Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[mjr]

Short answer: Yes but not realistically[/SIZE]

So why might Petacchi say they should be banned? Is he misinformed about replacement treatments, pulling up the ladder after he's stopped climbing, or something else?

 

[Siclo]

Who knows? As you're probably aware asthma has different triggers and different treatments work for different folks, maybe theophylline worked for him, or maybe he was using an anticholinergic, possibly off-label, off-label drug use is very common.

I think it's a strange stance.

 

[Adam4868]

I see she has posted an apology for calling Froome 'a slithering reptile'

I suspect, given the vitriol in her original post, that her apology is directed to any snakes who may be offended by the comparison.

Sounds like my Mrs after a drink or two.......she can swear with the best of em !

 

[mjr]

He explains his rationale clearly and logically here. Well, sort of. “We can’t ruin cycling and everything that Froome did in these years for a darn puff of salbutamol. OK, but if he did something wrong and strange, OK, I’ll accept that and shut up, say, ‘Chris you are an idiot.’ But as it is, we can’t do this for an inhaler.”

That seems to be the same confusing interview with Gregor Brown that I linked earlier. Congratulations to him if he's managed to sell the same work twice.

 

[Siclo]

Back to dehydration - marginal gains bite back?

 

[steveindenmark]

If Chris Froome does not think " His legacy will be tainted". He needs to join the real world. He has always come across as an intelligent guy but being in denial makes him sound like a fool.

Regardless of the outcome, there will be many who will not believe him and the Sky team are the last people I would want defending me.

How long is it before the Sky' medical man falls on his hypodermic to try and save the team?

 

[User169]

Spoty might be fun this evening for once!

 

[Adam4868]

Spoty might be fun this evening for once!

Might be only Joshua turns up !

 

[sleaver]

Spoty might be fun this evening for once!

Although it's an abnormal finding, I'm kind of surprised they haven't withdrawn him. Although in some ways, that in itself could be unfair as he hasn't technically failed a drugs test.

They are going to be saying he's won the Tour De France and La Vuelta this year and people who don't understand the actual situation will be going "hold on, he has failed a drugs test".

 

[Bollo]

They’ve just done the fluff piece and now the interview. Awkward.

 

[jowwy]

so it's now the 18th December and Froome and team sky was aware of the AAF on the 20th September........................

how long should he be given to prove his innocence??

and is there double standards at play here because its Froome and team sky?? ( and by the way i'm a team sky fanboy, although not a huge Froome fan)

 

[Twizit]

Update / clarification here from the UCI:

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

Interesting line in there for me was the "..... An Adverse Analytical Finding is not necessarily an Anti-Doping Rule Violation..."

 

[User169]

( and by the way i'm a team sky fanboy, although not a huge Froome fan)

Well I never - you've been keeping that quiet!

 

[jowwy]

Well I never - you've been keeping that quiet!

this adds what to the thread??

 

[jowwy]

Update / clarification here from the UCI:

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

Interesting line in there for me was the "..... An Adverse Analytical Finding is not necessarily an Anti-Doping Rule Violation..."

it either is or it isn't.......to say "not necessarily" is adding another level of grey to the already murky area