Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Professional Cycling For the Fans
Reload this Page >

Poll - What WILL happen to Froome?

Notices
Professional Cycling For the Fans Follow the Tour de France,the Giro de Italia, the Spring Classics, or other professional cycling races? Here's your home...
View Poll Results: What will actually happen to Froome? (multiple choice)
No suspension
42.59%
6 months suspension
37.04%
1 year suspension
14.81%
2 year suspension
3.70%
4+ years suspension
0
0%
DQ from Vuelta
48.15%
DQ from Worlds
12.96%
DQ from all 2017
0
0%
DQ from all Tour wins
0
0%
Take away all Sky winnings
1.85%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

Poll - What WILL happen to Froome?

Old 12-18-17, 02:42 PM
  #1  
Doge
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,351

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3326 Post(s)
Liked 299 Times in 214 Posts
Poll - What WILL happen to Froome?

No pontification on what you think should happen, rather what do you think is going to actually happen.

Multi choice, open poll.
Doge is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 08:22 AM
  #2  
Pemetic2006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,117
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 377 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
No suspension because he's taking something that's allowable.
Meanwhile.....the UCI is a joke when it comes to doping. If they truly wanted doping out of the sport there would be no second chances for anyone, ever.
Pemetic2006 is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 10:56 AM
  #3  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 13,139

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6324 Post(s)
Liked 1,277 Times in 730 Posts
He will get old and irrelevant like most athletes---he doesn't have the personality to be an announcer.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 11:15 AM
  #4  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 26,058
Mentioned: 209 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14487 Post(s)
Liked 2,441 Times in 1,817 Posts
I think he should be required to prove that he actually has asthma, and is using the Salbutamol for prescribed therapeutic usage.

Also, how close to the limit were all his other drug tests? Also, was this sample unusually concentrated? Other samples unusually dilute?

If he actually has asthma, then let this one result slide, but double up on random passport checks (and charge the expense for the extra scrutiny back to the team).
CliffordK is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 12:48 PM
  #5  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 13,139

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6324 Post(s)
Liked 1,277 Times in 730 Posts
Not sure why it matters if he has asthma or not. He was over the legal limit.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 04:01 PM
  #6  
Noctilux.95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 591

Bikes: Bianchi Oltre XR4 Celeste, De Rosa SK Pininfarina, Giant TCR SL, Giant Revolt Advanced Revolt 0 Gravel Bike, Trek Madone SLR, Cervelo R5 Disk

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 374 Post(s)
Liked 117 Times in 63 Posts
DQ from Vuelta with a 1-year suspension.
Noctilux.95 is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 05:14 PM
  #7  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 26,058
Mentioned: 209 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14487 Post(s)
Liked 2,441 Times in 1,817 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Not sure why it matters if he has asthma or not. He was over the legal limit.
I think it makes a difference with intent.

Nonetheless, it sounds like the path forward will will likely include a pharmacokinetic study.

Into the detail: Looking deeper into the Froome salbutamol case | Cyclist
Explainer: Salbutamol, asthma, and what comes next for Froome | VeloNews.com

The problem is that the standard is apparently an absolute concentration in urine. I.E. make an effort to dehydrate oneself, and the results of the pharmacokinetic study will likely show high, and he'll pass the test.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 06:31 PM
  #8  
Doge
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,351

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3326 Post(s)
Liked 299 Times in 214 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
I think it makes a difference with intent.

Nonetheless, it sounds like the path forward will will likely include a pharmacokinetic study.

Into the detail: Looking deeper into the Froome salbutamol case | Cyclist
Explainer: Salbutamol, asthma, and what comes next for Froome | VeloNews.com

The problem is that the standard is apparently an absolute concentration in urine. I.E. make an effort to dehydrate oneself, and the results of the pharmacokinetic study will likely show high, and he'll pass the test.
Well intent does matter. But I think it shouldn't. I think all TUEs should go away. If the racer needs "help" to be at the level of the other racers - they are less of a racer naturally.

That is of course, very cruel sounding, but where does it stop? I have low T or am a trans so I get T, or prosthesis, or get to ride in a golf cart....

I voted. He should get a penalty and lose at least a year of stuff.

Lance was never caught and lost 7 years . This needs to be more black and white. Mistakes should not count, and the penalties should be smaller and more frequent and more certain.
Doge is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 06:32 PM
  #9  
Marcus_Ti 
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
 
Marcus_Ti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,331

Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2348 Post(s)
Liked 399 Times in 250 Posts
No suspension...because he's Froome.


...Even though he was at least double over the allowed limit of a substance he has a TUE for.
Marcus_Ti is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 12:07 PM
  #10  
fantom1 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle of the desert
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge View Post
No pontification on what you think should happen
Why is it pontification to express one's opinions and not to express one's guesses about the future? It is almost exactly the same thing to express what you think will happen in some future event.

Some people...seriously. Maybe its time for some more 02 doping?
fantom1 is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 12:40 PM
  #11  
Doge
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,351

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3326 Post(s)
Liked 299 Times in 214 Posts
Originally Posted by fantom1 View Post
Why is it pontification to express one's opinions and not to express one's guesses about the future?
The subjects are different.

The pontification is what many are expressing in many threads of what should happen to Froome. That is also an interesting topic, but there are other threads on that.

I'm interested in the alignment between BF posters and what the sanctioning committee will do. It tells more about how educated we are, good guessers we are, on how the body responsible for eliminating doping works.


Originally Posted by fantom1 View Post
It is almost exactly the same thing to express what you think will happen in some future event. ...
It may be the same thing. It may be totally different. What each of us think should happen to Froome reflects our values about cycling, sport and not-being-in-compliance (doping).

This poll is about what we (BF posters) see as the sanctioning body's values/function, not our values.

Last edited by Doge; 12-21-17 at 01:21 PM.
Doge is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 04:02 PM
  #12  
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This thread would be pointless without pontification...

The guy should face the same fate as other recent offenders. It just doesn't seem like there's any logical explanation that clears him unless the test itself was botched.
Moose is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 04:11 PM
  #13  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 26,058
Mentioned: 209 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14487 Post(s)
Liked 2,441 Times in 1,817 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge View Post
I'm interested in the alignment between BF posters and what the sanctioning committee will do. It tells more about how educated we are, good guessers we are, on how the body responsible for eliminating doping works.
One thing I was wondering is whether it will come down to popularity.

If it is good for the sport/spectators/revenue/etc for Froome to stay, then he'll continue racing.
If it is better for the sport/spectators/revenue/etc for Froome to be kicked to the curb, then he will be kicked to the curb.

Because this drug is apparently being used for therapeutic reasons, it will be a tough call.

Armstrong might have been able to argue the use of steroids and EPO in the acute post cancer recovery phase, but continuing the use several years later was just plain cheating.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 05:43 PM
  #14  
Doge
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,351

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3326 Post(s)
Liked 299 Times in 214 Posts
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
This thread would be pointless without pontification...

The guy should face the same fate as other recent offenders. It just doesn't seem like there's any logical explanation that clears him unless the test itself was botched.
You just posted what should happen. Are you saying that will happen? That was my question.
Doge is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 05:48 PM
  #15  
Doge
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,351

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3326 Post(s)
Liked 299 Times in 214 Posts
It is my understanding WADA sets the standards AND the testing and UCI enforces/does the sanctioning - for World Tour cyclists.

Does anyone have different information on that?
Doge is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 06:14 PM
  #16  
Doge
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,351

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3326 Post(s)
Liked 299 Times in 214 Posts
Diego Ulissi banned for nine months for doping - Salbutamol . UCI gave this to the Swiss. The sentence was thought to be light by the reporter. I voted 6th months for Froome, but I'm thinking it might be a year based on this.

Diego Ulissi banned for nine months for doping - Cycling Weekly
Doge is offline  
Old 12-22-17, 01:25 AM
  #17  
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
He's going to have to go into the lab and recreate the conditions that led to the double-allowable concentration. The problem he's going to face is that if he can't perfectly recreate those conditions, he may have used an allowable number of hits of an allowable dose, but something (respiratory tract infection?) unique to what he was going through at the time caused the higher urine concentration.

For Froome's sake, and for the sake of an extra-fun-to-watch Giro this year, I hope the higher concentration found in his urine was simply the result of dehydration, in which case the lab pharmacokinetic study will clear him.

I'm torn on allowing this drug to be used. It restores lung function to "normal" in athletes with exercised-induced asthma. That's actually an advantage, since all athletes suffer some bronchial constriction during hard efforts, but only those with eia get theirs cleared by the drugs. On the other hand, if it wasn't allowed to be used then we would be deprived of many great performances by athletes who are suffering from something that may not be their fault. I guess we could just let everyone use it, but that forces all athletes to be drug users. No good answers here.
B. Carfree is offline  
Old 12-22-17, 02:38 AM
  #18  
Nooner
If you brake you dont win
 
Nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 102

Bikes: Santa Cruz Bronson, Trek Remedy 9.8, Cervelo S3, Kona Big Honzo, Cannondale R500, DiamondBack Apex, one storage unit my wife knows nothing about, and one ball crushing unicycle for kicks

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
I think Froome will receive a one year ban for the extra puff puff.


Nooner is offline  
Old 12-22-17, 01:11 PM
  #19  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 4,528
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 460 Times in 260 Posts
Originally Posted by Doge View Post
Diego Ulissi banned for nine months for doping - Salbutamol . UCI gave this to the Swiss. The sentence was thought to be light by the reporter. I voted 6th months for Froome, but I'm thinking it might be a year based on this.

Diego Ulissi banned for nine months for doping - Cycling Weekly
I voted 6 month suspension, + DQ Vuelta and Worlds results; suspension back-dated to test date. That would allow participation in Giro/Tour in '18.

That's what I think will happen. What I think should happen: 1 year suspension + loss of Vuelta/Worlds results.
badger1 is offline  
Old 12-27-17, 05:07 PM
  #20  
torero310
Senior Member
 
torero310's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 86

Bikes: Nashbar Carbon 105

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Just out of curiosity (idk who is familiar with UCI rules on bans) but if Froome "abused" salbutamol, no matter what he will be banned (even if it was without knowledge/intentions?) and if he proves for example, that he was dehydrated, yielding a higher concentration of stuff to water, than that means that he could theoretically be waived from all charges?
EDIT: I doubt Sky can prove this, unless they suggest that Froome had less water during the race, therefore even if it was cooler, he was dehydrated... Which is why I voted for 6months-2 year suspension and DQ on Vuelta. I may have voted DQ on Worlds, but I am not quite sure why UCI would ban him for the Worlds. He only had that finding on the Vuelta, and I'm not sure that salbutamol would affect his performance for that long.

Last edited by torero310; 12-27-17 at 05:11 PM.
torero310 is offline  
Old 12-27-17, 06:40 PM
  #21  
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by torero310 View Post
I may have voted DQ on Worlds, but I am not quite sure why UCI would ban him for the Worlds. He only had that finding on the Vuelta, and I'm not sure that salbutamol would affect his performance for that long.
If he is suspended for an infraction, don't you think that any wins he got subsequent to the infraction that are within the suspension period should be disqualified? That's one of the troublesome things about this case...other riders are typically dealt with more swiftly after a failed test but CF was allowed to carry on business-as-usual whilst the results were kept under wraps.
Moose is offline  
Old 12-27-17, 06:57 PM
  #22  
torero310
Senior Member
 
torero310's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 86

Bikes: Nashbar Carbon 105

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
If he is suspended for an infraction, don't you think that any wins he got subsequent to the infraction that are within the suspension period should be disqualified? That's one of the troublesome things about this case...other riders are typically dealt with more swiftly after a failed test but CF was allowed to carry on business-as-usual whilst the results were kept under wraps.
Ohhhhhhh now I understand... I play chess and so it's more of a black and white thing with cheating... I think it would just make more sense to impose the ban when the person is convicted (e.g. Froome is proven to have abused salbutamol on January 13th, 2018 based on the adverse analytical findings during the 2017 Vuelta. Froome will have his Vuelta title stripped and the 2 year suspension will be imposed from January 13th,2018-January 13th-2020). But maybe that's just me. Because it's not like he doped during the World TT right? I mean unless there is science that proves that it has long-term affects, I see no reason as to strip other titles, just make the suspension start later and end later.
EDIT: This shows you how much I know about cycling on the Pro level XD
torero310 is offline  
Old 12-28-17, 06:06 AM
  #23  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 13,139

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6324 Post(s)
Liked 1,277 Times in 730 Posts
Originally Posted by torero310 View Post
Ohhhhhhh now I understand... I play chess and so it's more of a black and white thing with cheating...
EDIT: This shows you how much I know about cycling on the Pro level XD
You make the mistake of thinking that pro cycling has rules, and that there are concept of "cheating" and "not cheating."

In fact, the concepts are more subtle, such as: cheating wehile being French or cheating while not being French; cheating while being famous versus cheating while not being famous; and cheating while being rich and cheating while being poor.

Froome is safe on two out of three so probably he will be judged not to have cheated.

But since there are no set "rules" one never can be sure.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 12-28-17, 06:54 AM
  #24  
texaspandj
Senior Member
 
texaspandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Heart Of Texas
Posts: 4,139

Bikes: '85, '86 , '87 , '88 , '89 Centurion Dave Scott Ironman.

Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1552 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times in 318 Posts
Armstrong had everything going against him brash, bravado, American.
Froome is nothing like that so No suspension, possibly a slap on the wrist in the form of a stern letter.
texaspandj is offline  
Old 12-29-17, 03:38 AM
  #25  
ooga-booga
lead on, macduff!
 
ooga-booga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: insane diego, california
Posts: 6,678

Bikes: 85 pinarello treviso steel, 88 nishiki olympic steel. 95 look kg 131 carbon, 11 trek madone 5.2 carbon

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1126 Post(s)
Liked 1,508 Times in 830 Posts
i voted six months, so he misses the giro-big deal, he wasn't gonna do it anyway. i'd be surprised if he misses the tdf. do they pull his results from the vuelta? maybe.
am i a fan? absolutely not. the whole it's better to beg forgiveness than ask for permission nonsense in pro cycling in regards to abuse of tue's is ridiculous. he should get a 2 year ban and have the 2017 vuelta title result stripped but i think that's an unlikely scenario.
ooga-booga is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.