Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol

[Gen]

 

 

So, when Frank Schleck tested positive for Xipamide on stage 13 of the 2012 Tour de France, his team pulled him from the race. This was even before his B sample was tested.

 

Where am I going with this?

 

Good question. Xipamide is also a specified substance, not a prohibited substance. And yet he was pulled immediately. By his OWN team. It wasn't hushed up. It wasn't explained away. Frank didn't appear on TV shows pleading that people don't stigmatise sufferers of oedema and hypertension. He didn't compete in the World Champs. He didn't make a surprise announcement that he was going to be doing the Giro knowing he had this positive test hanging over his head.

 

"Of course I am disappointed by the verdict that has just been announced. I think that the decision to suspend me during one year is too severe considering the fact that the Council acknowledged that I unintentionally consumed a contaminated product. Unfortunately the provisions of the UCI are such that an involuntary contamination is sufficient in order to pronounce a punishment," Schleck said in a statement.

 

That's what I expect from all this.

 

Tony Martin is 100% correct.

Yip...most other cases the teams immediately suspend the riders pending outcome of B sample and any further investigations...

 

The UCI could not release any statements until the rider gave consent..because the substances is not on the list..or something like that...

 

It's a strange day when you learn that old Lampre were more transparent than Sky

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Gen]

Irrespective of whether the camera picked up every puff.... am sure he will say he took the maximum number of puffs allowed so that he will have had the max dose in him. Am sure Sky and CF have watched the video footage and will be able to pin point exact times when the camera is not on him and add puffs if needed at those times.

 

It does look like this is going to be a lengthy process.......

Ja but as that guy from WADA said..they don't work in assumption and they would have to prove it with that PK test...

 

And say UCI accept all his reasoning without a PK test WADA could still appeal it and take it to the CAS.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[shaper]

Ja but as that guy from WADA said..they don't work in assumption and they would have to prove it with that PK test...

 

And say UCI accept all his reasoning without a PK test WADA could still appeal it and take it to the CAS.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I would think he has got more chance of passing PK test if he has the maximum amount of puffs allowed in 24hrs???

[Velouria]

I would think he has got more chance of passing PK test if he has the maximum amount of puffs allowed in 24hrs???

He has to take exactly the same amount that he took on the day. The same amount that he can prove he took. The onus is on him to prove everything. Nothing can be assumed.

['Dale]

Chris Froome hires former Bruyneel and Contador lawyer for salbutamol case | buff.ly/2ofvpEf

 

Cyclingnews ????

[Blackheart]

"I understand this comes as a shock". Only shock is that you think it might.

[BigDL]

Just checking into the Hilton in Liverpool. Seems that lots of people are here for the sports personality of the year award. Maybe I’ll bump into CF and ask him his opinion [emoji23]

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Apologies if already posted - adds some detail:

 

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/

I havent read it before, but I found it pretty interesting. The author appears to be "skeptical" if nothing else. 

 

I, however, found this bit very interesting.....

 

Finally, there is this issue of whether the above is all just semantics.  Athletes, including cyclists, have been banned for exceeding the threshold in the past.  Often with reduced bans, but there’s precedent.  The upper limit exists for a reason.  If if the effect on acute performance is debatable, there’s that masking agent issue.  So it’s an adverse finding, no question.

 

Then snip snip..... and this.....

 

It’s hard to know what to make of it, other than to say it’s more of the same grey area, murky stuff, except this time it outright crosses the threshold.  No more “up to the line, but not beyond”.

Sky are so far beyond any ethical line that we may as well not waste time even weighing up legal vs ethical.  Ethical is clear-cut.  Legal, now, maybe heading that way too. In the wrong direction.

[Oufy MTB (Roadie)]

I would like to get Betsy's view on this saga. Her opinion is the only one that matters

[Gen]

Chris Froome hires former Bruyneel and Contador lawyer for salbutamol case | buff.ly/2ofvpEf

 

Cyclingnews ????

I see that lawyer's firm client list is pretty long..some he gets off some he doesn't

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Bonus]

Not sure we're going to see CF racing any of the Grand Tours this year . . . .

[kosmonooit]

WAG Wars II, Part 1

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42363825

[Icycling]

Seems like fair comments to me!

 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-froomes-salbutamol-case-is-troubling-and-worrying/

[solty]

So, when Frank Schleck tested positive for Xipamide on stage 13 of the 2012 Tour de France, his team pulled him from the race. This was even before his B sample was tested.

 

Where am I going with this?

 

Good question. Xipamide is also a specified substance, not a prohibited substance. And yet he was pulled immediately. By his OWN team. It wasn't hushed up. It wasn't explained away. Frank didn't appear on TV shows pleading that people don't stigmatise sufferers of oedema and hypertension. He didn't compete in the World Champs. He didn't make a surprise announcement that he was going to be doing the Giro knowing he had this positive test hanging over his head.

 

"Of course I am disappointed by the verdict that has just been announced. I think that the decision to suspend me during one year is too severe considering the fact that the Council acknowledged that I unintentionally consumed a contaminated product. Unfortunately the provisions of the UCI are such that an involuntary contamination is sufficient in order to pronounce a punishment," Schleck said in a statement.

 

That's what I expect from all this.

 

Tony Martin is 100% correct.

Reading this I am just double disappointed in Chris/Sky. Should have taken the opportunity to show a good example and real leadership in the sport. "I was a nob/**** and took too much, I'll take my punishment like a man."

This weaseling around with rules and lawyers... Ag nee man.

His Vuelta, Tour, (Giro ...?) victories will only be remembered fondly in the stats books. He's tarnished in my mind, thought he was better than that. The Brits can have him. I'm adopting Frank Schleck as an African.

(Does he still ride?)

['Dale]

Bizarre that he is able to still compete while the investigation is ongoing

[urbanroyal]

I suppose there is some truth in the quote.."A lie told often enough becomes the truth.." ...Froome seems to believing all the lies he has told himself....sad really...????