Gen Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 And it is now official... he has been cleared...let's get on with it then. http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/ "The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome." Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Eldron Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 And it is now official... he has been cleared...let's get in with it then. http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/ Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkThe haters are going to go ballistic! Cyclingnews.com will all dress in black...
S-Bike Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 And it is now official... he has been cleared...let's get on with it then. http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/ Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkGreat news!
Gen Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 The haters are going to go ballistic! Cyclingnews.com will all dress in black...Look I am no Froome fan..but thank goodness it is over with now... no more awkward press interviews for riders who have nothing to do with it.. and it can be about the racing now.. Scenario 3 it is.. urine stockpile getting cleared as we speak. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Eldron Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 Look I am no Froome fan..but thank goodness it is over with now... no more awkward press interviews for riders who have nothing to do with it.. and it can be about the racing now.. Scenario 3 it is.. urine stockpile getting cleared as we speak. Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkI'm also a bit "meh" about Chris and agree completely. More reports about racing and less about opinion!
Vetplant Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 Sometimes things happen incidentally in close proximity to each other. But sometimes they are not incidental but one action is caused by the other. ASO's decision to prohibit Froome from starting probably accelerated this statement from the UCI. I'm not too clued up, what reason did ASO give for prohibiting Froome? Did they say if his case is resolved he is welcome to start or were they more vague about it. ie: Do they still have the prerogative to prevent him from starting if they deem it will cause some sort of reputational damage?
Gen Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 Wonder if Ulisse will have a case to have his suspension then removed from his name? Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Shebeen Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 And it is now official... he has been cleared...let's get on with it then. http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/ "The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome." Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk well the ASO got what they wanted. Clarity before the tour starts. We can ride now. What I would have liked to see - an indication by WADA/UCI how many other riders have had an AAF like this but were not leaked. ie. how many riders have also been through this process behind closed doors?
HdB Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 I hope Hinault is as quick to call for the peloton to NOT strike now? Otherwise he might be the one causing reputational damage to Le Tour... Oh wait, he's French, nevermind. Just as how French newspapers are also not bound by rules.What are Bardet's odds against Dumoulin, Movistar Trio and the Skyborgs?
ScottCM Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 And it is now official... he has been cleared...let's get on with it then. http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/ "The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome." Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk And the countdown begins for Ross Tuckers head to implode..........
Bonus Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 Sometimes things happen incidentally in close proximity to each other. But sometimes they are not incidental but one action is caused by the other. ASO's decision to prohibit Froome from starting DEFINATELY accelerated this statement from the UCI. ftfy
geomark Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 Well according to the Gazetta Froome has been cleared. Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkCiro for the win!
geomark Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 Sometimes things happen incidentally in close proximity to each other. But sometimes they are not incidental but one action is caused by the other. ASO's decision to prohibit Froome from starting probably accelerated this statement from the UCI. I'm not too clued up, what reason did ASO give for prohibiting Froome? Did they say if his case is resolved he is welcome to start or were they more vague about it. ie: Do they still have the prerogative to prevent him from starting if they deem it will cause some sort of reputational damage?The clause they are using is around "might damage the reputation of the race" but would would be a very short and expensive litigation if they we to try and stop him now.
Thor Buttox Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 LA was a bully and we hate bullies.Yes we do and he should be booted. But the others should have been equally hoofed into touch.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.