-
Depends on whether WADA responds to this by changing the rules surrounding Sabutamol or states that the test is flawed.
In which case, I expect they have the right to ask for the decision to be reviewed?
Ulissi admitted negligence so not sure he can come back from that.Petacchi on the other hand, had a lower level of Sabutamol (1300ng/ml) which given recent WADA changes allowing for adjusted results taking into account dehydration, may in fact now be under the limit. One of his arguments at the time was dehydration I believe.
Froome's sample was downgraded from 2000ng/ml to 1429ng/ml. If you apply the same 28.55%, this would bring Petacchi's sample to 929ng/ml which would be under the limit.
Given that he lost 5 giro stage wins, I reckon he'd be silly not to appeal.
Acliff-
The UCI are quite clear that they’ve made the decision based on the evidence available in this case. Given Froome would’ve been tested every day he was leading the race, they’ve got data on Salbutamol levels in his samples for most of the race.
I have no doubt there will be changes to how they test for Salbutamol, but I don’t think there will be a blanket ban and amnesty for previous offenders.
andyp
so if you're an Ullissi or Petacchi do you get any wins/money that were stripped returned to you and bans taken off your record?