & publish the results everyday, but that would then leave them with a dilemma what happens if somebody tested positive, maybe the wrong word, but if they were the wrong side of the line, would they then publish that?

 

[Crackle]

I said earlier, it was probably Froome's wish to avoid applying for a TUE after all the furore from the Fancy Bears leaks which led to this situation and him maxing out his inhaler rather than using a more powerful drug under a TUE

 

[Adam4868]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-process-lack-detail-annoy-organisers-experts
He's said he'll be making information public in the next few days.

 

[Bollo]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-process-lack-detail-annoy-organisers-experts
He's said he'll be making information public in the next few days.

I've just read through this. The last couple of paras are interesting and in much better words describe my unease in the way that UCI/WADA seem to have reasoned themselves around absolving the AAF without a pharmacokinetic study.

Anyways, what's done is done so I'm going to step out, enjoy the tour and finish off my Inhaler costume.

 

[Adam4868]

I've just read through this. The last couple of paras are interesting and in much better words describe my unease in the way that UCI/WADA seem to have reasoned themselves around absolving the AAF without a pharmacokinetic study.

Anyways, what's done is done so I'm going to step out, enjoy the tour and finish off my Inhaler costume.

Inhaler costume...that's so last year.Im getting me tattoo finished.

 

[rich p]

Maybe you're right, I really don't know, but the difference between Froome and Ulissi and Petacchi, is that he'd been medicating up to the limit on numerous days whilst being dehydrated every day presumably.
I'm not defending the science but it would be impossible to replicate the conditions for a pharmacokinetic study.
And if the science isn't strong enough to defend the salbutamol test then the test isn't fit for purpose.

 

[si_c]

But I'm prepared to trust WADA's view. More so than I would trust the UCI, and it goes without saying more than I'd trust Sky (ie not at all).

That's my view, WADA have absolutely every incentive to be consistent and demand the highest standards for athletes, failing to do so would invalidate all the work they've done across all sports, and not just cycling. They don't have an axe to grind in this instance.

If the UCI had just signed off on it and there was no comment from WADA or they were issuing a statement to the contrary then it would be a different situation entirely.

I've done some reading to understand what's happened a bit with the test and understand the testing process. From what I understand whilst his Salbutamol level must not exceed 1000, the actual threshold used for the test is 1200 - because of inaccuracies with the test. In addition the test is designed to work with the average person, not someone who is dehydrated, and that compensating for that dehydration would bring his tested level under the decision threshold.

I think it only fair that if someone is dehydrated (which will be the case with most endurance athletes) then this should be accounted for in the testing methodologies used.

To my mind, this should be applied retroactively to other riders who have had an AAF under the same circumstances.

 

[smutchin]

compensating for that dehydration would bring his tested level under the decision threshold

My understanding was that he was still over the decision threshold even after adjustment, but WADA accepted that it was possible for this to happen without exceeding the permitted inhaled dose.

Basically, what @rich p says is spot on - WADA no longer have faith in their own testing procedures and limits for salbutamol.

 

[Slaav]

Firstly, whether the Sky 'Death Star' or their lawyers have bulldozed through the rules or not, it seems irrelevant at this stage?

WADA seem to have agreed with the logic applied and successfully argued. They have agreed that there is no case to answer by CF/Sky.

Personally, I think he is most likely 'innocent' of this 'offence' (well, non offence in fact) and I do believe that although lines are peered over, they are not actually crossed. I think a lot of the PR is actually white noise to be honest.

The interesting part for me is retrospective exoneration of previous AAFs which could be expensive and a minefield? Two well known ones spring to mind so I am off to read up on those again now....

 

[mjr]

The interesting part for me is retrospective exoneration of previous AAFs which could be expensive and a minefield? Two well known ones spring to mind so I am off to read up on those again now....

I think the bits about "a documented illness" and "demonstrated within-subject variability" may prevent that.

 

[User169]

I don't want the TdF to turn into a cycling-themed remake of The Warriors.

That sounds awesome!

(Great movie, btw)