The professional cycling thread
Discussion
Some Gump said:
If Gump rose to power, there would be no duration on drugs bans. Get caught, find a new career.
I'd also have all TUE's published, or preferably just remove them. I get that would be discriminationary, but meh you','re trying to find the best cyclist in the world. It's not meant to be an inclusive "anyone's have a go" club!
Far too simplistic, would you be happy to be sacked and unable to continue in your employment for on the basis of some medical test data.I'd also have all TUE's published, or preferably just remove them. I get that would be discriminationary, but meh you','re trying to find the best cyclist in the world. It's not meant to be an inclusive "anyone's have a go" club!
There are plenty of ways to fail a drugs test which don't involve a criminal conspiracy. With the current biological passport we essentially also fail people for having "drug use like symptoms" even if no PED use can be detected.
Hence why the current system is a significant ban first with repeat offenders getting a lifetime ban.
Secondly doctors and TUE's, you cannot avoid having doctors in a sport where the engine is a human going to the maximum of physiology.
The purpose of the TUE system is specifically to protect rider health. Riders are focused individuals you can see by the risks to their own health from PED's that riders were prepared to take to win.
Getting rid of the TUE scheme would essentially be the same in reverse, riders with a whole load of conditions wouldn't stop riding, they just risk riding untreated and we'd have people suffering/damaging themselves/dying of treatable illnesses.
In my view anti-doping has gone too far:
The current system is based on some purity based position which is almost similar to the original olympics organisers who considered practicing or professionalism to be cheating.
My view is that it would be a lot more pragmatic to view anti-doping as harm reduction.
The really effective doping products EPO, HGH, testosterone, Blood boosting, steroids come with substantial health negatives. If someone is using them they effectively force everyone else to use them, these products and their masking agents should be illegal.
Stuff that can be bought without prescription over the counter and has very marginal performance enhancing potential should not be banned.
spikeyhead said:
JPJPJP said:
That does look explosive, far tighter racing on short stages
I love it. What's the total elevation gain?
(How does it compare to the World Champs course this year? I seem to remember that has a bit of climbing. Perhaps this will give an indication of who will do well in Austria (I think.)
Talksteer said:
Far too simplistic, would you be happy to be sacked and unable to continue in your employment for on the basis of some medical test data.
There are plenty of ways to fail a drugs test which don't involve a criminal conspiracy. With the current biological passport we essentially also fail people for having "drug use like symptoms" even if no PED use can be detected.
Hence why the current system is a significant ban first with repeat offenders getting a lifetime ban.
Secondly doctors and TUE's, you cannot avoid having doctors in a sport where the engine is a human going to the maximum of physiology.
The purpose of the TUE system is specifically to protect rider health. Riders are focused individuals you can see by the risks to their own health from PED's that riders were prepared to take to win.
Getting rid of the TUE scheme would essentially be the same in reverse, riders with a whole load of conditions wouldn't stop riding, they just risk riding untreated and we'd have people suffering/damaging themselves/dying of treatable illnesses.
In my view anti-doping has gone too far:
The current system is based on some purity based position which is almost similar to the original olympics organisers who considered practicing or professionalism to be cheating.
My view is that it would be a lot more pragmatic to view anti-doping as harm reduction.
The really effective doping products EPO, HGH, testosterone, Blood boosting, steroids come with substantial health negatives. If someone is using them they effectively force everyone else to use them, these products and their masking agents should be illegal.
Stuff that can be bought without prescription over the counter and has very marginal performance enhancing potential should not be banned.
Plenty people get sacked for alcohol blood readings and drug related findings which for many will preclude them from their employment.There are plenty of ways to fail a drugs test which don't involve a criminal conspiracy. With the current biological passport we essentially also fail people for having "drug use like symptoms" even if no PED use can be detected.
Hence why the current system is a significant ban first with repeat offenders getting a lifetime ban.
Secondly doctors and TUE's, you cannot avoid having doctors in a sport where the engine is a human going to the maximum of physiology.
The purpose of the TUE system is specifically to protect rider health. Riders are focused individuals you can see by the risks to their own health from PED's that riders were prepared to take to win.
Getting rid of the TUE scheme would essentially be the same in reverse, riders with a whole load of conditions wouldn't stop riding, they just risk riding untreated and we'd have people suffering/damaging themselves/dying of treatable illnesses.
In my view anti-doping has gone too far:
The current system is based on some purity based position which is almost similar to the original olympics organisers who considered practicing or professionalism to be cheating.
My view is that it would be a lot more pragmatic to view anti-doping as harm reduction.
The really effective doping products EPO, HGH, testosterone, Blood boosting, steroids come with substantial health negatives. If someone is using them they effectively force everyone else to use them, these products and their masking agents should be illegal.
Stuff that can be bought without prescription over the counter and has very marginal performance enhancing potential should not be banned.
The problem with TUEs is not the fact that athletes who genuinely need them but the cheats who use them for "marginal gains" and to mask other PEDs!
I simply don't understand why Froome is allowed to keep competing,he should have been suspended until he proves that the reading was wrong and it does not matter if it gave no advantage because the dosage has been massively surpassed and other riders have been banned for the same offence!
Why have rules if you are not going to in force them for certain people?
Campagnolo said:
Why have rules if you are not going to in force them for certain people?
An AAF is not the same as failing a drugs test.The rules are that if you fail a drugs test, you get banned.
If you provide an AAF, you can continue to race until it is resolved one way or the other. There's no conspiracy or special treatment here.
lauda said:
An AAF is not the same as failing a drugs test.
The rules are that if you fail a drugs test, you get banned.
If you provide an AAF, you can continue to race until it is resolved one way or the other. There's no conspiracy or special treatment here.
It would be disastrous for cycling if Froome was to win the TdF and then have all 3 GTs taken off him for doping! The rules are that if you fail a drugs test, you get banned.
If you provide an AAF, you can continue to race until it is resolved one way or the other. There's no conspiracy or special treatment here.
lauda said:
Campagnolo said:
It would be disastrous for cycling if Froome was to win the TdF and then have all 3 GTs taken off him for doping!
It would. But as things stand today, he’s been found guilty of nothing, so why shouldn’t he ride the Tour?
I don't really think you can blame Sky / Froome (or even Wiggin's), they are just playing the woefully inadequate system.
Frankly a sport with a drug problem, or history of drug problems should have a much more robust system in place to prevent cases like this dragging on.
SKY seem to have bombarded the UCI with information in the hope of delaying until after the TDF when I suspect Froome will retire.
Frankly a sport with a drug problem, or history of drug problems should have a much more robust system in place to prevent cases like this dragging on.
SKY seem to have bombarded the UCI with information in the hope of delaying until after the TDF when I suspect Froome will retire.
idiotgap said:
WestyCarl said:
...after the TDF when I suspect Froome will retire.
It's hard to imagine having won the giro and the tour he won't have a crack at the vuelta and try for the all 3 in a year, 5 grands on the bounce. G said as much on bespoke last week.Campagnolo said:
Plenty people get sacked for alcohol blood readings and drug related findings which for many will preclude them from their employment.
The problem with TUEs is not the fact that athletes who genuinely need them but the cheats who use them for "marginal gains" and to mask other PEDs!
I simply don't understand why Froome is allowed to keep competing,he should have been suspended until he proves that the reading was wrong and it does not matter if it gave no advantage because the dosage has been massively surpassed and other riders have been banned for the same offence!
Why have rules if you are not going to in force them for certain people?
You clearly don't understand the rules:The problem with TUEs is not the fact that athletes who genuinely need them but the cheats who use them for "marginal gains" and to mask other PEDs!
I simply don't understand why Froome is allowed to keep competing,he should have been suspended until he proves that the reading was wrong and it does not matter if it gave no advantage because the dosage has been massively surpassed and other riders have been banned for the same offence!
Why have rules if you are not going to in force them for certain people?
As Salbutamol is not a PED Froome returned a adverse analytical finding.
WADA Rules say:
The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000ng/ml or formoterol in excess of 40ng/ml is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.
The only rule which has currently been violated is that this is meant to be done in private (I wonder what the nationality of the person who leaked this was....). Furthermore:
Pursuant to Article 7.9.1 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the presence of a Specified Substance such as Salbutamol in a sample does not result in the imposition of such mandatory provisional suspension against the rider.
Thus he is free to race until the enquirely concludes.
My suspicion is that Froome will probably end up getting the whole salbutamol test invalidated by demonstrating that proportion of people taking the legal dose will have higher than permitted measurements in that urine.
While a few people did receive suspensions from competition more people have successfully proved that they did not exceed the dosage.
Official Sky statement sticks it to Hinault:
'It is disappointing that Bernard Hinault has, once again, repeated factually incorrect comments about a case he clearly does not understand.
‘His comments are irresponsible and ill-informed. Chris has not had a positive test, rather an adverse analytical finding for a prescribed asthma medication. As an ex-rider himself, Bernard will appreciate the need for fairness for each and every athlete. And at the current time, Chris is entitled to race.
‘This process would normally be confidential to protect the athlete and establish the facts. Unfortunately, it was leaked. However, both Chris and the team are following the process that has been put in place by the UCI.
‘It is clearly a difficult situation which no one wants resolved more quickly than Chris and the team.
‘Chris and Team Sky are fully-focused on the upcoming Tour de France and won’t let these uneducated comments affect our preparation for the greatest race in the world.’
'It is disappointing that Bernard Hinault has, once again, repeated factually incorrect comments about a case he clearly does not understand.
‘His comments are irresponsible and ill-informed. Chris has not had a positive test, rather an adverse analytical finding for a prescribed asthma medication. As an ex-rider himself, Bernard will appreciate the need for fairness for each and every athlete. And at the current time, Chris is entitled to race.
‘This process would normally be confidential to protect the athlete and establish the facts. Unfortunately, it was leaked. However, both Chris and the team are following the process that has been put in place by the UCI.
‘It is clearly a difficult situation which no one wants resolved more quickly than Chris and the team.
‘Chris and Team Sky are fully-focused on the upcoming Tour de France and won’t let these uneducated comments affect our preparation for the greatest race in the world.’
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff