Eldron Posted December 14, 2017 Share Here is clause 7.9.1 7.9.1 Mandatory Provisional Suspension based on certain Adverse Analytical Findings When an Adverse Analytical Finding is reported for a Prohibited Substance other than a Specified Substance or for a Prohibited Method, the UCI shall promptly impose a Provisional Suspension upon the review and notification described in Article 7.2 or 7.3, as applicable. They use the word "prohibited" - salbutamol is not prohibited. They have wiggle room in 7.9.3: 7.9.3 Provisional Suspension based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for Specified Substances, Contaminated Products, or for other Anti-Doping Rule Violations For any potential anti-doping rule violation under these Anti-Doping Rules asserted after a review under Article 7 and not covered by Article 7.9.1 or 7.9.2, the UCI may impose a Provisional Suspension prior to analysis of the Rider’s B Sample (where applicable) or prior to a final hearing as described in Article 8. Ok so my take is this - if the substance is prohibited then mandatory provisional suspension - if the substance is specified then the UCI MAY impose a provisional suspension. Salbutamol is specified not prohibited so provisional suspension was not mandatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted December 14, 2017 Share Just as a matter of fact ...In 2007 (Approximately ) CF applied for a life insurance policy here in SA .I know 100% that he stated asthma as a pre existing condition , on his application . Thanks PopitAmazing how this fact has been ignored so far by the prosecution committee Popit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Boab Posted December 14, 2017 Share (*) WADA’s Prohibited List provides that: “The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.” A question to those in the know - is this pharmacokinetic study clause explicitly stated for any other substances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted December 14, 2017 Share Thanks PopitAmazing how this fact has been ignored so far by the prosecution committeeAnyone know if it states exercise induced asthma or not..[emoji102][emoji102][emoji102] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted December 14, 2017 Share (*) WADA’s Prohibited List provides that: “The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.” A question to those in the know - is this pharmacokinetic study clause explicitly stated for any other substances?Who does the pharmacokinetic test..do the UCI do it or do they get to get their own "independent" guy do it..[emoji6] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted December 14, 2017 Share Who does the pharmacokinetic test..do the UCI do it or do they get to get their own "independent" guy do it..[emoji6] Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkYo. Someone is stirring like a champion today ???????? Gen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pista Posted December 14, 2017 Share Is this still a thing or have we forgiven the doper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted December 14, 2017 Share Yo. Someone is stirring like a champion today [emoji16][emoji16]May as well [emoji6] No it's a real question..wasn't Jeroen involved with his last set of 'independent' tests on Froome.. that oke is so far from being independent when it comes to Froome it's scary. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Eldron 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted December 14, 2017 Share Is this still a thing or have we forgiven the doper?Still a few weeks till the 2018 starts..we'll hang about here a while longer[emoji6] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcza Posted December 14, 2017 Share Here is clause 7.9.1 7.9.1 Mandatory Provisional Suspension based on certain Adverse Analytical Findings When an Adverse Analytical Finding is reported for a Prohibited Substance other than a Specified Substance or for a Prohibited Method, the UCI shall promptly impose a Provisional Suspension upon the review and notification described in Article 7.2 or 7.3, as applicable. They use the word "prohibited" - salbutamol is not prohibited. They have wiggle room in 7.9.3: 7.9.3 Provisional Suspension based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for Specified Substances, Contaminated Products, or for other Anti-Doping Rule Violations For any potential anti-doping rule violation under these Anti-Doping Rules asserted after a review under Article 7 and not covered by Article 7.9.1 or 7.9.2, the UCI may impose a Provisional Suspension prior to analysis of the Rider’s B Sample (where applicable) or prior to a final hearing as described in Article 8. Ok so my take is this - if the substance is prohibited then mandatory provisional suspension - if the substance is specified then the UCI MAY impose a provisional suspension. Salbutamol is specified not prohibited so provisional suspension was not mandatory. Lots of smoke and mirrors, kinda like our Jacob spending a fortune in legal fees. May this, might that..... I think he was given special treatment. Gen and Escapee.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaper Posted December 14, 2017 Share Still a few weeks till the 2018 starts..we'll hang about here a while longer[emoji6] Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkIt's holiday time... go outside and enjoy the sunshine and fresh air !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted December 14, 2017 Share Lots of smoke and mirrors, kinda like our Jacob spending a fortune in legal fees. May this, might that..... I think he was given special treatment. Ulissi was suspended but it looks like it was by the team not by the UCI so there looks to be some consistency by the UCI. Whether SKY should have suspended CF is, of course, another debate!!!! Edit: Jacob has to pay personally for his latest delay/appeal on appointing an anti corruption panel. Go Mogoeng mogoeng!!! Edited December 14, 2017 by Eldron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted December 14, 2017 Share In other news...Disney have bought Fox.. what does this mean for Sky...well Fox own a big part of Sky Could they become Team Mickey Mouse.. ????????????[emoji6] Please excuse me I go on leave tomorrow and have way too much time on my hands. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Jewbacca and pista 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_C50_ Posted December 14, 2017 Share How many times would CF have had to suck on that inhaler during the stage to get to the levels he was tested at? 10 X, 20 X, 30 X? So either he sucked that inhaler dry during that stage (which would have been very noticeable), or he had taken a pill. pista, Phatman and Gen 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaper Posted December 14, 2017 Share In other news...Disney have bought Fox.. what does this mean for Sky...well Fox own a big part of Sky Could they become Team Mickey Mouse.. [emoji6] Please excuse me I go on leave tomorrow and have way too much time on my hands. Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkDisney own Star Wars... so kit may go back to Darth Vader look and more borgs Gen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted December 14, 2017 Share Ulissi was suspended but it looks like it was by the team not by the UCI so there looks to be some consistency by the UCI. Whether SKY should have suspended CF is, of course, another debate!!!!No no no.. he is a resident of Switzerland and holds a Swiss licence..they don't mess around.. and have very strict rules..that's why he was banned..remember first your national federation with who you are licensed with will ban or won't ban you... if UCI and WADA aren't happy they can appeal the decision and it can go to the CAS ..refer to Contador's case.[emoji6] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now