Pro-cycling thread

Is the cross worlds on the UCI YouTube channel this weekend?

All races except the Elite races. They will be on Eurosport as they have the rights.

Even though it’s not a big race, Mitchelton Scott locked out the top three GC spots in the Jayco Herald Tour.

https://youtu.be/TUjSsc27HXQ

Froome starting Ruta del sol. What a mess.

It’s within the UCI rules. If Lappartient doesn’t like it, he should do something about them.

I think if Froome backed off from racing whilst this was cleared up, it would be a good gesture to the organisers and fans - far from an admission of guilt, right?

At the risk of sounding naive, why is it taking so long to see if he can pee out that much asthma?!

It might be within the rules. But it’s still a mess.

This whole thing needs clearing up.

And the uci needs to sort their rules out.

But if, as it would seem to be, you believe you’ve done nothing wrong and are following the rules as prescribed, why should you voluntarily suspend yourself?

I just wonder if stating that you didn't intend to race until the whole thing was sorted might play out better with fans and media

Haven’t most people made up their minds already?

Heh, yeah. You're probably right there :)

If it wasn't leaked then would we have known what was going on until the outcome?

Yes correct.

Finding out who leaked it would be interesting. Given it was one of the UCI, UKAD or Team Sky it could be quite educational.

If Froome honestly believes he did no wrong then why should he not race?

If the UCI changed the rules to say they couldn't race then what would the explanation be?

I’m sure Froome would like to know. And I’d be surprised if he didn’t have high price lawyers on it.

He’s innocent until proven otherwise no? Or under wada is he guilty until he proves innocence. Either way, the uci breeds to change their rules. If you were found in breach at an office job, of such a thing, you’d be suspended until the matter is investigated. Needs to be the same here, for the sanctity of the future results and due process.

I don’t think any employer would be able to suspend an employee for taking a slightly larger dose of asthma medicine than normal.

It’s relative. If an employee had a no drugs rule at their place of work and tested positive for cocaine. Even if it was small and their defence was that they kissed someone, they’d be suspended pending inquiry.

Suspended, with full pay.

So it’s kind of different here. By suspending him, you’re taking away his ability to earn a living.

Unless you’re suggesting awarding him the Giro win in absentia, and everyone can race for 2nd? :P

But it wasn’t a banned substance. You can use salbutamol, it’s just there is a maximum dosage permitted, and a limit on how much you have in your system. Froome has the right to show that he didn’t go over that dosage limit before any talk of suspension.

The only reason we’re talking about this is because it was leaked. He hasn’t had the opportunity of due process so why should he be suspended?

And that is that. Well put.

What happens is he’s found guilty, or more that can’t prove innocence. And is then given a backdated back from the incident. All his race results are stricken and it leaves someone with a hollow victory. That’s the situation I’d like to be seen avoided.

You are right, I’m just saying perhaps the procedure for this situation needs to be addressed. For the best of the sport.

Of course he went over the limit-deliberately or not. several sports scientists have said that the current limit is very generous and, that if it weren't the huge number of athletes using salbutamol means this scenario would happen far more often. Three riders in a decade? Two of whom were dodgy fuckers anyway...

With SKY's previous form do you think that if Froome got a respiratory infection on a critical stage of a grand tour that they would a) accept he's ill and stands to lose the GC competition the next day or B) Nebulise the shit out of some salbutamol knowing the limit is set pretty high in the hope that he just doesn't get popped, but that if he does the nature of the substance and their status in the sport will make it easy to beg off.

Opinions/arseholes etc but my money is on B before any fucking freak kidney episodes.

What if he proves that the 'generous' limit is actually not enough in all cases? Will you accept that? Or is your mind made up due to Sky's previous form (whatever that is - no Sky rider has been sanctioned for a failed test apart from Tiernan-Locke, who's dodgy values were from before his time at Sky)?

Unfortunately, I really don't think it's possible to retrospectively 'prove' your liver was inexplicably malfunctioning to a degree that it never has previously throughout your long career history of using an inhaler.

You can't replicate a tour in the lab, and I don't think the methodology or verification will ever be accepted by the UCI or WADA as it's not their lab or doctors doing it. For those reasons I think the training miles are just a theatre whilst Sky sees if the other side will, in the face of pressure from race organisers and fans outraged by the prospect of yet more empty podium spaces, blink first and let them off with a slap on the wrist...

But you never know. Maybe there's a phantom twin or even an actual physiological explanation that isn't just retrospectively dreamed up and shoehorned into a special lab session to suit the narrative... personally I think the simplest explanation will be the real one.