Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Chris Froome cleared in salbutamol case - Tour de France champ says he "never doubted" he would be exonerated

WADA tells UCI it is satisfied Team Sky rider did not commit an anti-doping rule violation

Chis  Froome has been cleared of anti-doping charges following a urine test at the Vuelta a Espana last year when he was discovered to have twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol in his system. The Team Sky rider has said he had "never doubted that this case would be dismissed for the simple reason that I have known throughout I did nothing wrong."

> Read the reaction from around the cycling world on our Live blog

In a statement this morning, world cycling's governing body, the UCI said that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had told it that in light of "the specific facts of the case" it accepted that Froome had not committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Yesterday,. Tour de France organisers ASO were reported to have excluded four-time winner and defending champion Froome from the Tour de France, which starts on Saturday, due to the potential damage his participation could cause to the image of the race.

> ASO exclude Chris Froome from the Tour de France - Team Sky "confident" of winning appeal

Team Sky confirmed yesterday that they are confident of winning an appeal against that decision, scheduled for tomorrow in Paris.

Clearly whether or not that hearing now takes place will depend on ASO's reaction to today's news.

In a statement released by Team Sky this morning, Froome said: "I am very pleased that the UCI has exonerated me. While this decision is obviously a big deal for me and the Team, it’s also an important moment for cycling.

"I understand the history of this great sport – good and bad. I have always taken my leadership position very seriously and I always do things the right way. I meant it when I said that I would never dishonour a winner’s jersey and that my results would stand the test of time.

“I have never doubted that this case would be dismissed for the simple reason that I have known throughout I did nothing wrong. I have suffered with asthma since childhood. I know exactly what the rules are regarding my asthma medication and I only ever use my puffer to manage my symptoms within the permissible limits

“Of course, the UCI had to examine these test results from the Vuelta. Unfortunately, the details of the case did not remain confidential, as they should have done. And I appreciate more than anyone else the frustration at how long the case has taken to resolve and the uncertainty this has caused. I am glad it’s finally over."

He added: “I am grateful for all the support I have had from the Team and from many fans across the world. Today’s ruling draws a line. It means we can all move on and focus on the Tour de France.”

Team Sky principal Sir Dave Brailsford said: “We have always had total confidence in Chris and his integrity. We knew that he had followed the right medical guidance in managing his asthma at the Vuelta and were sure that he would be exonerated in the end, which he has been. This is why we decided that it was right for Chris to continue racing, in line with UCI rules, while the process was ongoing. We are pleased that it has now been resolved.

“Chris’s elevated Salbutamol urine reading from Stage 18 of the Vuelta was treated as a ‘presumed’ Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) by the UCI and WADA, which triggered a requirement for us to provide further information. After a comprehensive review of that information, relevant data and scientific research, the UCI and WADA have concluded that there was, in fact, no AAF and that no rule has been broken.

“We said at the outset that there are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. The same individual can exhibit significant variations in test results taken over multiple days while using exactly the same amount of Salbutamol. This means that the level of Salbutamol in a single urine sample, alone, is not a reliable indicator of the amount inhaled. A review of all Chris’s 21 test results from the Vuelta revealed that the Stage 18 result was within his expected range of variation and therefore consistent with him having taken a permitted dose of Salbutamol."

Following his Giro d'Italia victory last month, Froome is just the third man ih history - the others are Bernard Hinault and Eddy Merckx - to hold all three Grand Tour titles at the same time.

Brailsford continued: “Chris has proved he is a great champion – not only on the bike but also by how he has conducted himself during this period. It has not been easy, but his professionalism, integrity and good grace under pressure have been exemplary and a credit to the sport.

“The greatest bike race in the world starts in five days. We can’t wait to get racing again and help Chris win it for a record-equalling fifth time.”

Here is the UCI's statement in full:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) confirms that the anti-doping proceedings involving Mr Christopher Froome have now been closed.

On 20 September 2017, Mr Froome was notified that a sample collected during the Vuelta a España on 7 September 2017 was reported to contain a concentration of salbutamol in excess of 1000ng/ml.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List provides that inhaled salbutamol is permitted subject to a maximum dose of 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours (the permitted use), and that a concentration in excess of 1000 ng/ml is an abnormal finding which is presumed not to be the result of a permitted use. The WADA Prohibited List further provides that the athlete can establish that his/her abnormal result was the consequence of a permitted use, in which case it will not be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF).

The UCI instigated disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), during which Mr Froome exercised his right to prove that his abnormal result was the consequence of a permitted use. The proceedings started with an evidentiary phase, with the UCI and Mr Froome agreeing that the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal would decide whether certain information could be provided to Mr Froome in preparing his defence. The UCI already sought WADA’s advice at that stage, during which a significant number of expert and scientific reports were submitted on behalf of Mr Froome.

After the evidentiary phase, Mr Froome requested additional information from WADA about the salbutamol regime. Following receipt of information from WADA, Mr Froome then filed his explanation for the abnormal result on 4 June 2018, together with significant additional expert evidence.

The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome.

Whilst the UCI would have obviously preferred the proceedings to have been finalised earlier in the season, it had to ensure that Mr Froome had a fair process, as it would have done with any other rider, and that the correct decision was issued. Having received WADA’s position on 28 June 2018, the UCI prepared and issued its formal reasoned decision as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

The UCI understands that there will be significant discussion of this decision, but wishes to reassure all those involved in or interested in cycling that its decision is based on expert opinions, WADA’s advice, and a full assessment of the facts of the case. The UCI hopes that the cycling world can now turn its focus to, and enjoy, the upcoming races on the cycling calendar.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

68 comments

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 5 years ago
2 likes

This won't stop the haters hating, but at least their sad little glimmer of hope has been taken away from them  1

 

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet replied to Christopher TR1 | 5 years ago
1 like

Christopher TR1 wrote:

This won't stop the haters hating, but at least their sad little glimmer of hope has been taken away from them  1

 

Actually the French haters will love this. I'd imagine some have gone to great effort to show their love for Froome. Pretty sure ventolin guy will be back out again and piss throwing man would have been disappointed with Froome's exclusion.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 5 years ago
12 likes

Confused? Maybe read a bit more.

 

The test is basically the body producing an output, they are allowed to input a certain amount. If you and I took the same amount then our output would be different depending how much beer I'd drunk, whether I'm 4 stone heavier than you, the excercise we did today.

 

Thus the AAF is simply a flag to suggest something may be amiss and needs further investigation, which has happened...

 

Better?

 

Avatar
slunker | 5 years ago
1 like

Even team Sky admitted he was over the leagal limit by 19%!!! How confused am I now. Rules for some and not others?

 

Team Sky said Froome was only 19% over the limit - not double as has been previously reported - when the adverse test was adjusted to take account of dehydration.

 

Still over a legal limit in my opinion, or do i go and try drink driving and when caught just say I'm only 19% over the limit officer

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to slunker | 5 years ago
10 likes

slunker wrote:

Still over a legal limit in my opinion, or do i go and try drink driving and when caught just say I'm only 19% over the limit officer

I'm not sure it's a valid comparison.

As often pointed out, the level which triggers investigation (not condemnation) is a measure of output (what's in his piss)  used as proxy for input (how many puffs). The proxy isn't perfect and given the uncertainty around one suspect result in the context of many good ones - and the complex way the body deals with things - the case has been set aside.

If you want a legal parallel, then it's perhaps that you should only be convicted if the evidence, expertly tested, establishes your guilt beyond "reasonable doubt". 

None of us here have the information or expertise to judge. Those who do have done. We're entitled to our opinions but they're just prejudice.

 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to slunker | 5 years ago
4 likes
slunker wrote:

Still over a legal limit in my opinion, or do i go and try drink driving and when caught just say I'm only 19% over the limit officer

Not comparing the same thing.
Drink driving is based on the output - alcohol in the breath or in the blood stream.
The cycling rule is based on inputs, so not the same measure, unless you think that all people who drink 2 shots of whisky will produce the same blood or breath reading.

In the cycling test, they are trying to work backwards from the output to determine the input which clearly has a number of variables to account for to estimate the input.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 5 years ago
8 likes

According to the beeb, even the leak was incorrect and he was 19% over rather than double. With the other 20 or so tests alongside them, they decided it was purely an anomoly.

 

Once again, so much shit being thrown in the hope it will dirty British success!

Avatar
mrml replied to alansmurphy | 5 years ago
4 likes

alansmurphy wrote:

According to the beeb, even the leak was incorrect and he was 19% over rather than double. With the other 20 or so tests alongside them, they decided it was purely an anomoly.

 

Once again, so much shit being thrown in the hope it will dirty British success!

 

That's it, in a nutshell.

Avatar
DrJDog | 5 years ago
2 likes

Pity about all the already served suspensions for AAFs for salbutamol. All they had to say was that they were a bit dehydrated.

 

Does this mean that salbutamol is now free to use at will If there is no way to determine dosage from concentrations in urine?

Avatar
RobD | 5 years ago
10 likes

Assuming he gets to ride (I can't see ASO's ban really holding up now) I wouldn't fancy being one of his opponents this year, if he's holding any sort of form then a fired up Froome without the pressure of this hanging over him anymore could be pretty unpleasant to ride against.

Avatar
KarlM77 | 5 years ago
2 likes

That last line though ... lift the carpet, good lad.

"The UCI hopes that the cycling world can now turn its focus to, and enjoy, the upcoming races on the cycling calendar."

Avatar
captain_slog | 5 years ago
0 likes

Will more details emerge of Froome's defence? It's got to be something more than nine months of asserting 'I did nothing wrong'.

The trouble is this whole affair has been raked over to such an extent that it's now going to be hard for us just to accept that it's all over simply because the grown-ups know best.

Avatar
gonedownhill replied to captain_slog | 5 years ago
1 like

captain_slog wrote:

Will more details emerge of Froome's defence? It's got to be something more than nine months of asserting 'I did nothing wrong'.

The trouble is this whole affair has been raked over to such an extent that it's now going to be hard for us just to accept that it's all over simply because the grown-ups know best.

 

It would be nice wouldn't it? Not just Froome's case for defence, but really if there is an admission that the particular testing regime and limit isn't  a cut and dry thing then you'd hope that WADA would conduct some sort of review of the testing and or rules.

Avatar
Marin92 | 5 years ago
6 likes

About time.

I'll be in the Pyrenees cheering him on.

Avatar
davel replied to Marin92 | 5 years ago
2 likes

Marin92 wrote:

About time.

I'll be in the Pyrenees cheering him on.

and dodging wee.

Avatar
maviczap replied to Marin92 | 5 years ago
1 like

Marin92 wrote:

About time.

I'll be in the Pyrenees cheering him on.

Me too! 

Avatar
Dnnnnnn | 5 years ago
9 likes

Where's Le Badger?

Avatar
KarlM77 | 5 years ago
0 likes

"the specific facts of the case" ... Are these going to be published?

Avatar
SellMatt | 5 years ago
2 likes

This is going to be a must watch Tour now he is riding and been cleared. The Frenchies will be doing their nut. As i said in a post a few days ago and Beecho above, he will do well to stay upright and will need to wear a poncho for all the piss and spit that will come his way. Its bad enough being a domestique albeit a well paid one but imaging having to deal with all the crap that comes with protecting Froome. You could not make it up !

Avatar
CygnusX1 replied to SellMatt | 5 years ago
1 like

SellMatt wrote:

This is going to be a must watch Tour now he is riding and been cleared.

Cleared yes, riding - not yet - unless I've missed the article where the ASO have back-pedalled on their previous position.

 

 

Avatar
Drinfinity | 5 years ago
4 likes

Yes.

Avatar
brooksby | 5 years ago
1 like

The BBC says the case was dropped, not that he was cleared.

"The World Anti-Doping Agency, which worked closely with the UCI, has accepted there was no breach and recommended the case is dropped."

Is that the same thing?

Avatar
Martyn_K replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
8 likes

brooksby wrote:

The BBC says the case was dropped, not that he was cleared.

"The World Anti-Doping Agency, which worked closely with the UCI, has accepted there was no breach and recommended the case is dropped."

Is that the same thing?

 

Read your own quote again. Key words are "no breach"

Avatar
brooksby replied to Martyn_K | 5 years ago
2 likes

Martyn_K wrote:

brooksby wrote:

The BBC says the case was dropped, not that he was cleared.

"The World Anti-Doping Agency, which worked closely with the UCI, has accepted there was no breach and recommended the case is dropped."

Is that the same thing?

Read your own quote again. Key words are "no breach"

OK, fair enough 

Avatar
JohnnyRemo replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

The BBC says the case was dropped, not that he was cleared.

"The World Anti-Doping Agency, which worked closely with the UCI, has accepted there was no breach and recommended the case is dropped."

Is that the same thing?

There was nothing to "clear" him of as it was an adverse finding not a positive PED result. It's therefore up to him to explain the finding and for the UCI to decide whether or not his explanation is plausible.

Avatar
davel replied to JohnnyRemo | 5 years ago
7 likes

JohnnyRemo wrote:

brooksby wrote:

The BBC says the case was dropped, not that he was cleared.

"The World Anti-Doping Agency, which worked closely with the UCI, has accepted there was no breach and recommended the case is dropped."

Is that the same thing?

There was nothing to "clear" him of as it was an adverse finding not a positive PED result. It's therefore up to him to explain the finding and for the UCI to decide whether or not his explanation is plausible.

I think the statement goes even further: that there wasn't actually an AAF to begin with - only a 'presumed' AAF, which did not materialise into an actual AAF.. 

If the UCI statement is straight there was never even an actual case, more of an 'eh up, there might be something dodgy here', which was then leaked and took 9 months to resolve with everyone agreeing that there wasn't actually anything dodgy after all.

Avatar
davel replied to JohnnyRemo | 5 years ago
14 likes

Meanwhile, approximately 0.00 people have had their minds changed over presumed innocence or guilt, during this whole sorry saga - or even now.

You tied your colours to the mast on Day 1 of the leak, and I bet they're exactly the same, right now.

Avatar
Pitbull Steelers | 5 years ago
11 likes

Brilliant news, lets hope he goes on and wins.

As for the ASO i can see them spitting their dummy out and the doll will certainly be thrown out the pram 

Avatar
peted76 | 5 years ago
11 likes

The internet is about to go into meltdown..  as mobs of men all over the internet start to go apoplectic !! 

I am very pleased that this is the result.

I suspect the UCI may have backed down on an inconclusive point or two due to increased pressure to conclude this debacle and an increasing number of Frenchies trying to profit from the affair, however seriously, who gives a flying monkey? And if you do give a monkey, ask yourself why please? Can't we all just get back to enjoying the 'normal levels of drama' now and put this all behind us?

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 5 years ago
18 likes

Any chance some of the armchair experts on here can give their opinion on this? Show us how their years of medical and / or investigative journalism training make this a farce or something?

Pages

Latest Comments