Giro d'Italia

[Hobbs1951]

I agree with Benard Hinault in that Froome should not be mentioned in the same sentence as the cycling greats (Mercx, Fignon, Hinault et al). The simple fact is Froome should have never been allowed to start this year's Giro with the failed doping test hanging over him. That the commentators on the Giro then mention his three (TdeF, Vuelta, Giro) in a row is beyond me !!!

Froome's legal team have been trying to rescue his reputation since the Vuelta, and this is all about money as the legal team are challenging the efficacy of the test - so if the test is in doubt why not question it when you're not testing positive ?

Froome had double the amount of Salbutamol when tested, and there is a precedence for banning him. His legal team are just delaying things (the indolence of the UCI cannot be ignored here). That Team Sky have not joined the MPCC, which insists members teams do not field riders facing an AAF (like Froome) in races - proves Team Sky are not interested in the image of cycling, and therefore it does little for that image particularly among the wider public.

Jon.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Seems that the lawyers say it won't and TDF organisers say it will be settled?

[geocycle]

I agree with Benard Hinault in that Froome should not be mentioned in the same sentence as the cycling greats (Mercx, Fignon, Hinault et al).

It is always very difficult comparing across generations when different standards applied. These stood out because they were so much better than the rest, nowadays the rest are all very coached and supported so differences are likely to be less. Then of course we have to assume they were not using the 'marginal gains' available at the time. The Sky case has left me very disillusioned with pro cycling.

[foxyrider]

What the Froome case really shows is how weak the whole system is. If the UCI were 100% sure the test results showed intent to cheat they could have acted immediately. Clearly even the testers aren't certain and so it's now got silly with huge delays and lawyers bills.

As regards comparisons to the riders of the past - maybe on a wider picture you can't compare but technology, training etc don't lessen the achievement. Can you perhaps imagine Merckx using modern techniques and equipment under current rules - would he be better, worse, the same? We can't say so all we can go on are the results.

Doping has been around in cycling pretty much since the first time two men raced each other. You can't measure the riders of the past and present against each other when they aren't competing in the same world. It's the same in pretty much any sport even something as benign as running!

[djnotts]

"...Froome should not be mentioned in the same sentence as the cycling greats (Mercx, Fignon, Hinault …)"

Why? Just because he has been busted for doping less often does not mean not in same class!

[thirdcrank]

... how weak the whole system is. ...

That's it in a nutshell. The bucks are now so mega that the lawyers are in there.

IMO intergenerational comparisons are futile. Re Bernard Hinault, I could believe he was clean, if only because he still looks so healthy after retiring from racing: that's in comparison with a lot who died early. I could also believe that he has a pretty good idea of what went on in the sport in his time, but I don't know if he ever did any whistleblowing.

With so much live coverage of sport, the media have to resort to tittle-tattle eg spats between soccer managers, boxers squaring-up, in order to sell papers or attract clicks. Retired sports people have only so many career choices and punditry is one. BH seemed to do an outstanding job as the master of ceremonies at the TdeF of course.

[reohn2]

... how weak the whole system is. ...

That's it in a nutshell. The bucks are now so mega that the lawyers are in there.

IMO intergenerational comparisons are futile. Re Bernard Hinault, I could believe he was clean, if only because he still looks so healthy after retiring from racing: that's in comparison with a lot who died early. I could also believe that he has a pretty good idea of what went on in the sport in his time, but I don't know if he ever did any whistleblowing.

With so much live coverage of sport, the media have to resort to tittle-tattle eg spats between soccer managers, boxers squaring-up, in order to sell papers or attract clicks. Retired sports people have only so many career choices and punditry is one. BH seemed to do an outstanding job as the master of ceremonies at the TdeF of course.

Agreed.
Hinault is also known for having a dig at anyone and more so if they aren't French

[pjclinch]

What the Froome case really shows is how weak the whole system is. If the UCI were 100% sure the test results showed intent to cheat they could have acted immediately. Clearly even the testers aren't certain and so it's now got silly with huge delays and lawyers bills.

It's more complex than that, but not impossibly so.
As a comparison issue, think of Presumed Liability on accident claims where in civilised countries the less vulnerable party in a collision is held liable by default. There is much hot air vented about how this makes a mockery of Innocent Until Proven Guilty, but it doesn't because the crucial point is that liability and guilt aren't the same thing.

I'm happy enough to go along with CF/Sky did not intend to overuse the inhaler and they are consequently not guilty of trying to cheat until proven otherwise. But they are liable for the overuse of the inhaler because they decided to use it, and how it was used, and CF ended up with an illegal amount in his blood. Saying "sorry, your result does not stand as you inadvertently stepped outside the rules" is not the same as "your result does not stand as you deliberately tried to circumvent the rules", but in each case the rules have not been stuck to so it is reasonable to strike out the result.

Part of the problem beyond that is it's all so cloudy nobody really seems to know what the delay is. I do wonder if this is a side effect of Skye insisting on fighting it all the way because that tends to create legal requirements for withholding information. If that's the case I rather hope they get a whipping, especially after Orica-Scott were big enough with Yates' TUE fiasco to hold up their hands and admit their mistake openly even though it meant sidelining one of their best riders of months.

Pete.

[Cyril Haearn]

I agree with Benard Hinault in that Froome should not be mentioned in the same sentence as the cycling greats (Mercx, Fignon, Hinault et al).

It is always very difficult comparing across generations when different standards applied. These stood out because they were so much better than the rest, nowadays the rest are all very coached and supported so differences are likely to be less. Then of course we have to assume they were not using the 'marginal gains' available at the time. The Sky case has left me very disillusioned with pro cycling.

And Kelly and Zoetemelk, they were about the last of the greats I think

"Super TUEsday" has taken on a whole new meaning

[djnotts]

Some deep pockets have interests which could, allegedly, run counter to the sporting aspects of cycling governing bodies.

https://www.outsideonline.com/1798996/r ... uption-uci

[Cyril Haearn]

Worth repeating my favourite doping story

VanderSoandso handed in his bottle of pee
The next day the doctor called: "there are no drugs in your urine, but did you know you are pregnant?"

[thirdcrank]

One example of weakness in the system:

We are approaching the second anniversary of the "Wheabouts testing" incident involving Lizzie Armistead (as was.) She was cleared by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but the reasons for that decision had implications for the WADA testing régime: whatever the error by those attempting to obtain the sample, they may only be corrected if the Court's decision is published. If the privacy of the individual athlete prevents general publication, then the anti-doping bodies still need to know how to proceed in future or the same errors may be repeated. As it is, the latest from UKAD is in a holding media release dated 2 August 2016.

We are awaiting the Reasoned Decision from the CAS Panel as to why the first Whereabouts Failure was not upheld.

I do know we have discussed this before with links to the rider's explanation but that's not the point.

[Hobbs1951]

I think we need to go back a little further to Team Sky and the Wiggin's jiffy bag, and their lack of an audit trial for the medication. Team Sky had been vocally vociferous about being a clean team from day one, their application of scientific methods (marginal gains - yawn). Yet they are a team without integrity, a team without a care about the wider sport of cycling.

Team Sky is a big money corporate enterprise that just happens to have chosen cycling as it's promotional vehicle - after all a lot less costly than the WRC, F1 or Moto GP.

I found it interesting that Tom Dumoulin said after the Giro that he wouldn't want a court assisted win (Froome will face a judge this year), and during the race said that if he'd been tested positive (like Froome) he wouldn't have ridden.

Jon

[mjr]

I did notice in two interviews that CF addressed JAF as Flecha.

Juan Antonio Flecha, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual interviewer who....

I'm sure I read that JAF's nickname was "Fletcher" after Porridge while riding for Sky alongside Froome. As I expect you know, Sky's kits tend to have the rider's preferred name or nickname on the sleeve (recently) or side (previously), and JAF's said "Flecha" while CF's say "Froomey" so I guess they've chosen their names...

[mjr]

I agree with Benard Hinault in that Froome should not be mentioned in the same sentence as the cycling greats (Mercx, Fignon, Hinault et al).

Mercx - tested positive for an amphetamine at the 1969 Giro, disqualified, ban later overturned by UCI amid accusations of mishandled test samples; tested positive for norephedrine at the 1973 Lombardia, disqualified and one month ban, blamed cough syrup mislabelling; tested positive for Stimul at the 1977 Flèche Wallonne, disqualified and one month ban, blames his doctor.

Fignon - tested positive for an amphetamine at the 1987 GP de Wallonie, disqualified, blames Belgian companies; tested positive for an amphetamine at the 1989 GP de la Liberation, disqualified; admitted recreational drug use in his autobiography but claimed to have been revolted by hormones and EPO.

Hinault - never tested positive but served a one-month ban for refusing to take a test in 1982.

I agree that Froome should not be mentioned in the same sentence as these - he's not suspected of taking anything as overtly cheaty as an amphetamine and he's not refused a test.

Froome's legal team have been trying to rescue his reputation since the Vuelta, and this is all about money as the legal team are challenging the efficacy of the test - so if the test is in doubt why not question it when you're not testing positive ?

To be fair, I think Sky have been quite open in criticising some aspects of the drug testing regime. Why knows why they've not picked on the salbutamol urine test in particular? Maybe they've defeated similar tests in the tribunal before and we just don't know because the confidentiality was respected (unlike this time) or maybe it's as simple as not spending money on fights you don't expect to need to fight. I expect all will come out in time - as Sky is a big media company, there's likely to be media interest in this for years to come and surely one of the 30ish riders a year and all the backroom staff will blow the whistle sooner or later in the hope of profiting, if there's a whistle to blow.