Cycling UK Forum

So Goodbye then ..
Chris Froome.
Cycle Master.
Hill Climber.
Never out of breath.
Now we know why....

Already being discussed in the context of the race where it happened, the 2017 Vuelta, at viewtopic.php?p=1189486#p1189486

Also, shouldn't we presume he's innocent until found guilty by the relevant authorities? This leak is a bit worrying. It seems like it's back to the bad old days of a leaky UCI that's too close to its anti-doping agency.

I'm sure he is innocent ...although he has not been accused of any rule infringement..
But there seems to be differing degrees of innocence depending on the team sponsor these days ....

landsurfer wrote:But there seems to be differing degrees of innocence depending on the team sponsor these days ....

Indeed: if you ride for Team Sky, your adverse analytical finding gets reported by some non-Murdoch-owned press before you have a chance to defend yourself as set out in the rules.

mjr wrote:Also, shouldn't we presume he's innocent until found guilty by the relevant authorities? This leak is a bit worrying. It seems like it's back to the bad old days of a leaky UCI that's too close to its anti-doping agency.

How do you know the leak did not come from Sky ? I asked the author of the Guardian report - Sean Ingle exactly that and refused to comment.

And BTW Froome is GUILTY of a violation of a rule and is 2 times over an already generous limit. In doping cases it is not innocent before guilty but he has to prove what may have caused this other than the obvious answer he is a doper.

Go read the rule. I think it's part 14 of the UCI regs. Specified substances are handled differently to prohibited ones and you get a hearing before guilt is declared IIRC.

The sample was taken in September

Why was it not tested earlier, why did we not read about it until nearly three months later?

Cyril Haearn wrote:The sample was taken in September

Why was it not tested earlier, why did we not read about it until nearly three months later?

In theory, it's meant to remain secret unless the rider is found guilty, which in this situation would be after he's failed to reproduce the reading. It took Diego Ulissi nearly a year I think, although that wasn't kept secret long either.

If we go one at this rate, with the non-specialist public, aided and abetted by sensationalist media, unable to see any distinction between an athlete taking e.g. EPO and an athlete taking e.g. salbutamol, it won't be long before it becomes impossible for anybody with a condition requiring regular medication, however trivial, to compete in professional sport.

ChrisButch wrote:If we go one at this rate, with the non-specialist public, aided and abetted by sensationalist media, unable to see any distinction between an athlete taking e.g. EPO and an athlete taking e.g. salbutamol, it won't be long before it becomes impossible for anybody with a condition requiring regular medication, however trivial, to compete in professional sport.

Professional Paralympics Elite Sport will benefit i suppose.

Usually these AAFs get reported to the athlete / team. They then have a reasonable length of time to provide evidence to prove they only took permitted doseage. If they manage this they don't get a ban and don't get any sanction because they will have done nothing wrong.

This process could easily be happening a lot but it's treated with appropriate levels of discretion and privacy for the athletes. Bear in mind these AAFs aren't in themselves evidence of doping. Even if they can't prove a mechanism for the AAFs they're still not actually doping. They get low bans as a result. These aren't drugs when a performance enhancing effect. They're drugs that dilate the airways to a level the athletes would have if they weren't having an asthma attack. Or almost to that level, it's really not 100% and certainly not 110% or PE effects.

Normally this process is carried out in confidentiality because quite frankly the anti doping bodies don't know for sure they're really taking more than the permitted dose. Innocent until no defence can be provided so the AAFS of the athlete then is made public along with a small ban. In certain cases the press get wind off it and sensationalise it for paper sales.

Froome doesn't seem too worried. Perhaps he knows they've got evidence that he took below the maximum permitted dose and has pharmacokinetics tests proving he can reach those levels of salbutamol in his urine by taking permitted doses.

How does that work? Well a piece of research by a respected university (name I can't remember) tested a decent number of athletes for just this thing. They gave them less than the maximum dose and 36 out of 48 athletes have urine test results above the maximum permitted figure. IIRC there's even been cases of athletes (from other sports I think) who have been cleared of any wrongdoing by the necessary evidence of PK tests with their urine test figures close to Froome's levels.

So this isn't technically doping. It's potentially not even rule breaking. Froome should not have had this made public until he's had his full chance to prove he's kept within the permitted doseage levels. Bear in mind it's not even a drug that requires a TUE if taken in an inhaler.

I hope he has the necessary tests proving his innocence. But even if he doesn't it is not a PED so he will not get a 2 year ban. At most I think 6 to 9 months backdated to the date of the test. He'll lose his Vuelta win and his results from the worlds. He would still be able to compete in the Giro next year which his team has already announced he's entering.

TM says

f taken in an inhaler

I’ve seen GPS commenting on Twitter the levels achieved,in their opinion, can only be achieved by ingest or inject.

I'm an asthmatic, and there are days when I'm not well or out of sorts, that I squirt the old Ventolin dozens of times a day.

Generally, my asthma is under control using Becotide 100, but if I'm out of sorts, Ventolin is the only way I can breathe properly. Cycling is stressful so Ventolin before my rides is good and often have a squirt of it as I leave the house.

Froomy?
Dunno, but if he has a stress issue like me and his asthma is stress related like mine, no doubt he's squirting it lots. I have some sympathy for him.

Mick F wrote:I'm an asthmatic, and there are days when I'm not well or out of sorts, that I squirt the old Ventolin dozens of times a day.

Generally, my asthma is under control using Becotide 100, but if I'm out of sorts, Ventolin is the only way I can breathe properly. Cycling is stressful so Ventolin before my rides is good and often have a squirt of it as I leave the house.

Froomy?
Dunno, but if he has a stress issue like me and his asthma is stress related like mine, no doubt he's squirting it lots. I have some sympathy for him.

I can possibly understand why, but when you do most things in life you agree to comply with rules. If his body wasn't capable of competing within the rules so be it, it doesn't mean you can ignore them.

How sure are you he hasn't followed the rules but there is a problem with the test for him in those circumstances? That's why he has the opportunity to carry out pharmacokinetic tests to determine this.

That's what annoys me the most. There is a recognized process where the athlete and his team are notified and given a period of time to carry out tests the present the evidence or accept the punishment. This is carried out confidentially in case the evidence exonerates the athlete. The way the media live to jump on top names in sport who fail drug tests or who get AAF against them or who get exposed having a TUE. I feel this confidentiality is very much needed.

The fact someone at UCI or WADA or elsewhere in the loop has chosen to release information like this forcing the hand of UCI to release information on this finding. The fact it's sky and Froome is very much telling. It suits media most to target sky and Froome. If you get dirt on them it's worth a lot more than dirt on Nibali or Quintana.

Meanwhile anyone else find the way Sky and Froome don't seem to be fretting much over this? Do you wonder whether they know more and what they know is the evidence supporting their case is present / supplied to UCI? Or are they giving a guilty plea and know what UCI are planning on giving him?

BTW I heard that the smart money on this say that the worst he'll get is a ban that allows him to compete in the tour and probably the Giro too. As part of that he gets a statement from UCI that it was an accidental over dose of salbutamol without any cheating or gain intended. In other words UCI state Froome and Sky are not guilty of anything other than making a mistake. It's not a drug test failure because it's a specified treatment / drug. That means no 2 year ban.