August 16, 2022 Login  

That was fast! (and precedent?)
Last Post 06/12/2018 11:22 PM by Frederick Jones. 4 Replies.
Printer Friendly
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages


06/11/2018 11:24 AM
UCI outlaws speed gel in three days after Lotto-Soudal uses it to a 3rd place in the Dauphine TTT.

Could the fact that UCI has yet to take any action on Froome's 42% over on Salbutamol be used as a precedent for another rider testing high, the arguing that he should get the next 8 months of racing "free" with all results standing? He could point out that UCI can and does take action quickly when they feel it matters.

The cynic in me sees UCI thinking bottom line, that repeat TdF winners and highly funded teams are far more important than Lotto-Soudal.  Things look a little better at UCI than in 2000-2006 but I am tasting some of the same flavor.

Orange Crush


06/12/2018 03:25 PM
The flavor you are tasting is still courtesy of Cookson's 2000-2006 reign, specifically the establishment of the anti-doping tribunal that is independent of the UCI. The tribunal sets the timelines etc, very little UCI has control over. Still better than the previous incestuous situation where the Froome case would have been dealt with internally by British Cycling, one of the few things Cookson got right (then again WADA demanded it, so he didn't have much choice).

As said, the independent tribunal sets the timeline. Simple case, the timeline will be short. Conversely, I'm going to guess that Froome's posh defense will have applied the shock and awe principle, blanketing the tribunal with information to cast reasonable doubt. Consequent, long timeline as the panel will have to work their way through all that material.

The gel is a matter for UCI commissaries and equipment regulations. A bit capricious and arbitrary but they do tend to be quick. Completely different ballgame.
Orange Crush


06/12/2018 03:46 PM
Here is a good explainer about what Froome's legal defense is up to (questioning the fundamentals of the testing, which has implications for WADA code) and why this is dragging on, as well as why likely he'll be found guilty:


06/12/2018 07:39 PM
Thanks OC. That was a good read.


06/12/2018 11:22 PM
Yes, Thanks for the link, interesting to read.
An important detail that I think they underemphasized is that a urine test for a drug that is legal up to a point is always on shaky ground. Rider hydration status and how recently they emptied their bladder on the road can affect urine concentration so much that urine concentration does not correlate well with blood levels. Not saying that Puff Daddy didn't sneak a few extra puffs, just saying that the case against him on a scientific basis is not as strong as many other doping cases we've watched. I think they should just drop it and in the future blood test for the inhaler drug and its metabolites - that would avoid the imperfections of testing urine in dehydrated or not dehydrated riders. And they should test Froome like crazy, just like they went after Tyler Hamilton until they nailed him.
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Active Forums 4.1

Latest Forum Posts
About to splurge on shoes! posted in Gear Advice

Wee paws for instant disqualification posted in Professional Racing

The real reason TdF Femmes should go 3 weeks posted in Professional Racing

Buh bye... posted in The Coffee Shop

Mortality posted in Off-Topic

Girmay's new helmet posted in Professional Racing

Tour Femmes avec Zwift posted in Professional Racing

No articles match criteria.
  Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy  Copyright 2008-2013 by VeloNation LLC