Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Aerodynamic aids allowed on skinsuits for Sky but Gel not allowed for Lotto. Do they seriously wonder why people get upset about inconsistency?

DS

The suits used are not unique to Sky (they were not even the first to use them) and the ruling is consistent.

Consistent with what Alex? Has there been other examples of a spray or paint on surface?

Consistent in regard to what's considered integral part of clothing and what's not. e.g. stick on aero trip strips you can place on your lower leg, or additional items which change the form/shape of the suit for aero purposes are not permitted but strategically placed seams are OK, since a seam is a normal feature of cycle clothing.

Article 1.3.033 applies, see it here along with an explanation guide for interpretation:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rule ... nglish.pdf

[AUbicycles]

Consistence with being permitted to race.

Really getting unhappy that the Tour de France is almost upon us and Froome will be part of it but still hasn’t resolved his unanswered doping issues.

Shouldn’t other riders and teams be getting upset about this? It is a competitive threat from a rider who appears to have been cheating?

[biker jk]

The suits used are not unique to Sky (they were not even the first to use them) and the ruling is consistent.

Consistent with what Alex? Has there been other examples of a spray or paint on surface?

Consistent in regard to what's considered integral part of clothing and what's not. e.g. stick on aero trip strips you can place on your lower leg, or additional items which change the form/shape of the suit for aero purposes are not permitted but strategically placed seams are OK, since a seam is a normal feature of cycle clothing.

Article 1.3.033 applies, see it here along with an explanation guide for interpretation:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rule ... nglish.pdf

A seam is a normal feature but dimples are non-essential, so I'm at loss as to why the Sky aerodynamic aids were permitted.

[AUbicycles]

Let Team Sky have their dimples... they have to hit 300kmh like a golfball to start reaping the benefit of dimples. Until then it is just psychological and marketing.

[MichaelB]

Let Team Sky have their dimples... they have to hit 300kmh like a golfball to start reaping the benefit of dimples. Until then it is just psychological and marketing.

NO IT"S NOT !!!

Marginal gains man !!!! Marginal Gains !!!!

[vosadrian]

Really getting unhappy that the Tour de France is almost upon us and Froome will be part of it but still hasn’t resolved his unanswered doping issues.

Shouldn’t other riders and teams be getting upset about this? It is a competitive threat from a rider who appears to have been cheating?

You should complain to the UCI/WADA. He is just following the rules they make after-all. Pity the guys doing the drug testing didn't follow the rules by keeping the adverse results anonymous and none of the controversy would be happening.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Consistent with what Alex? Has there been other examples of a spray or paint on surface?

Consistent in regard to what's considered integral part of clothing and what's not. e.g. stick on aero trip strips you can place on your lower leg, or additional items which change the form/shape of the suit for aero purposes are not permitted but strategically placed seams are OK, since a seam is a normal feature of cycle clothing.

Article 1.3.033 applies, see it here along with an explanation guide for interpretation:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rule ... nglish.pdf

A seam is a normal feature but dimples are non-essential, so I'm at loss as to why the Sky aerodynamic aids were permitted.

i. The nature of the fabric was presented to the UCI technical committee and deemed OK since it conforms to the shape of the body. That is within the very same rules I posted a link to.

ii. Sky were not the first or only team or riders to use such suits. Singling out Sky on this point is a logical fallacy. They are simply following what other smarter people had already been doing. Keep in mind amateurs are well ahead of pro teams when it comes to development and use of such items.

[AUbicycles]

You should complain to the UCI/WADA. He is just following the rules they make after-all. Pity the guys doing the drug testing didn't follow the rules by keeping the adverse results anonymous and none of the controversy would be happening.

Ok - I have sent a mail off to the UCI.

The preferred scenario with the current rules is that Froome is a gentleman and announces his will no compete until it is over. This means that *when* he is cleared, he is applauded for his sportsmanship and it saves millions of fans from wondering why he is allowed to race following the failed test.

[biker jk]

You should complain to the UCI/WADA. He is just following the rules they make after-all. Pity the guys doing the drug testing didn't follow the rules by keeping the adverse results anonymous and none of the controversy would be happening.

Ok - I have sent a mail off to the UCI.

The preferred scenario with the current rules is that Froome is a gentleman and announces his will no compete until it is over. This means that *when* he is cleared, he is applauded for his sportsmanship and it saves millions of fans from wondering why he is allowed to race following the failed test.

Indeed, Sky claim they never joined the MPCC because their own ethical standards were higher. Of course, MPCC members would stand down a cyclist with an AAF like Froome.

[vosadrian]

You guys just have your own set of ethical expectations that have nothing to do with the requirements and rules of the sport. Any competitive sport can expect the rules to be pushed to the absolute limits in an attempt for a competitive advantage. If the rules allow this, then the rules are the problem so direct your dissatisfaction at them rather than the competitor who is simply following the rules.

I understand the current situation could see him win races and be stripped later and you don't like that and you think he is not a gentlemen because he should respect your rules rather than the sports rules. I don't like the rules myself... but it is the rules that are allowing this, and he probably does not care if you think he is not a gentleman. He would not be the first cyclist to shrug off what some people think is gentlemanly.

[fat and old]

The suits used are not unique to Sky (they were not even the first to use them) and the ruling is consistent.

Consistent with what Alex? Has there been other examples of a spray or paint on surface?

Consistent in regard to what's considered integral part of clothing and what's not. e.g. stick on aero trip strips you can place on your lower leg, or additional items which change the form/shape of the suit for aero purposes are not permitted but strategically placed seams are OK, since a seam is a normal feature of cycle clothing.

Article 1.3.033 applies, see it here along with an explanation guide for interpretation:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rule ... nglish.pdf

Thanks.

[AUbicycles]

I have no problems having a different point of view on this and just today, on suggestion of another, I wrote to the UCI to express my discontent with the rules - yes, the rules allow this rider who has failed the doping tests to continue riding. When you mention 'your rules' they are far from my own rules as they are shared by a lot of cycling fans and cycling media.

In the protour there are traditions which are followed as rules such as the last stage of the Tour de France where is it generally accepted that the GC lead is not challenged. When there are mechanicals, it is considered bad form for another rider (Contador) to attack and there are other situations where riders are put in their place although they are acting within the general rules. It is considered 'good form' by most competitors to follow these traditions.

If the rules allow this, then the rules are the problem so direct your dissatisfaction at them rather than the competitor who is simply following the rules

The competitor who simply followed the rules also failed the doping tests (A and B Sample) which was certainly not within the rules. The rules allow for a process but the dispute is not whether the rider failed the doping tests - but whether the discrepancy amounts to doping.


In a nutshell, I am discontent with the rules and it affects my joy and support of professional cycling - and it pivots around the participation of the single rider who has a very real chance of a podium position but with unresolved doping failure. If Froome withdraws, this would be a solution for me and many others although the rules allow him to compete and the repercussions are a continuing 'doping cloud' over cycling, potential failed races (where the podium riders are DQ, juniors and club riders and other aspiring riders face a increased challenges gaining sponsorship and support as the sport is tarnished.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

In the protour there are traditions which are followed as rules such as the last stage of the Tour de France where is it generally accepted that the GC lead is not challenged. When there are mechanicals, it is considered bad form for another rider (Contador) to attack and there are other situations where riders are put in their place although they are acting within the general rules. It is considered 'good form' by most competitors to follow these traditions.

These are matters of professional etiquette, not rules. Doping is a matter of rules, as much as we may wish it, etiquette doesn't really come into play.

The rules allow for a process but the dispute is not whether the rider failed the doping tests - but whether the discrepancy amounts to doping.

That's contradictory. If the discrepancy puts them under the limit for a specified substance, or the test is invalid for process/control reasons, then it wasn't doping. So yes, the dispute *is* about whether it was doping.

The chances of overturning are slim but the WADA procedures, as imperfect as they may be, permits such due process. Perfect process isn't really possible.

In a nutshell, I am discontent with the rules and it affects my joy and support of professional cycling - and it pivots around the participation of the single rider who has a very real chance of a podium position but with unresolved doping failure. If Froome withdraws, this would be a solution for me and many others although the rules allow him to compete and the repercussions are a continuing 'doping cloud' over cycling, potential failed races (where the podium riders are DQ, juniors and club riders and other aspiring riders face a increased challenges gaining sponsorship and support as the sport is tarnished.

We all have varying levels of discontent with the impact doping has on the sport. It's completely understandable to feel this way.

It's always going to be the case when we have a problem such as doping where the negative can't even be proven, i.e. proof a rider has not doped / does not dope is not possible to achieve. All that we can say is whether a rider has or has not received a doping sanction.

IOW while their doping status under the rules is binary, there is an "analogue" probability of doping associated with every rider ranging from zero to 100%. How we personally respond to that uncertainty will be variable.

[Thoglette]

The chances of overturning are slim but the WADA procedures, as imperfect as they may be, permits such due process. Perfect process isn't really possible.

The issue here is not some subtle technicality: it's the foot-dragging by Sky, who claim to be cleaner-than-clean and therefore all knowing regarding their employees.

But sixnine months later we're still waiting for Sky to get to Step One.

There's a a clear principle here: "Justice delayed is justice denied." Sky are abusing the process.

So far, the authorities are complicit, in that have not even threatened to reach for the wet lettuce.

[Thoglette]

Another long time commentator comments
Froomey, take a leaf from Eddy’s book

What a shame that Chris Froome is not taking a leaf from Eddy’s book and opting voluntarily out of this year’s Tour de France. Why would anyone want to participate in an event when no one wants you there?

The Tour Organizers don’t want him there, the UCI doesn’t want him there, and many fans of the sport, including myself, don’t want him there. And the French fans most certainly don’t want him there.

By insisting that he will ride the Tour because he legally can, is offering up a big “!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! You,” to fans everywhere.

[MichaelB]

The chances of overturning are slim but the WADA procedures, as imperfect as they may be, permits such due process. Perfect process isn't really possible.

The issue here is not some subtle technicality: it's the foot-dragging by Sky, who claim to be cleaner-than-clean and therefore all knowing regarding their employees.

But sixnine months later we're still waiting for Sky to get to Step One.

There's a a clear principle here: "Justice delayed is justice denied." Sky are abusing the process.

So far, the authorities are complicit, in that have not even threatened to reach for the wet lettuce.

Fixed it for you.

Doesn't change my opinion though.

[Thoglette]

Fixed it for you.

Touche!

[AUbicycles]

These are matters of professional etiquette, not rules. Doping is a matter of rules, as much as we may wish it, etiquette doesn't really come into play.

I was using this as an example to say that riders generally choose to follow these although they are not rules.

The rules allow for a process but the dispute is not whether the rider failed the doping tests - but whether the discrepancy amounts to doping.

That's contradictory. If the discrepancy puts them under the limit for a specified substance, or the test is invalid for process/control reasons, then it wasn't doping. So yes, the dispute *is* about whether it was doping.

Probably discrepancy is not the perfect word choice - but at least from understanding, we are on the same page.

[fat and old]

Meh....I want him to show. I want him on the podium at some stage, receiving something....anything... from Hinault

Unless Hinault is man enough to back his own statements and boycott of course. In which case I'll respect him, and still get to bag Froomay. Win win.

Isn't the term "Justice delayed is justice denied." usually used to indicate that the plaintiff should receive swift judgement as being a good thing? In this case Sky isn't abusing the process at all...

[fat and old]

You guys just have your own set of ethical expectations that have nothing to do with the requirements and rules of the sport. Any competitive sport can expect the rules to be pushed to the absolute limits in an attempt for a competitive advantage. If the rules allow this, then the rules are the problem so direct your dissatisfaction at them rather than the competitor who is simply following the rules.

I understand the current situation could see him win races and be stripped later and you don't like that and you think he is not a gentlemen because he should respect your rules rather than the sports rules. I don't like the rules myself... but it is the rules that are allowing this, and he probably does not care if you think he is not a gentleman. He would not be the first cyclist to shrug off what some people think is gentlemanly.

A totally reasonable and understandable point of view.

What is your estimation of Froomay as a person in this case? That he is being reasonable in his approach?

[vosadrian]

You guys just have your own set of ethical expectations that have nothing to do with the requirements and rules of the sport. Any competitive sport can expect the rules to be pushed to the absolute limits in an attempt for a competitive advantage. If the rules allow this, then the rules are the problem so direct your dissatisfaction at them rather than the competitor who is simply following the rules.

I understand the current situation could see him win races and be stripped later and you don't like that and you think he is not a gentlemen because he should respect your rules rather than the sports rules. I don't like the rules myself... but it is the rules that are allowing this, and he probably does not care if you think he is not a gentleman. He would not be the first cyclist to shrug off what some people think is gentlemanly.

A totally reasonable and understandable point of view.

What is your estimation of Froomay as a person in this case? That he is being reasonable in his approach?

If he knowingly took more than the allowed amount of a controlled substance, and continues to race, he is a douche bag and should not race and taint other peoples potential results.

If he is confident he took the right amount but recorded the adverse finding for some other reason, I support his decision. He is in the prime of his career with the chance to write history.

If he accidentally took over and is unsure, I think he should pull out due to the unknown.

The trouble is, only he knows the truth, and there is due process to attempt to determine the truth. I am no expert so I can just form opinions like the rest of you. I will just let the due process play out and accept the result... at the moment that means he will probably race.

The problem I have here is the loss of confidentiality. This should not be playing out in peoples opinions. If this was kept confidential there would be no problem at the moment. We would then have only found out when due process has played out and opinion would not have any place in this.

What do I think he did?... My opinion is that if he took too much intentionally, as the most tested cyclist in the race, he would have to have been stupid and he does not appear to be stupid. Surely there are better less detectable ways to cheat if he wanted to do that. Could an error have been made so he thinks he took the right amount but didn't? I guess that is a likely scenario, and should be investigated... different concentration inhaler? Lost count in the heat of the moment? Someone spiked something unknown to him? I guess this is what the investigation could determine.

[biker jk]

Meh....I want him to show. I want him on the podium at some stage, receiving something....anything... from Hinault

Unless Hinault is man enough to back his own statements and boycott of course. In which case I'll respect him, and still get to bag Froomay. Win win.

Isn't the term "Justice delayed is justice denied." usually used to indicate that the plaintiff should receive swift judgement as being a good thing? In this case Sky isn't abusing the process at all...

Hinault is no longer the ASO podium presenter. He's been replaced by Voeckler who's been instructed to pull silly faces at Froome. I'm sure Hinault would have used a more forceful approach to express his displeasure at Froome's presence.

[fat and old]

I've always had a chuckle at that pic....the French cyclist that's bigger than the dockie You can see Dr teeth about to chuck his bike at one in the video..

[find_bruce]

Only problem with knuckles is that cleats are not a great platform for the transfer of weight & power which is why he all but topples over & the blow is ineffective

[AUbicycles]

The problem I have here is the loss of confidentiality. This should not be playing out in peoples opinions. If this was kept confidential there would be no problem at the moment. We would then have only found out when due process has played out and opinion would not have any place in this.

I would say, The problem I have here is the loss of confidence.

Keeping a doping violation private for so long contributes substantially to the mistrust of cycling and is still not helpful in a scenario where Froome is cleared. "We report that 6 months ago, Chris Froome failed a doping test and exceeded the allowed amount by 8 times. Our rules allow him to challenge this and Froome and his team convinced us that it was just a freak occurrence and so he has been cleared".

This just delays the backlash and by having it now is important to question the system and make improvements out of necessity.

Right now there is still due process and public opinion does not appear to be influencing it; Froome is still permitted to race, Team Sky still have ample time to make their case and changes to the system are not being made (as far as I can determine).