Cycling

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13538
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by Ethiaa » Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:36 am

It's no surprise that you think that. :D

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27100
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:50 am

As a chronic asthmatic who's taken salbutamol for years on an as-and-when-needed basis, I'm disappointed I've not won a Tour de France or two yet... :yeahright:

It strikes me as a stupid rule in the first place. And the hunger to persecute athletes with a legitimate reason to take medicine is disturbing. I'm no fan of Froome but it seems many want him to be another Lance Armstrong rather than a genuine champion.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14687
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by mrblackbat » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:00 am

The big issie is that he's being treated differently than other riders. Rules aren't being followed and are changed to allow him to race. It feels like same old same old, at a time when the sport needs to somehow come across as squeaky clean.

Team Sky also need to step up to the plate if they're going to genuinely convince anyone they're actually anti doping. Joining the MPCC would help and would have resulted in them internally suspending Froome until now. Frankly, the only reason not to sign up is because you know you have issues and are more interested in winning than avoiding suspicion of winning unfairly.

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13538
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by Ethiaa » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:08 am

Alternatively, the case highlighted a flaw in the rules which meant they could not be applied as expected and you want to have a go at Froome :D

As the detail has been withheld (cos, reminder, this should be a confidential process) then I fully expect people to continue to moan about it forever and ever.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14687
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by mrblackbat » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:23 am

Ethiaa wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:08 am
Alternatively, the case highlighted a flaw in the rules which meant they could not be applied as expected and you want to have a go at Froome :D

As the detail has been withheld (cos, reminder, this should be a confidential process) then I fully expect people to continue to moan about it forever and ever.
If that's your opinion.

As I said, they need to go back and undo a lot of bans/results stripping off the back of this.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27100
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:04 pm

Is he being treated differently? Which cyclists have been banned by the UCI after WADA recommended there was no breach and the case should be dropped?

I think if you look at the wider scope that WADA covers, there isn't any special treatment. The rules are there to make sport fair. If strictly following the rules creates an unfair outcome, then exceptions should be made, otherwise what's the point? And there are cases across sport where exceptions are made for athletes, because punishing them would be unfair in the circumstances.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14687
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by mrblackbat » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:43 pm

Yes he's been treated differently. They haven't applied the rules (which are quoted above) which they've applied with other riders regarding having to prove through a controlled test that the result was due to therapeutic use of the inhaler; Tiernan-Locke is an example who was unable to prove in a test that the abnormalities in his blood were down to dehydration. The claim was therefore thrown out and he served his ban. Here, Froome can't prove in tests that the amount of salbutamol detected was caused because of illness and dehydration; yet he's given a pardon.

Seems different to me....

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13538
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by Ethiaa » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:48 pm

It's almost like we don't have all the information but are drawing conclusions from the scraps we do have. Good job that doesn't have any potential to be totally wrong.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14687
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by mrblackbat » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:52 pm

Easy way to sort that out, though, isn't there? ;)

Regardless, it's still a departure from their published rule. An explanation as to why would be useful, along with reviewing the cases where this might have applied previously and setting a precedent for the future. Up til now, if you couldn't prove in a test that the results were therapeutic, you got banned. Froome can't prove this; but hasn't been banned. :shrug:

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13538
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by Ethiaa » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:06 pm

There is but frankly, I see no reason for them to release information just because somebody chose to make something which should have been confidential into a public flogging for 6 months.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27100
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:12 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:43 pm
Yes he's been treated differently. They haven't applied the rules (which are quoted above) which they've applied with other riders regarding having to prove through a controlled test that the result was due to therapeutic use of the inhaler; Tiernan-Locke is an example who was unable to prove in a test that the abnormalities in his blood were down to dehydration. The claim was therefore thrown out and he served his ban. Here, Froome can't prove in tests that the amount of salbutamol detected was caused because of illness and dehydration; yet he's given a pardon.

Seems different to me....
Yes, because it's a different issue. Care to expand on the Tiernan-Locke case, because nowhere have I seen it mentioned the problem was because he had too much of a permitted medicine in his pee. The WADA statement points out that the CPKS was impossible in Froome's case because the circumstances couldn't be recreated, but the evidence showed that the sample he provided wasn't inconsitent with taking the maximum permitted dose. So they've made an exception to get to a right and fair outcome. It would be unjust to penalise him for a technicality (beyond his or anyone's control) when he's proved his innocence. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/ ... roome-case

You're making a sweeping generalisation that every case should reach the same outcome, regardless of the detail. The fact you compared this case to Yates and Contador (who both tested for banned substances) shows you don't really understand the uniqueness of each set of circumstances.

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13538
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: Cycling

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:44 am

I'm currently off work with something nasty I've brought back with me from Uganda but it allowed me to watch all of the stage yesterday. What a great bit of racing - the power Geraint had at the end to power past for the win was exceptional. Great stuff.

Post Reply