- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Froome celebrates winning the 2013 Tour de France (picture copyright Simon Wilkinson:SWpix.com)Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme confirms Chris Froome will defend title when race starts on Saturday
Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme has confirmed that defending champion Chris Froome will start of the race on Saturday after being cleared of doping charges, but has expressed his “extreme anger” that it has taken so long for the case to be resolved.
This morning, the UCI confirmed that the case against Froome relating to an adverse analytical finding for twice the permitted dose of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol had been closed, with no action to be taken against the Team Sky rider.
World cycling’s governing body said that it had been told by the World Anti-Doping Agency that it was satisfied that no anti-doping rule violation had taken place.
Today’s news came out of the blue. In recent weeks, UCI president David Lappartient had said on more than one occasion that there was little prospect of the case being decided prior to the Tour de France.
It followed yesterday’s reports – subsequently confirmed by Team Sky and now – that race organisers ASO were seeking to exclude the defending champion and four-time winner from this year’s race to protect the image of the event.
> ASO exclude Chris Froome from the Tour de France - Team Sky "confident" of winning appeal
Team Sky had been due to challenge that decision at an arbitration hearing in Paris tomorrow, which will not now take place and Prudhomme has confirmed that the 33-year-old will be among the 176 riders who start the race on Saturday in the Vendée.
Speaking to L’Equipe – owned, like ASO, by the media and events group Éditions Philippe Amaury – he said:
“All that for this. We’ve been repeating constantly, since we, like everyone else, became aware of the abnormal control on 13 December, that a quick resolution was needed.”
Prudhomme revealed that the decision was taken three weeks ago to exclude Froome from the race due to Lappartient’s indication that no decision was in sight.
“We decided, three weeks ago, because we needed the response of an independent authority, to write to Chris Froome, Sky and the UCI to tell them that we would do deploy Article 29 of the Tour de France Particular Regulations.
“We didn’t announce that because we didn’t want to pour petrol on the flames,” Prudhomme said.
He continued: "Today we have the answer we’ve been waiting six months for. It comes at the last minute, which is a shame … during all that time, it has obviously caused indecision, doubt and therefore suspicion. That’s where we are.
Confirming that Froome would start the race, he said, “We must change the rules,” and underlined that throughout the process, ASO had not had access to the case file, so was unaware of how it was progressing.
“Our extreme anger is because it has lasted so long and the answer comes at the last minute, just when we ourselves have started a process to get an answer from an independent sports authority.
“The decision came today we’d have liked it to have come sooner, of course,” he added.
Meanwhile, WADA has confirmed today that it will not be challenging the UCI’s decision in the case, which brings the legal process to an end.
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.
Latest Comments
- SamSeed 35 sec ago
My 6KU, replaced everything but the front chainring over the past 5 years.
- froze 1 hour 57 min ago
This was a very good listing of bikes for under 1,000....
- Hirsute 5 hours 18 min ago
Radar tells me their closing speed, if they are slowing and how far away. Then I decide to say a prayer. The change of light pattern is incidental.
- lonpfrb 5 hours 38 min ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 6 hours 4 min ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- don simon fbpe 7 hours 18 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 7 hours 59 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 8 hours 39 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 9 hours 36 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
Add new comment
13 comments
Exactly ChrisB, if the leak had not happened then this would have been a fully completed investigation not a rushed result and CF would have had no reputational damage , assuming the same result AND there may have been a chance of some sensible modification to the testing regime or levels.
the tosser who did this has damaged the sport, the rider and the fight against the cheaters. I hope they catch them, incarcerate them and throw away the key
Why does the Tour need publicity?
perhaps the anger should be directed at wherever the leak was regarding the AAF?
If the UCI said he hasn't commited an offence then, he hasn't committed an offence.
Time to move on now.
Mr Prudhomme is a fan of cycling in Britain, to me it looks like he called the UCI bluff, won, and got a shed load of advertising six days before his race starts.
Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but he loves Yorskhire, so we love him back.
The ASO look a bit silly now.
It was perfectly well timed. Forced the UCI to get their fingers out.
The whole thing is a joke
It does appear extremely coincidental. Prudhomme may well indeed have played a blinder*.
I can imagine it's been a chaotically busy weekend at the UCI with the new French guy gradually climbing out of the comfy slothnest that Cookson built and writing an email, and at WADA, with the bloke who replaced Dick Pound heroically responding to that email with an email of his own.
Great work all round.
* Now he's just got to figure out a way of combating the piss-launchers, who, presumably, will have been galvanised by his stance.
Whoops - accident...apologies...
I gather, then that you've never heard of that FAR more slimy, Pharmstrong-supporting, Irish prick named Pat McQuaid, who preceded Cookson?! He had nothing to do with what you refer to as a "slothnest", eh?! You're having a massive laugh if you blame it all upon Cookson!
What are sloths renowned for? Is it
a) sporting cover-ups and corruption or
b) impressive levels of inaction?
So, do you think I was holding the UCI responsible for
a) another cover-up (is anyone in this case?!), or
b) sloth-like inaction?
If I said you should go and bother someone else with your sloth-like brain function, do you think I'd be suggesting
a) that you embroil yourself in a sporting scandal, and possibly cover it up a bit or
b) you've missed the point and aren't demonstrating much mental agility?
M Prudhomme's decision to take a stand and exclude Froome doesn't look very well timed in the light of this. It is quite funny.
Perhaps the ASO announcement was intended to spur the UCI into announcing a decision which, Prudhomme is right to say, has taken far too long.
And who would bet against Froome now? The UCI dropping his case must be a huge morale boost for him and the whole of Team Sky. Sure, the haters will still be at the roadside, but so will his vindicated fans who will feel justified in redoubling their support.
Bring it on.