can i put a 1000 likes on that please
Froome and Wiggins TUEs
- Thread starter Joffey
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
hoopdriver
Guru
- Location
- East Sussex
Of what?
is your head in the clouds toking on the same bong as froomey...................hes FAILED a drugs test
Siclo
Veteran
If the UCI is remotely consistent they've got to ban him as per Petacchi and Ulissi. Sky are obviously going to try and fudge with the 'prove a reason for the finding' defence but given that he's admitted to upping his dosage and Ulissi's controlled excretion tests that showed a non-linear response to increased dosage was not a accepted as a defence, I don't think Sky and Brailsford's usual spin is going to wash.
Interestingly the NHS states that high does of Salbutamol can cause muscle weakness, cramps, constriction of airways, irregular heartbeat and possible heart attack. Hmmm give me some of that lovely Salbutamol so I can fly up the mountains, it sounds like effective stuff!!!!
This isn't a straight case of 'Froome too all that Salbutamol to go up the hills quicker' - it is far more complicated than that and we need to allow investigation to conclude before throwing him on the fire.
My first thought was this is a massive dosage cock up and I'll state for the record that that's what I think the UCI will find. Then he'll get banned and a career forever tainted by taking a substance that offered no real 'doping' advantage that the majority will jump on to accuse him of doping his entire life.
Our beautiful sport can be anything but at times.
This isn't a straight case of 'Froome too all that Salbutamol to go up the hills quicker' - it is far more complicated than that and we need to allow investigation to conclude before throwing him on the fire.
My first thought was this is a massive dosage cock up and I'll state for the record that that's what I think the UCI will find. Then he'll get banned and a career forever tainted by taking a substance that offered no real 'doping' advantage that the majority will jump on to accuse him of doping his entire life.
Our beautiful sport can be anything but at times.
hoopdriver
Guru
- Location
- East Sussex
Your lofty statement about a belief in the assumption of innocence seems a little hollow. Of precisely what is he 'guilty'? Guilt implies a knowing or deliberate action and there is no evidence of that, at least not that I am aware of. He has some explaining to do about the elevated levels of a given drug - levels that exceed the mandated tolerances - but whether those raised levels are the result of deliberate cheating, an innocent screw-up, or some odd metabolical issue is simply unknown at present. And someone who truly believes in the assumption of innocence until proven guilty would accept that.
His previous tests will show normal levels of salbutamol derivatives, below 1000 (unless there have been previous adverse tests that we don't know about). I've no idea (and I bet SKY don't yet, either) how they will argue that this result of double the limit is perfectly possible under legal dosing.
Year's ban, lose the Vuelta. He's lucky they can't take the TDF title, too, IMO.
Year's ban, lose the Vuelta. He's lucky they can't take the TDF title, too, IMO.
Best you give brailsford a ring.....seems like your a better spin doctor than piers morgan
Whats he guilty of kind sir is FAILING a drugs test. How he failed it and the reasons for failing it HE needs to prove.......the rest is upto the UCI on whether is reasoning disproves his guilt in drug failure. In past cases pettachi and ullisi was banned for failing tests with usage of the same drug
Last edited:
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the biggest and most importantest thing in all of sport ...
Will this harm his chances in the BBC SPOTY?
He didn't have a chance anyway.
Siclo
Veteran
He's guilty of returning an adverse analytical finding.
Innocent screw up - that's just mitigation, ask Simon Yates
Metabolic issue - UCI told Ulissi it's not even mitigation
Whatever comes out of the politicking he'll always have an asterisk now.
Adam4868
Guru
I choose to say what you believe is irrelevant. If Froome's only defence is "Smeggers says it's balls" then he's fecked.
What speculation? Froome has failed a drugs test.
smeggers doesnt think he failed the test, even though he failed both the A and B sample.............and froome himself has admitted to upping his dosage
