Pre tour week is always good theatre. Very interested to see how this plays out.

---

Shane Miller - GPLama
YouTube | Web | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Strava

Article Linky:


https://www.lemonde.fr/...5323961_1616656.html

can they bike while appeal is in process?

In the article they refer to this blanket clause that ASO has in its own disneyland self regulation rulebook:

ASO’s case is based on article 29 of its own rules (in compliance with UCI’s rules), which states that « ASO expressly reserves the right to refuse the participation in – or disqualify from – the event, a team or one of its members whose presence is liable to damage the image or reputation of ASO or those of the event ».

Its kind of like the NFL being able to ban any athlete they don't really like and who may affect the $$$$ that the NFL makes. I am actually surprised that ASO took this long to invoke it given they have a French rider Bardet whose chances go up if Froome is not there and we're talking about a British rider and team dominating a French sporting event. Before anyone jumps on me, we have family members from France/Paris, so they hear that from me all the time :-)

The likely hood of anything happening in French courts to resolve this are slim.

The French make the ineffectiveness of public servants an art form

ASO don't need to block Froome so that Bardet can win. If Froome is on the start line, I would love to see Bardet beat him manno manno. I actually want to see anyone beat Froome head to head. If they block Froome, I want Sky to destroy the peloton and put Thomas in the Yellow.

If Froome is in, my cheering is "anyone but Sky". If Froome is blocked it is "Sky over anyone". It is not that I dislike Froome (I really enjoy when he goes out of controlled sky mode which I hate and I like when he rides top tubes, attacks with Sagan, hammers from 80K out), I just want to see the champion beaten on the tarmac, not via paperwork.

Suspect they figured the later they left it, the less time they gave Sky's lawyers to find a way to get it overturned before the race start. Sky's budget buys some pretty top end legal advice, from what I understand the lawyers have had the UCI tied up in knots which is why the salbutamol case still hasn't reached a conclusion.

I'd rather have the champion not be suspected of doping for once...

---

What's your CdA?

I have doubts about Sky and Froome. I also have doubts against many others. That said no one should know about the AAF per the rules. The ASO was part of leaking this to us against rules that are in place and while the Skybots are in court fighting this, ASO pulls this shit at the last minute.

I'm with you Dev; if they do block Froome I hope Sky just drill it and G wins it. Or Bernal, but very likely G will be the man.

Damn, I'm getting too many people to pull for. Rigo, Turbo Tom D, Roglic, Bernal, G, Porte.

Oh yeah and the Yates bros in any race!

This is crazy! At such a late stage in the game? I guess if you can’t beat them fairly and you want to appease Hinault who comes off as a jealous fuddy-duddy and a nation public who constantly laments that nothing is fair, this is what you do.

That's never going to happen. The act of becoming champion opens you up to accusations of doping by default (and with some justification given the history of the sport and the number of proven dopers in team management roles). Sky have had to deal with doping accusations from the moment they became good in 2012, before there were any leaked TUEs, leaked AAFs or stories of mystery packages being delivered. While Sky and Froome have been dominant they've taken most of the attention, but I'm sure it wouldn't be long before any other team/winner was in the spotlight when Sky/Froome are no longer winning. With the possible exception that the French would go easy on a French team and winner.

Doping in the tour?

Fake news, never happened

Given the history of the sport there it is COMPLETELY justified that there is constant suspicion of doping in cycling. It’s a joke. It ruins the sport

I'd rather have the champion not be suspected of doping for once...


That ship has sailed for good.

I have just accepted that pro cycling is a sport of doping. I still enjoy watching the competition, but I am under no delusions that any of cycling's champions are clean. Winning, or even finishing for that matter, in a grand tour is just a combination of genetics + training+strong team mates + best doping regimen.


Cycling has always been a doping sport, cycling will always be a doping sport.

Why would anyone expect it to be different to any other sport that makes top performers world famous multimillionares

Come on guys i can't believe so many people here on slowtwitch are fine with the Froome case. The guy doped, he has a powerfull lawyer team that push timeline so he can take part to the tour. If he had any chance of winning the case he would have tried to make it go quick. He'll be banned just after the tour. It is obviously very bad for the tour that its champion fall for doping 2 week after winning. Tour is already a complete joke. If i was managing it i would not want any more problems. It seem only fair and i really think it has nothing to do with some kind of french attitude.
I'll remind you guys that this french bashing was essentially fed to you by Bush administration to push Irak invasion, with the consequences you are aware of.
I really think neither bardet or barguil are up to the challenge but sport is made of miracle os one never know. Without Froome Sky is still a favorite but others looks better positioned. Our climber are not up to snuff with TT and have too many bad days.
We have a cool soccer/football team for the world cup that said, they could win but it's a much more uncertain sport than cycling for sure.

I'm not sure you can say it ruins the sport when it's always been a part of the sport, it's certainly been pretty common knowledge since well before any of us started following the sport. Nearly all the GT champions of yesteryear either failed a test at some point or simply came right out and stated that they doped. In the 30 years or so since Lemond about the only winners I can think of who aren't tainted in some way are Sastre and Evans. All the others either:
- failed a doping test at some point (Ullrich, Pantani, Contador)
- later admitted they were doping (Riis, Armstrong)
- had a dodgy TUE (Pereiro, Wiggins)
- rode for a team full of dopers with a doper manager (Nibali)
- lived, trained and rode on the same team as a doping brother (Schleck - OK this might be a bit unfair but hey, life's not fair)
- managed to win 5 Tours de France at the unchecked height of the EPO era despite being built like a brick shithouse (Indurain)

Going back further we had 5 time winner Merckx who was banned 3 times for doping, 5 time winner Anquetil who said you'd be a fool to race without doping, and world champion Tom Simpson who died in the TdF while on amphetamines.

Pretty hard for any cycling fan to claim the sport they grew to love was ever clean. Just really a question of how much doping you can tolerate before it becomes a joke. Seems people were OK with amphetamines, alcohol and painkillers because that was perceived as everyday stuff that just helped the riders deal with the pain of a GT race. But not OK with blood transfusions and injecting more exotic stuff like EPO, HGH, testosterone and steroids which basically made it impossible for a clean rider to win. By the standards of cycling's history, the current stuff riders are doing (or at least getting caught doing) like exceeding salbutamol thresholds is pretty tame. I actually think the sport's not bad at the moment, we're at least seeing riders having to measure out their efforts, struggling the day after a big attack, etc. Unlike the days when they could just attack every day and then get some fresh blood to go again the next day.

Not sure your logic stacks up, if Sky thought they had no chance of winning the case their best option would be to have got it over with as quickly as possible. Yates got a 4 month ban for asthma drugs without a TUE, I'm sure Sky's lawyers could have negotiated something similar and had him back racing in time for the Giro, or at least the Tour. If they think they're going to lose then dragging it on this long just means he would be stripped of more titles.

I don't think anybody is fine with the Froome case, there's not exactly a lot of love for Froome and Sky on here. But ignoring whether people like him or not, if we go by the rules then he hasn't failed a doping test, he's had an AAF which a) shouldn't be public knowledge until it's resolved and b) doesn't stop him from racing until it's resolved. So barring him from the race with less than a week to go when he hasn't been banned seems a bit of a dick move. And also deprives us of the opportunity to see if somebody can actually beat Froome on the road when he's got the Giro already in his legs and should be showing signs of weakness.

Another example of how cycling is so poorly run and administered. The ASO wants a decision from the UCI, but UCI has kicked the responsibility for making a decision over to WADA. The test result numbers show WADA that Froome was over "the limit" that had been established, but now the test and the resulting numbers might be questionable.

I don't have a problem with ASO (or any other organizer) making this sort of decision. As for the UCI, have the courage to make a decision in this case and move on.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

If the sport is not "that bad" like you say, it's because there are controls rules and regulations. I'm not here saying other riders are clean. I'm saying Froome did not respect the rules, AND was controlled positive. He should not race this time. If the rule says it's a 6 months ban and he ride the tour after that i'm quite fine with it, but his lawyer team clearly made so that the case could not be close before his potentially last winning tour. That's big bullshit and i think it's only fair from ASO to dodge it.

I thought it was determined that Salbutamol didn’t help improve performance

As you say, there are controls, rules and regulations. And according to those controls, rules and regulations an Adverse Analytical Finding isn't the same as a positive test and doesn't lead to an automatic ban. If the rules had been followed then this wouldn't even be in the public domain until it was resolved and we wouldn't be talking about it.

I think we can agree the whole thing is a shambles. As Alvin said above, between the UCI and WADA they should have manned up on this months ago and made a decision so that race organisers wouldn't be put in this position. If it hadn't been leaked then it could have gone on as long as they wanted, but once it was leaked they needed to sort it.