Doping

Nicola Ruffoni gets a four year ban for his growth hormone positive prior to the Giro.

Forgive my ignorance but if he could prove he could excrete the level he tested for then why would he be banned at all? Or do you mean a level above the threshold but below is test sample?

This gave me a chuckle this morning.

1 Attachment

I really don't know anything about his case other than that snippet. He might've showed there was a chance legal doses were excreted in high levels but perhaps not as high as he tested for so they still issued a ban albeit a shorter one. They will often issue a reduced ban in cases where contamination is proved. So, basically the athlete didn't intentionally cheat but they still tested positive, ie. they were dumb not malicious. They will get 2y instead of 4 or similar.

Fair enough maybe @mdcc_tester can shed some light?

Seems like Froome is in quite a spot of bother. The Sky statement looked like damage limitation to me. Not sure how much good will the sponsor has left!?

Is it that damaging to Sky? Everyone assumes pro cyclists are all juiced up anyway don't they and any press is good press so they probably rub their hands together thinking of all the free coverage.

History would suggest otherwise.
Given that there are selling talks in progress at the moment I think the team are in serious danger of having the plug pulled on them.

Well this isn't the first scandal Sky have had and they're still in the game.
Same with lots of other pro teams so it doesn't appear to be all that damaging.

Big names have walked away though. Been sold this morning so let's see what Disneys view is.

Is Froome in a spot of bother? He has a right to due process, which has been breached in the instance as someone at the UCI leaked the Adverse Analytical Finding news to Le Monde and the Guardian before Froome has had his chance to respond. As is his right under the UCI rules.

For all we know, this could’ve happened to other athletes in the past who’ve subsequently cleared their names without the press getting hold of it.

Given Froome’s behaviour over the past 3 months, I get the feeling he expects to be exonerated. Time will tell.

Saw that elsewhere yesterday, made me lol.

Froome missed a PR trick in his interviews with the BBC and Sky, he should’ve produced one of those and said “this is what we’re talking about here, alleged abuse of an inhaler.”

Blood bags it ain’t.

Ulissi case was also leaked by the look of it. Of course there might be others that aren't but we have no way to tell.

Given the seeming similarity between the two and that Ulissi couldn't replicate the finding I'd say yes Froome is in a spot of bother.

I think you should read up on the Ulissi case before drawing any similarities.

Can Velocio set up a page redirect so anyone who wants to post on this thread has to read the INRNG piece first? Because that would really streamline things around here.

By all means. Do you have a link?

Edit Is the BBC bespoke podcast worth a listen?

What is distinctive about the Ulissi case? It seems very analogous to Froome.

Ulissi admitted he was negligent and took more than the specified dose, hence the (reduced) ban.

Froome is claiming he kept within the dosage limits, so wasn’t negligent.

So why did Ulissi go to the lab in Switzerland to try recreate the sample anonomly?

I'm also confused as to how this makes Froome's position any better?

admitted he was negligent

Can you direct to an authoritative source for this?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2017/dec/14/chris-froome-failed-drug-test-live-webchat#comment-109698796

The journos that broke the story are doing a Q&A sess, quite illuminating.

Is the sale of 21st Century Fox and Sky to Disney going to potentially jeopardise sponsorship, especially with this now hanging over the team? The brand is starting to turn toxic.

Team Sky is James Murdoch's project and he may have a future role at Disney. I suspect the plug will be pulled within 24 months though. I can imagine others stepping in as headline sponsor, but probably on a reduced budget. Which would be good for competition.

Edit Is the BBC bespoke podcast worth a listen?

I don't think so. Unless you want to hear three men go to lengths to discuss how this is anything but doping/benefit of doubt-giving. While it may be true, it's neither insightful nor interesting.

I think it was recorded too soon after the news broke.

Any mention of Team Sky "Zero Tolerance" policy? Would an AAF differ from an ADRV in Chris's contract with them?

some interesting nuggets of infor in the Guardian q+A:

There is no evidence that this substance has any beneficial effect on performance, lets try to keep a sense of perspective.

Sean replies:

User avatar for seani Guardian staff seani 14 December 2017 1:38pm
There are two points worth making in response here:

1) There is a limit set by the World Anti-Doping Agency and Chris
Froome has exceeded it by twice the permitted out.

2) There is some evidence that Beta 2 Agonists can improve performance
(See here: Inhaled Beta2-Agonist Increases Power Output and Glycolysis
during Sprinting in Men.) I was also speaking to a sports scientist
yesterday who made the point that a lot of those studies claiming no
benefit to Beta 2 Agonists do not use particularly relevant (to elite
sport) dosages of the drug under investigation and most importantly
use a performance measure (like VO2max) that is irrelevant to an
athlete like Froome.