Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1718192021 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 475 of 586
  1. #451
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,997
    Well remember they finally got around to spending two riders from 2016 positive test results this year. So it seems these things take forever when they are actual positives from an actual race vs attempting to match DNA to blood bags from doping rings which in those cases can take even longer if ever. Apparently Operation Puerto will never actually end. Remember Valverde's case took a couple of years. 2008 Italy anti doping authorities matched his DNA to an Operation Puerto blood bag. His UCI ban wasn't handed out until May 2010. (Granted due to when the case was from his lost race results were from the 2010 season and not from the time of when the blood bag was actually from which would have been during his time at Kelme.) So not I'm not surprised that the Froome case is taking so long. It seem to be par for these cases. Contador's case took close to a year and he lost two Grand Tour wins from it.

  2. #452
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PBL450's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,839
    There is precedent. He gets what other riders got for the same infraction. It shouldnít take more than a few days to deliver that result. It shouldnít be more or less, since there is specific precedent. Done. Boom. Itís easy peasy. The hard work was done in adjudicating the first salbuteral decision. This should take a few days.

    Now, on to the bigger issue. No TUEs. period. This sport canít survive with permissible doping. PEDS are permissible. But then we get all nickers in a twist that allowed PEDs are outside the PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG effect range. Um, duh. You can only consider cycling a demonstration style event and not a sport. That is not conjecture. That is the reality. The fixes are so simple itís ridiculous. So the resistance to a clean sport is institutionalized. It canít be both. UCI has clearly picked dirty over clean. That leaves riders and teams no choice, they have to race dirty to contend.

    Nothing about this is complicated. Nothing.
    To date, philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.

  3. #453
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    567
    First, we donít know all of the the other cases that have been involved in the past or even the present because this is all supposed to be secret until a verdict is delivered. There may well be some other instances where a rider has successfully defended against suspension. The public, press, fans etc may well speculate but they donít know.

    Second, with Salbutamol, the test results are used to indicate an infraction. They are not themselves the infraction and that is where I guess the argument will be taking place and a defense has to be heard. The precedent can only be applied at the end of that process

    I donít like the way the UCI have set this whole system up but it is a problem of their own making. Lappartient should be tackling this issue rather than mouthing off and criticizing riders and teams for following the UCI rules. So far, he has indulged in grandstanding and delivered nothing.

  4. #454
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PBL450's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,839
    Quote Originally Posted by coldash View Post
    First, we donít know all of the the other cases that have been involved in the past or even the present because this is all supposed to be secret until a verdict is delivered. There may well be some other instances where a rider has successfully defended against suspension. The public, press, fans etc may well speculate but they donít know.

    Second, with Salbutamol, the test results are used to indicate an infraction. They are not themselves the infraction and that is where I guess the argument will be taking place and a defense has to be heard. The precedent can only be applied at the end of that process

    I donít like the way the UCI have set this whole system up but it is a problem of their own making. Lappartient should be tackling this issue rather than mouthing off and criticizing riders and teams for following the UCI rules. So far, he has indulged in grandstanding and delivered nothing.
    Absolutely. UCI is creating the problem by allowing the use of performance enhancing drugs. Riders are cheating, well in this case, a ridiper is cheating by using too much of a PED. The whole thing is a suckers bet. Yes or no. Thatís a a vastly easier system to manage. Present or not present? If the sport has any interest in clean racing, and it doesnít appear to have said interest, than they need to make the changes and speed up the dispositions. If a PED is present in a finding you are sidelined. Appeals are filed while you watch racing. Make suspensions consistent among violations. Make 2nd offenses permanent bans. Again, appeals while you watch. Solutions are eas6 enough, having a will to make cycling clean, now thatís a tough one.
    To date, philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.

  5. #455
    The Slow One.
    Reputation: Alaska Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,680
    If the UCI prohibited TUEs, they would likely be taken to CAS by a large number of people/organizations, and they would lose. Likewise, if they banned specified substances (in any quantity, not just to a certain limit), the result would be the same.

    What they can do (and should do) is tighten up the TUE process a lot, to the point that it's a complete pain to get one certified. You're asthmatic? Great, prove it in our lab with our doctors. Then we'll periodically re-evaluate you to see if the condition is getting better or worse, plus we'll track the dosage you're taking and periodically test you to ensure you don't go over a specified limit.

    Then, I would follow MPCC's lead in what can and can't be permitted in-competition and at what levels. I completely understand that people get hurt and sick, and they should not be prohibited from taking medications that will treat acute instances, but you also won't get to compete while you're taking them (and until your levels return to normal). I don't want riders riding hurt because of an in-race injury, so treatment or the decision to pull a racer should be made by the team's doctor in close consultation with the race doctor. At a certain point, you're just masking an injury and making it worse by continuing to ride.

  6. #456
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PBL450's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
    If the UCI prohibited TUEs, they would likely be taken to CAS by a large number of people/organizations, and they would lose. Likewise, if they banned specified substances (in any quantity, not just to a certain limit), the result would be the same.

    What they can do (and should do) is tighten up the TUE process a lot, to the point that it's a complete pain to get one certified. You're asthmatic? Great, prove it in our lab with our doctors. Then we'll periodically re-evaluate you to see if the condition is getting better or worse, plus we'll track the dosage you're taking and periodically test you to ensure you don't go over a specified limit.

    Then, I would follow MPCC's lead in what can and can't be permitted in-competition and at what levels. I completely understand that people get hurt and sick, and they should not be prohibited from taking medications that will treat acute instances, but you also won't get to compete while you're taking them (and until your levels return to normal). I don't want riders riding hurt because of an in-race injury, so treatment or the decision to pull a racer should be made by the team's doctor in close consultation with the race doctor. At a certain point, you're just masking an injury and making it worse by continuing to ride.


    Agreed. But you wouldnít be forcing not to use medication, you would only be prohibiting PEDs. You have asthma and you need meds, fine, but your race over right there. I agree with your proposal, but it still leaves the water muddy. Less muddy... But you are getting into some soft ground with disallowing MDs to prescribe to their patients. Itís far easier to eliminate racing on PEDs.
    To date, philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.

  7. #457
    The Slow One.
    Reputation: Alaska Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,680
    I didn't say the MDs couldn't prescribe to riders, but any usage would have to be coordinated with the race doctor. If it meets a certain threshold in regards to the treatment potentially providing a performance enhancement or masking an injury to the point there is a risk of serious damage, the rider should be pulled. Just like the a boxer being pulled out by a ring doctor.

    The teams would hate it.

  8. #458
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,401
    While they certainly need to tighten up the TUE process the larger issue is OOC cortisone use. Sky, Wiggins, Brailsford, and Froome are flat out lying about their use of cortisone out of competition.

  9. #459
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PBL450's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
    I didn't say the MDs couldn't prescribe to riders, but any usage would have to be coordinated with the race doctor. If it meets a certain threshold in regards to the treatment potentially providing a performance enhancement or masking an injury to the point there is a risk of serious damage, the rider should be pulled. Just like the a boxer being pulled out by a ring doctor.

    The teams would hate it.
    Thanks, I def read you wrong... I donít understand the pharmacology well enough to consider what kind of scenarios might make performance enhancing drug use essential for a rider to continue racing safely. I do think it would be hard to argue that a system that defends PEDs use is safer than stopping a rider who needs a PED to continue safely. If clinical information supports that idea than rider safety is a wash out in the argument. Rider entitlement replaces it. Those are not moderately different propositions. Iíd love it if a MD or pharmacist or something close would wander on by and add that information.

    Of course, the flip side is to create a riders union and prohibit testing.
    To date, philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.

  10. #460
    The Slow One.
    Reputation: Alaska Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Falsetti View Post
    While they certainly need to tighten up the TUE process the larger issue is OOC cortisone use. Sky, Wiggins, Brailsford, and Froome are flat out lying about their use of cortisone out of competition.
    What? Sky is not being 100% transparent and truthful when it comes to their use of certain substances? That perhaps marginal gains are more than a really nice pillow? Perish the thought.

    The only thing that's going to counter that (from any number of riders/teams) is more OOC testing, and the UCI has the resources nor political will to do that.

    I still say the only doctors treating ProTour riders should be hired, certified, and paid for by the UCI. Much harder to do an effective team doping program when your doctor is a party apparatchik.

  11. #461
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,937
    I know this is old news, but it substitute the name Wiggins for Froome and it'll be the same


  12. #462
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: GlobalGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    349
    I know that this deflects from the specific ongoing debates about individual riders at a given time being accused of taking PEDs. Nevertheless, I think the following is THE main point to all of those individual cases and debates:

    All elite cyclists use PEDs. Always have and likely always will. Most elite athletes in any major sport that require power, speed, endurance and recovery use PEDs. Cycling and then track and field simply led the way or opened the door for the widespread common usage of PEDs.

    Finally, for this post, the organizations that are supposed to test, monitor and enforce the rules regarding the use of PEDs are corrupt, dishonest and at best incompetent.

    Just my opinion.

  13. #463
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by GlobalGuy View Post
    I know that this deflects from the specific ongoing debates about individual riders at a given time being accused of taking PEDs. Nevertheless, I think the following is THE main point to all of those individual cases and debates:

    All elite cyclists use PEDs. Always have and likely always will. Most elite athletes in any major sport that require power, speed, endurance and recovery use PEDs. Cycling and then track and field simply led the way or opened the door for the widespread common usage of PEDs.

    Finally, for this post, the organizations that are supposed to test, monitor and enforce the rules regarding the use of PEDs are corrupt, dishonest and at best incompetent.

    Just my opinion.
    We all do. It is just a matter of how you define PED. I mean in the literal sense taking Vitamin C or Amino Acids would count. Caffeine is most certainly a PED.

    It is just about wgo gets to choose.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  14. #464
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,997
    It appears the UCI has sent this case to the Tribunal. UCI rejects Froome's defense, sends case to anti-doping court | VeloNews.com

  15. #465
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by KoroninK View Post
    It appears the UCI has sent this case to the Tribunal. UCI rejects Froome's defense, sends case to anti-doping court | VeloNews.com
    It appears that the original Le Monde article was a bit ďembellishedĒ when it was translated into English and it was stated, incorrectly, in some versions that the UCI had rejected the defence and had sent the case to CAS. AFAIK, the case going to the UCI tribunal - not CAS - is the expected next stage. So, not a lot of news and not a lot of progress, sadly

  16. #466
    The Slow One.
    Reputation: Alaska Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,680
    Actually, this is progress.

    They've recognized that Sky/Froome's defense is not enough of a justification to be taken at face value and prevent a trial (for lack of a better word). Once it went public, we all knew the UCI was going to have to just to save face, but they have to follow the process and give the defense team a chance to develop and present their case for dismissal. It's in Froome's "best interests" to drag this out as long as they can, so he can race and potentially win big events like the Giro and Tour, strengthening his hand if it goes to a punitive phase. Maybe they'll go with a backdated ban that doesn't take away any of his results, just to avoid the bad press of having to strip the holder of all GT titles of his victories. Imagine what that would do to the UCI's position with ASO and RCS. At least, that's what I assume the defense team is looking at if the case doesn't go their way. To ignore the political implications would be stupidity for them.

    I don't think Froome will be kept out of the Giro or the Tour. Maybe this will be resolved by the Vuelta, but he wouldn't be participating in that after racing two GTs back-to-back, unless he crashes out of one of the other two early on.

    His now-deleted "fake news" tweet indicates his bunker mindset, so he's in this for the long haul.

  17. #467
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
    His now-deleted "fake news" tweet indicates his bunker mindset, so he's in this for the long haul.
    Actually his deleted tweet referred to the original English language translation of the French language story that added a few ďextrasĒ such as incorrectly stating that the case was being referred to CAS. That was just plain wrong and when it was corrected, Froome deleted his tweet because it was no longer relevant. The sequence of events is important.

  18. #468
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
    Actually, this is progress.

    They've recognized that Sky/Froome's defense is not enough of a justification to be taken at face value and prevent a trial (for lack of a better word). Once it went public, we all knew the UCI was going to have to just to save face, but they have to follow the process and give the defense team a chance to develop and present their case for dismissal. It's in Froome's "best interests" to drag this out as long as they can, so he can race and potentially win big events like the Giro and Tour, strengthening his hand if it goes to a punitive phase. Maybe they'll go with a backdated ban that doesn't take away any of his results, just to avoid the bad press of having to strip the holder of all GT titles of his victories. Imagine what that would do to the UCI's position with ASO and RCS. At least, that's what I assume the defense team is looking at if the case doesn't go their way. To ignore the political implications would be stupidity for them.

    I don't think Froome will be kept out of the Giro or the Tour. Maybe this will be resolved by the Vuelta, but he wouldn't be participating in that after racing two GTs back-to-back, unless he crashes out of one of the other two early on.

    His now-deleted "fake news" tweet indicates his bunker mindset, so he's in this for the long haul.
    Then they will have to restore a LOT of other races and title to riders who have had them stripped, including Lance's Tour titles, Alberto's Vuelta and Giro titles, and tons of other races and stage wins and podiums to a lot of riders.

  19. #469
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by KoroninK View Post
    Then they will have to restore a LOT of other races and title to riders who have had them stripped, including Lance's Tour titles, Alberto's Vuelta and Giro titles, and tons of other races and stage wins and podiums to a lot of riders.
    Although some / many might be able to claim some sort of retrospective judgment based on a successful outcome of Froomeís case supposed legal basis, I doubt it would include LA or AC. Froomeís case is as a result of an AAF, not having taken banned substances etc.

  20. #470
    The Slow One.
    Reputation: Alaska Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by KoroninK View Post
    Then they will have to restore a LOT of other races and title to riders who have had them stripped, including Lance's Tour titles, Alberto's Vuelta and Giro titles, and tons of other races and stage wins and podiums to a lot of riders.
    Not really. They could backdate a short ban to only affect a small number or even no races. They could apply a ban going forward (into the off-season) and not have him lose anything. I'm not sure what's in the rules regarding this, but if there's a way to wiggle out of not vacating multiple GT titles, they'll probably use it- especially if it affects the Tour. I can't see them not applying some sort of sanction here, but how and when they apply it is going to be the key.

    Lance, Alberto, and any number of others are out of luck.

  21. #471
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,997
    IMO, that will make a bigger farce of things than not stripping titles, esp la Vuelta title where he had the positive to start with. Also it will more than show favoritism which the sport cannot afford.

  22. #472
    The Slow One.
    Reputation: Alaska Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by KoroninK View Post
    IMO, that will make a bigger farce of things than not stripping titles, esp la Vuelta title where he had the positive to start with. Also it will more than show favoritism which the sport cannot afford.
    Not saying I disagree with you, but I'm sure they're looking at every way to minimizing the bad non-cycling press. The cycling press will hound them no matter what, but if they have to strip a Tour title from Froome (because to the majority of the world, that's the only cycling race)? Something as non-severe (when looked at superficially) as this is going to be a very, very big thing. If they can minimize it, they will.

  23. #473
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,937
    This is becoming a bigger farce by the day. This sort of indecision is exactly why pro cycling is a joke. I'm baffled at the notion of any possible damage control. Pro cycling needs to clean house, build from scratch. Right now, pro cycling is like that cheating girl/boyfriend that keeps telling you: "oh he's nothing to me, just a friend, I promise not to sext him anymore". Only to find more sh*t a month from now. It's an abusive relationship, and that's what procycling and its fans are having.

  24. #474
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KoroninK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
    Not saying I disagree with you, but I'm sure they're looking at every way to minimizing the bad non-cycling press. The cycling press will hound them no matter what, but if they have to strip a Tour title from Froome (because to the majority of the world, that's the only cycling race)? Something as non-severe (when looked at superficially) as this is going to be a very, very big thing. If they can minimize it, they will.
    But they should be more worried about the actual cycling fans. Not everyone else. I also have a feeling that something non severe will piss off a lot of the guys in the peloton it's self. I'm not sure that is a smart idea either.

  25. #475
    The Slow One.
    Reputation: Alaska Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,680
    ...and now we find out the test is deeply flawed and therefore nobody has ever used it for performance enhancement.

    I just don't know what to believe anymore. First we discover EPO does nothing for athletic performance, and now this...

Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1718192021 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sidi FROOME LTD Carbon Wire shoes
    By Fignon's Barber in forum Classifieds Feedback - Scam Warnings
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-09-2016, 08:34 AM
  2. Froome's Message Sent
    By AdamM in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-14-2012, 05:45 AM
  3. Bobby Julich on Chris Froome
    By Chainstay in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-10-2012, 08:55 AM
  4. Simoni/Cunego = Wigo/Froome?
    By WAZCO in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-09-2012, 10:05 AM
  5. Even Republicans say the we're in trouble...Big Trouble.
    By MR_GRUMPY in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-15-2004, 07:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

roadbikereview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.