Chris Froome/ Broc tickle?

Related:
Create New Tag

4/29/2018 7:34 AM

Can anyone explain to me how Chris Froome is getting ready to race the Giro d'Italia and Broc Tickle can't race a SuperCross or Motocross for 4 years?!

|

Better to remain silent and thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

4/29/2018 7:47 AM

Who told you about 4 years? There hasn`t beenresults from sample B yet. Then FIM will have a meeting and hand out suspension time. If WADA is not ok with the penalty time, they can object. This is far from over, unless B sample is negative.

|

4/29/2018 7:50 AM

Same way Contador raced after his fail. Must have called that special number they were talking about on the Pulp show. And probably big money.

|

4/29/2018 7:54 AM

kongols wrote:

Who told you about 4 years? There hasn`t beenresults from sample B yet. Then FIM will have a meeting and hand out suspension time. If WADA is not ok with the penalty time, they can object. This is far from over, unless B sample is negative.

It went from 18 months (JS) to 4 years to keep athletes out of the next Olympics.

|

Better to remain silent and thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

4/29/2018 8:33 AM

because in froom's case the uci is dealing with it. only if the uci isn't able to resolve the case then wada could step in.

|

4/29/2018 9:45 AM

I think Froome did My test positive for a banned substance, rather elevated levels of an allowed substance. Thus, it's s different deal....

|

4/29/2018 9:45 AM

yep. $$$$

in before ML512 comes and tells us salbutamol isnt a controlled substance and therefore the burden of proof differs.

froome did NOT take said substance via puffing. he took it in pill form. pill form provides performance enhancements.

fuck skypostal. fuck froomestrong.

|

4/29/2018 10:40 AM
Edited Date/Time: 4/29/2018 10:43 AM

Froome had a TUE for his inhaler. His problem was that on that stage in the Vuelta he hit the puffer like a madman, or quite possibly took salbutamol in oral form, and was tested after the stage and bingo, his reading was way outside what the TUE allows. Like WAY out. If indeed he took an oral form of the drug, or injection, this is illegal as the TUE is only for inhaler use. But this goes into a heavy gray area in doping known as the Adverse Analytical Finding or AAF. The burden is then on the athlete to prove why he was outside the allowable reading for a substance that he has a TUE for. This is totally different than Broc's situation where he is actually positive for a banned substance.

The case has then been bouncing around with Froome's camp initially coming up with theories like kidney failure (I'm not joking) and now they are conducting some studies to try to explain it. The whole time, Froome is not actually suspended so he is technically able to compete. Though ethically he should voluntarily withdraw himself from competition. But, and this is a big but, the Giro is paying him big $$ to race, and the race is starting in Jerusalem this year. So actually the organizational committee in Jerusalem is footing this tab, which I believe is rumoured to be 2 million Euro. Therefore Froome, at age 34 and probably getting close to his best years being behind him, is choosing to compete largely just to get this payday.

Total mess, and I've been in cycling since the early 90s/beginning of EPO days.

Here's a good timeline if anyone is interested.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/timeline-of-chris-froomes-adverse-analytical-finding-for-salbutamol/

|

Old MXer turned Superfan.

4/29/2018 2:24 PM

Broc Tickle can be just go out without any sanction like Rui Costa or a small ban from 3 months like Yohan Blake. But that is also why he should take a European Lawyer who can interact with WADA and the FIM without thinking/dealing with timezones.

|

4/29/2018 2:34 PM

hamncheeze wrote:

Froome had a TUE for his inhaler. His problem was that on that stage in the Vuelta he hit the puffer like a madman, or quite possibly took salbutamol in oral form, and was tested after the stage and bingo, his reading was way outside what the TUE allows. Like WAY out. If indeed he took an oral form of the drug, or injection, this is illegal as the TUE is only for inhaler use. But this goes into a heavy gray area in doping known as the Adverse Analytical Finding or AAF. The burden is then on the athlete to prove why he was outside the allowable reading for a substance that he has a TUE for. This is totally different than Broc's situation where he is actually positive for a banned substance.

The case has then been bouncing around with Froome's camp initially coming up with theories like kidney failure (I'm not joking) and now they are conducting some studies to try to explain it. The whole time, Froome is not actually suspended so he is technically able to compete. Though ethically he should voluntarily withdraw himself from competition. But, and this is a big but, the Giro is paying him big $$ to race, and the race is starting in Jerusalem this year. So actually the organizational committee in Jerusalem is footing this tab, which I believe is rumoured to be 2 million Euro. Therefore Froome, at age 34 and probably getting close to his best years being behind him, is choosing to compete largely just to get this payday.

Total mess, and I've been in cycling since the early 90s/beginning of EPO days.

Here's a good timeline if anyone is interested.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/timeline-of-chris-froomes-adverse-analytical-finding-for-salbutamol/

Was gonna break this down for everyone, but your post nailed it. Nice one.

|

4/29/2018 5:56 PM

hamncheeze wrote:

Froome had a TUE for his inhaler. His problem was that on that stage in the Vuelta he hit the puffer like a madman, or quite possibly took salbutamol in oral form, and was tested after the stage and bingo, his reading was way outside what the TUE allows. Like WAY out. If indeed he took an oral form of the drug, or injection, this is illegal as the TUE is only for inhaler use. But this goes into a heavy gray area in doping known as the Adverse Analytical Finding or AAF. The burden is then on the athlete to prove why he was outside the allowable reading for a substance that he has a TUE for. This is totally different than Broc's situation where he is actually positive for a banned substance.

The case has then been bouncing around with Froome's camp initially coming up with theories like kidney failure (I'm not joking) and now they are conducting some studies to try to explain it. The whole time, Froome is not actually suspended so he is technically able to compete. Though ethically he should voluntarily withdraw himself from competition. But, and this is a big but, the Giro is paying him big $$ to race, and the race is starting in Jerusalem this year. So actually the organizational committee in Jerusalem is footing this tab, which I believe is rumoured to be 2 million Euro. Therefore Froome, at age 34 and probably getting close to his best years being behind him, is choosing to compete largely just to get this payday.

Total mess, and I've been in cycling since the early 90s/beginning of EPO days.

Here's a good timeline if anyone is interested.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/timeline-of-chris-froomes-adverse-analytical-finding-for-salbutamol/

Perfect recount of Froome’s deal. I believe it is up,to the sporting federation’s regulations if an athlete can compete during the appeal process. Maybe the FIM doesn’t allow for that. I’ve also been closely following pro cycling since the early ‘90’s. For those interested there’s an active forum dedicated to the subject. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewforum.php?f=20&sid=2ada2e89169dd34c1c899837ebea68a5

|

1/14/2019 12:18 PM

another cyclist only gets 10 months for the same substance. typically cycling penalties are pretty severe actually, so this is surprising.

this means that, all else being equal, tickle is getting a WORSE deal than the second or third dirtiest sport in the world.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brajkovic-suspended-for-10-months/


"The UCI's minimum sanction for anti-doping rule violations is four years, but the rules allow for reduced bans for no fault or negligence."

|