Tour de France 2018

Remove this Banner Ad

Vader

Vader

Sith Lord
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts TheBrownDog Doctor Who's Tardis Ex-Moderator
Oct 14, 2005
52,289
36,229
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
The great race starts this Saturday, with a coastal ride through the Vendee (the Atlantic coast, on the western side of the hexagon).

In massive pre-race news, ASO has informed UK Postal that Froome is persona non grata. This is massive news:
"The Tour de France wants at all costs to avoid being in the same situation as the recent Giro d’Italia, where the final victory of Froome is now marked with an asterisk," reportLe Monde.

The ASO has cited article 28 of its rules, which "expressly reserves the right to refuse participation in - or to exclude from - the event, a team or any of its members whose presence would be such as to damage the image or reputation of ASO or the event."

Team Sky has already appealed this decision to the National Olympic Committee of French Sport, and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 3 with a decision set to made the following day. The case could then move towards CAS although a ruling might be unlikely before the Tour de France starts.
Click to expand...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aso-try-to-block-chris-froome-from-racing-tour-de-france/
 
If you have been watching te World Cup there is no chance you would know SBS are covering the TDF starting this Saturday. ;). Massive cross promotion.

That is big news about Froome. Hope the French NOC and if need be CAS tell him and Sky to get stuffed. Then again whatever the French NOC say, its going to be appealed to CAS.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So the UCI managed to bring the sport into disrepute for the last 6 months by leaking Froome's test results - They have no idea ! So will the ASO still go ahead with their action to ban Froome from the TDF ?
 
And we will never hear the defence. Froome and Brailsford saying nothing. UCI says Froomes AAF was in line with his other tests from the Veulta. His bio passport has been up the s**t from day 1 due to TUE's from a mystery parasite infection which held him back for so long. Good grief, bigger fraud than Lance.
 
Is anyone surprised ??

Will ASO still block him I wonder.
 
How convenient... the day the ASO sends him his "you're not welcome" letter he gets cleared by the UCI, despite having double the legal limit of salbutamol in his system - and even the legal limit requires an extraordinary amount of ventolin to be inhaled.

The UCI just lost all of the credibility that they had been struggling to regain.
 
Vader said:
he gets cleared by the UCI
Click to expand...

Actually, he was cleared by WADA, but given that you have such a loose affiliation with the facts, not surprising that you got it wrong.

"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."
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bing181 said:
Actually, he was cleared by WADA, but given that you have such a loose affiliation with the facts, not surprising that you got it wrong.

"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."
Click to expand...
Not having a go at Froomey here, but I wonder what WOULD constitute one if this abnormally high level does not.
 
hey shorty said:
Not having a go at Froomey here, but I wonder what WOULD constitute one if this abnormally high level does not.
Click to expand...

Yes, hopefully WADA release documentation/clarification of how they arrived at their decision. The problem here seems to be as much as anything that you can't directly link content in a sample to amount you've consumed, there are too many variables. Will be interesting to see the upshot of it all in terms of the WADA regulations, though given that salbutamol isn't performance-enhancing, perhaps they have bigger fish to fry.
 
#classiccyling

But in more important matters is anyone playing Velogames Fantasy? Given asthma boy is so expensive I need some cheap riders to flesh my team out - any thoughts?
 
This today from Will Fotheringham, who raised the same question as to where we are:

"The question of where it left the threshold for salbutamol was also hanging; perhaps salbutamol would go the way of caffeine, where it proved impossible to regulate the substance by working with a permitted threshold and it was eventually legalised to avoid confusion."
 
I suspect that WADA didn't have or didn't choose to spend millions defending their case - Of course this calls into account the future validity of threshold limits for substances - The science behind some of the substances WADA puts on the banned list has always been debated and I suspect strong sporting professional associations will further explore this issue - The irony is that Haas who was the arbitrator for the UCI Tribunal was involved in drafting the WADA Code, in which parts will need to be revisited - I suppose he could earn another 'pay day' rewriting part of the code.
 
yaco55 said:
I suspect that WADA didn't have or didn't choose to spend millions defending their case - Of course this calls into account the future validity of threshold limits for substances - The science behind some of the substances WADA puts on the banned list has always been debated and I suspect strong sporting professional associations will further explore this issue - The irony is that Haas who was the arbitrator for the UCI Tribunal was involved in drafting the WADA Code, in which parts will need to be revisited - I suppose he could earn another 'pay day' rewriting part of the code.
Click to expand...
Agree with the bolded bit. Seems to be a case of Froome getting the best outcome that money could buy.
 
The more I read, the dodgier it gets...

Having returned a higher than permitted reading, he is supposed to undergo a CPKS (controlled pharmacokinetic excretion study) to provide a baseline. If he can't replicate the abnormal reading in the CPKS, then he's busted. Ulissi failed to replicate his readings in a CPKS, which is why he was banned.

However, because the abnormal reading came from a mountain stage in the Vuelta, under race conditions, they decided that it was impossible to replicate his physical condition in a CPKS. No CPKS, no doping ban.

Surely the onus is on UK Postal to prove his innocence? In which case, the lack of a CPKS should mean that they don't have a defence. It shouldn't mean that the prosecution is unable to build a case.

What a load of absolute bollocks. Froome & UK Postal have bought their way out of this, not through corruption, but by effectively forcing WADA into a battle for the highest priced medical opinion - a battle which WADA doesn't have the resources to fight. Absolutely disgraceful.

.....

And so we look forward to Saturday, knowing that the ultra-juiced SkyBots are almost certain to make another appearance, given that they now have WADA's approval to dope with impunity.
 
bing181 said:
And you're the one talking about Father Christmas.

Your usual conspiracy theory BS.
Click to expand...

Not weighing in to the whole Froome AAF, I'll just state that it's disappointing.

I'm more disappointed as I can see this race becoming another Sky dominated borefest. Their really needs to be a salary cap or similar introduced as Sky are basically like the Golden State Warriors with all the talent.

I hope I'm wrong and the race is a little bit exciting. My prediction is that GT will do to Froome what he did to Wiggins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

eth-dog
  • Poll
Tour de France 2024
Replies
9
Views
797
Over The Post
Over The Post
eth-dog
  • Poll
2023 Tour de France
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
360
Views
11K
eth-dog
eth-dog
eth-dog
Tour tipping comp
Replies
4
Views
527
Orange Agent
O
royboy2
2022 Tour De Big Footy TDF Fantasy
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Over The Post
Over The Post

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top