Even if Froome isn't found guilty Sky will struggle this year to win The Tour with him going for the Giro. It might be a very lean year for Sky. This isn't ideal Giro preparation and I can only imagine the circus that will follow Froome round - none of it great for him trying to go for the win sadly.
Froome and Wiggins TUEs
- Thread starter Joffey
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Even if Froome isn't found guilty Sky will struggle this year to win The Tour with him going for the Giro. It might be a very lean year for Sky. This isn't ideal Giro preparation and I can only imagine the circus that will follow Froome round - none of it great for him trying to go for the win sadly.
Keep up Adam; he's currently being investigated for pushing Reichenbach off his bike...
...allegedly!
Strathlubnaig
Guru
- Location
- Alberta
Tony Martin not sitting on the fence
Berk on a Bike
Veteran
- Location
- Yorkshire
If anything makes me return to the fold it's a story like this. 
That Inrng blog post someone else linked to is a great explainer btw if you haven't read it yet.
I'm sure it will all come out that the person to blame is Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick.
That Inrng blog post someone else linked to is a great explainer btw if you haven't read it yet.I'm sure it will all come out that the person to blame is Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick.
hoopdriver
Guru
- Location
- East Sussex
Tony Martin is being a bit ingenuous here. The type of adverse finding turned in by Chris Froome does not call for an immediate ban, and he must know that.
Last edited:
Berk on a Bike
Veteran
- Location
- Yorkshire
Immediately disabled after a positive sample? F**k me, that's a bit harsh...
I've read elsewhere because Salbutamol is a "specified substance" it doesn't trigger an automatic suspension. Or a piece of metal pipe to the kneecaps.
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he doesn't know, but you are of course right - that was made clear in the UCI statement.
However, Ulissi was prevented from racing in similar circumstances, so let's see what they do if Froome decides to turn up at the Tour Down Under... although tbh, I would guess the first race he's scheduled for in 2018 is either the Abu Dhabi Tour or Paris-Nice, and you'd hope the UCI will have made a decision on his case by then.
Ulissi got a nine month ban. The same for Froome would seem appropriate, along with the stripping of his Vuelta title. And if the ban is backdated to the date of the offence, he would still be able to ride the Tour next summer. And I'm sure the French fans would be very happy to see him there.
hoopdriver
Guru
- Location
- East Sussex
I can't see how Froome is going to avoid a similar ban - although I would not be surprised to be surprised as it were...
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
Brailsford: It's very complicated. You proles couldn't possibly be expected to understand the complexities of the matter.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
It' not just the fact that he had a positive sample. It is all the secrecy that has gone on. Presumably, because its Froome. It should be exactly the same procedure, regardless who you are or who you ride for. Until that happens cycling is always going to appear corrupt.
hoopdriver
Guru
- Location
- East Sussex
There is an excellent reason for the so-called secrecy - discretion would be an equally applicable word - and that is to protect a riders reputation (no matter who he or she may be) in the event that this can be explained legitimately, especially in the case of tis sort where the substance in question is not banned outright or the subject of TUE. It maybe that it can. In which case one would needlessly damage a riders reputation. I wouldn't read too much into the 'secrecy'.
I think it is the opposite - this would have remained secret until he was found to be guilty, however because he is Froome it was leaked.
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
Tinfoil hat time...
The UCI only routinely announce AAFs if they result in an automatic ban (for reasons already noted by @hoopdriver). Ulissi's AAF for the same offence at the Giro in May 2014 wasn't announced until the end of June 2014, and he continued to race in the intervening period. The UCI didn't step in to prevent Ulissi racing until September 2014.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
You may well have a point.
I cannot be the only one who finds this odd. He always comes across as being a bright guy. He would have known they would have tested him leading the race. To be a bit over the limit could be a possibility if he had taken more than usual. But to be twice over the limit, he would have to be sucking it in like there is no tomorrow and reloading cannisters as he went.
Unfortunately, regardless of the outcome. It will be an incident that will tarnish him for the rest of his career and beyond.
