Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol

[Thor Buttox]

IF Salbutamol is such a performance enhancer, and can legally be used, why don’t all the pros use it?

The answer is they probably are... Their tests are just all sub judice. Cynicism rules, OK?

[TIB]

Because I came from dinner with Alberto and the Saxo Bank team so had had enough to drink by then and only manages a " good on you Mate" before hitting the sack...

 

Was the steak any good??

[Patchelicious]

The answer is they probably are... Their tests are just all sub judice. Cynicism rules, OK?

Shouldn’t you be sandpapering a cricket ball?

[ScottCM]

“Nobody prohibited him from racing in this period, the rules allowed it, and I think I would have done the same,” Nibali said.

“Of course I’m not one who’ll hang out with Froome and go to dinner with him, but there is mutual respect between us.

“You know that after my Milano-Sanremo win I did not want to go home right away and I stopped in the evening in Monaco. I was around town with Valerio Agnoli and we came across Chris, who complimented me for the victory. I appreciated that so much.”

 

http://www.velonews.com/2018/06/news/nibali-beat-froome-youll-something-special_469595

[Thor Buttox]

Shouldn’t you be sandpapering a cricket ball?

Only locusts down here, mate.

[Vetseun]

https://m.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Cycling/tdf-legend-hinault-says-peloton-should-strike-over-cheat-froome-20180620

[Jase619]

https://m.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Cycling/tdf-legend-hinault-says-peloton-should-strike-over-cheat-froome-20180620

 

He needs a muzzle that one. . . But a great controversy stirring article nonetheless. 

[Christie]

...but he never called for a ban on Astana after they had 4 doping busts. Some bias there imo.

[Patchelicious]

...but he never called for a ban on Astana after they had 4 doping busts. Some bias there imo.

Where is Bernie from again?

[Jakkals.]

Omerta is alive and well

[Yo-Yo]

Hinault taking up the cause for ASO. It's clear that ASO don't want Froome there and know they can't ban him as it will go the same way when they tried that a few years back with another rider and it just go bogged down in court and the case ended up folding and a big black eye for the TDF. So move on to the next thing. Get BH to mouth off, fire up the french fans and heap more pressure on Froome and Team Sky. Add that in with more vaguely covered comments from Lappartient and Guillen starting to stress about the Vuelta in papers and it seems everyone wants Froome out. 

What BH failed to miss in his own comments were:

"Ventoline might not be much, and maybe its not what made him win the Vuelta, but the rules are the rules, and they should be applied to everyone."

The rules are the rules and they are following the rules as set down by the UCI. Conti's steak doping was a substance that was banned. Froome's is a substance that is legal but has upper limits of use. 

"Without wishing to comment on the rider's guilt, it would be easier for everyone" were Sky to suspend him, Lappartient said.
 

of course it would be easier for him and UCI as it would take the spotlight off the farcical situation that's dragged on for ages, is no closer to a resolution, is getting the UCI heat from Race organisers, the riders and teams, has tarnishing Froomes reputation even if he is acquitted,  open up legal action and basically shows again that the governing body is pretty toothless organisation that is not doing a whole lot when it matters. 

[geomark]

I'll put the velonews tweet on the badger's utterances here 'cause the replies/comments are entertaining ;

 

[SwissVan]

Hinault taking up the cause for ASO. It's clear that ASO don't want Froome there and know they can't ban him as it will go the same way when they tried that a few years back with another rider and it just go bogged down in court and the case ended up folding and a big black eye for the TDF. So move on to the next thing. Get BH to mouth off, fire up the french fans and heap more pressure on Froome and Team Sky. Add that in with more vaguely covered comments from Lappartient and Guillen starting to stress about the Vuelta in papers and it seems everyone wants Froome out.

 

What BH failed to miss in his own comments were:

 

"Ventoline might not be much, and maybe its not what made him win the Vuelta, but the rules are the rules, and they should be applied to everyone."

 

The rules are the rules and they are following the rules as set down by the UCI. Conti's steak doping was a substance that was banned. Froome's is a substance that is legal but has upper limits of use.

 

"Without wishing to comment on the rider's guilt, it would be easier for everyone" were Sky to suspend him, Lappartient said.

 

of course it would be easier for him and UCI as it would take the spotlight off the farcical situation that's dragged on for ages, is no closer to a resolution, is getting the UCI heat from Race organisers, the riders and teams, has tarnishing Froomes reputation even if he is acquitted, open up legal action and basically shows again that the governing body is pretty toothless organisation that is not doing a whole lot when it matters.

Exactly ????

 

Old age is making the old badger even more grumpy and prickly

[TALUS]

So what if there is a court case and the end result is that the test was never designed for use in doping control? What if it shown that the test is not accurate enough? What size of claims will come from previous banned riders and from Froome and Sky?

 

Is everyone sure that Sky/ Froome wants this to drag out? Surely they are tired of the hammering.

 

Who says it isnt WADA that is scrambling to get their response ready to the data that was submitted?

 

Just asking....

(Based on a VERY interesting conversation with an knowledgeable person)

[Yo-Yo]

So what if there is a court case and the end result is that the test was never designed for use in doping control? What if it shown that the test is not accurate enough? What size of claims will come from previous banned riders and from Froome and Sky?

 

Is everyone sure that Sky/ Froome wants this to drag out? Surely they are tired of the hammering.

 

Who says it isnt WADA that is scrambling to get their response ready to the data that was submitted?

 

Just asking....

(Based on a VERY interesting conversation with an knowledgeable person)

I don't think anyone wants to drag this out and I think Sky have the funds and access to legal / medical experts to make sure they put on the most professional and reasoned case possible. WADA are over stretched at the best of times and to take on the kind of legal case and research that Sky have put together is going to put them on the back foot. They have already said they are struggling with the first 1500 summary document and to find their own expert to consider the detials. They are so used to positives for banned substances and then recommending the bans or doing plea deals with riders who want to get back in the game asap for these Adverse Analytical Findings that I'd imagine that this is already got them on the back foot. 
 

I think also that Froome has rejected 2 plea deals on this result already has made their position from him / Sky very clear. Apparently the last offer on the table was a just the Vuelta result being wiped, keeping Giro / TdF (if he wins) and a judgement after the end of the Froomes racing season with a minimal ban that would start then and end well before the first race of 2019. 

[TALUS]

 

I don't think anyone wants to drag this out and I think Sky have the funds and access to legal / medical experts to make sure they put on the most professional and reasoned case possible. WADA are over stretched at the best of times and to take on the kind of legal case and research that Sky have put together is going to put them on the back foot. They have already said they are struggling with the first 1500 summary document and to find their own expert to consider the detials. They are so used to positives for banned substances and then recommending the bans or doing plea deals with riders who want to get back in the game asap for these Adverse Analytical Findings that I'd imagine that this is already got them on the back foot. 

 

I think also that Froome has rejected 2 plea deals on this result already has made their position from him / Sky very clear. Apparently the last offer on the table was a just the Vuelta result being wiped, keeping Giro / TdF (if he wins) and a judgement after the end of the Froomes racing season with a minimal ban that would start then and end well before the first race of 2019. 

 

Very similar to my info. Also they NEED him to plea bargain alternatively the backlash and legal implications will be massive. I think this is going to turn out very different to what the pitchfork crowd hoped for.