I don't get it. Why is Froome even riding the Giro d'Italia

axisus

Sky cycling team, my opinion of them is pretty low these days. Have they no shame. They put up a joke defence of Wiggins (we lost the only computer with records on). Now they have Froome racing when he is accused of being a drugs cheat. If he is innocent prove it, and get him off that bike until you have done so. The race will be ruined if he laters gets charged with cheating, so don't even have him there, it's an insult to the race and other riders if you ask me. Glad to see that le Tour actually won't let him ride unless it's been resolved. 

If I were a sponsor of that team I'd have withdrawn a long time ago. Brailsford should have fallen on his sword.

duotone

Agreed!

shoodurs

I see what you mean but each case is different and innocent till proved guilty. What bothers me is surely the drug testers etc have had enough time by the start of the Giro to formaly charge Froome.  Shouldnt tar everyone with the same brush but even I'm starting to doubt Froomes innocence by how much ventolin helps. For me during karate up to my black belt it helped taking my inhaler before the start of training and an attack.
I think this might be Froome and Skys one and only chance of public support if he dosent perform VERY soon!!

Funkfingers

At present, the law presumes innocence until proven guilty/culpable. 

Proof of innocence is a common requirement under totalitarian regimes. Kangaroo courts. 

Innocence is a negative. It is often difficult to prove a negative. How would one demonstrate that banned performance enhancement substances had NEVER been in one's blood stream? The onus is on the regulatory authorities to prove beyond reasonable doubt that such substances have been used - either during a race or in the training period leading up to the race. 

If a cyclist under suspicion is allowed to compete but, later, proven to have been cheating, it is easy to strip him or her of the rewards of any ill-gotten success.

If that same cyclist under suspicion is prevented from entering races without concrete proof of cheating, litigation is likely to follow.

All of the above is in the realms of the hypothetical. I share your suspicions that Team SKY is a bunch of crooks but I have no proof. 

It is all too easy to accuse pretty much anyone of pretty much anything. Without supporting evidence, any accusatory assertion is invalid.

Teetonetal

Cycling and sport in general has a huge problem with drugs. At a base level, Froome has asthma and therefore can't compete at an equal level without drugs. That sort of makes a mockery of the whole thing before we even start. Take the asthma drugs away and Froome, like many others, is not a pro level athlete.

So because you allow TUEs you immediately have a problem. It's a double door that allows cheats to cheat and innocent athletes acting in good faith to make an error.

It's such a big blurred line and I think sport has a huge problem that it can't solve.

BRISTOL86

I know nothing about cycling but surely it’s for someone to prove that he’s guilty not his team to prove that he’s not? 

cj73

If you bar asthmatic pro cyclists from competing without drugs it’ll make the paralympics interesting. 

PC_Dave

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I have asthma, and I take ventolin. It helps me breathe by opening up my airways - it doesn’t make me faster, or stronger. It doesn’t make me physically capable of riding hundreds of kilometres a day at near full chat. It doesn’t “condition” me in any way, and if I take too much it makes me shake like a shitting dog.

I’m not saying anything regarding Froome, as mentioned above, innocent until proven guilty, but the notion that ventolin turns you into some superhuman super athlete is rather over the top, in my opinion. 

TheBigDipper

Here's my understanding...  Froome isn't accused of using a banned drug. He's accused of using too much of a permitted drug. From memory, the test that was used involved measuring the amount of the drug in his urine - immediately after a race stage - when he was highly dehydrated. The authorities are saying if you have this reading then you must have taken more than you are permitted. Sky are saying he didn't, and they can prove the test isn't good enough when post-stage, dehydrated cyclists are involved and that a false reading can result in certain circumstances.

I'm OK with the idea that he can race until this business is resolved one way or the other, but I don't understand why neither side can get it resolved faster than they've been able to, or who is causing the delay.

Grand Tour cycling is a sport of physical attrition. Every team tries to gain advantage wherever they can without crossing the line (or getting caught). I didn't trust Team Sky when they made a thing of being clean several years ago and I don't trust the teams (like Sunweb) who are being holier-than-thou at the moment because they can. 

I can't stop watching the bloody racing, though! 

Kalimna

I don't know the details of the Froome case, but regarding the use of salbutamol as a performance-enhancer. Whether you have asthma or not, the act of the drug to widen the airways will allow more oxygen to reach the blood, and therefore muscles. This extra oxygen will confer an improvement, whatever the baseline.
Will it turn anyone into a world class athlete? Of course not, but then neither will going from a Halfords-special bike to a custom built CF frame and components made from unobtanium. What it will do is give a slight improvement, which may be enough to win a race that would otherwise be lost.
Adam

thecolourbox

If they are certain he is innocent then withdrawing him from races would seem an odd thing to do to me

MrBump

I'm with Frankie Boyle on this - we should encourage drugs in sport, up to and including medical body modifications.  Froome competing in the Tour De France  with the legs of a kangaroo would be an awesome thing to behold.

Teetonetal

PC_Dave said:

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I have asthma, and I take ventolin. It helps me breathe by opening up my airways - it doesn’t make me faster, or stronger. It doesn’t make me physically capable of riding hundreds of kilometres a day at near full chat. It doesn’t “condition” me in any way, and if I take too much it makes me shake like a shitting dog.

I’m not saying anything regarding Froome, as mentioned above, innocent until proven guilty, but the notion that ventolin turns you into some superhuman super athlete is rather over the top, in my opinion. 

That's not my point. I don't believe that salbutamol enhances performance or turns him superhuman , but it allows him to train.

He requires the drug to be a pro athlete even if it doesn't have performance enhancing affects, he needs it to allow him to train at the required level, without it, I'm sure he would  not be able to train effectively and would not be at his current level. It's an enabler.

Wada allow it,  but put a ceiling on it's limits.

My point is for WADA it's a pandora's box - what drugs to allow, how much, under what circumstances. It's insanely complex and easy to break by all accounts.

axisus

BRISTOL86 said:

I know nothing about cycling but surely it’s for someone to prove that he’s guilty not his team to prove that he’s not? 

Well, they have proof already that he had too much of a drug in his system, so the onus is firmly on Sky to explain why. 

I still believe that he/they have not deliberately cheated here, but I just think that you can't be racing with this hanging over you. It needs resolution.

Phil_aka_Pip

Teetonetal said:

Cycling ... has is a huge problem ..

Round my way they'll close the roads for it. As if ordinary people don't need the roads for the kind of things people usually need the roads for. I don't mind a bit if people want to travel on pedal-powered bicycles. I just fail to see why people who want to race on pedal-powered bicycles can't do it on a track instead of using the roads as their own private recreation ground. (Same goes for runners ...)

[ retreats to cries of Spoilsport Petrolhead etc]

joneve

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Teetonetal said:

Cycling ... has is a huge problem ..

Round my way they'll close the roads for it. As if ordinary people don't need the roads for the kind of things people usually need the roads for. I don't mind a bit if people want to travel on pedal-powered bicycles. I just fail to see why people who want to race on pedal-powered bicycles can't do it on a track instead of using the roads as their own private recreation ground. (Same goes for runners ...)

[ retreats to cries of Spoilsport Petrolhead etc]

The majority of closed road events are held and heavily supported by runners/cyclists who are raising hundreds and thousands for charity...so a few hours on a saturday for a bit of inconvenience isn't really a big deal, is it? 

Phil_aka_Pip

Depends on whether you have somewhere to go and something to do when you get there.

Fretwired

I thought taking drugs was compulsory in cycling? The shit hits the fan when you get caught but these days you can get around it. Froome should be sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline ..

Teetonetal

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Teetonetal said:

Cycling ... has is a huge problem ..

Round my way they'll close the roads for it. As if ordinary people don't need the roads for the kind of things people usually need the roads for. I don't mind a bit if people want to travel on pedal-powered bicycles. I just fail to see why people who want to race on pedal-powered bicycles can't do it on a track instead of using the roads as their own private recreation ground. (Same goes for runners ...)

[ retreats to cries of Spoilsport Petrolhead etc]

You have posted this before.

You could apply the same logic to any kind of event that takes place in a public area or that effects local people.

Its the same logic applied by people who move next to a venue then demand it's closure due to noise.

It's a selfish attitude. I don't like it therefore we shouldn't allow it.

I'm all for events in public places. Well advertsed,  plenty of warning, buy into it and enjoy.

crunchman

Round my way there are tens of thousands of cars every day driving within 100m of my house spewing out obnoxious nitrous oxides and particulates.  Most of them are probably doing journeys that are short enough to cycle and/or are quicker by public transport.

Back to the original subject, Sky need to prove that Froome can generate those readings of Salbutamol legitimately.  That's probably not a simple test to set up.  If he does get banned then I'm sure they will then take it to the CAS.

Fretwired

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Teetonetal said:

Cycling ... has is a huge problem ..

Round my way they'll close the roads for it. As if ordinary people don't need the roads for the kind of things people usually need the roads for. I don't mind a bit if people want to travel on pedal-powered bicycles. I just fail to see why people who want to race on pedal-powered bicycles can't do it on a track instead of using the roads as their own private recreation ground. (Same goes for runners ...)

[ retreats to cries of Spoilsport Petrolhead etc]

If it gives people pleasure why not? I assume you get notice. We have races where I live and we get plenty of notice so its not really an issue. An excuse to walk to the pub and watch ..