- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Chris Froome with Tour de France and Vuelta winner's jerseys.jpgChris Froome faces ban and losing Vuelta title after failed drugs test
Team Sky’s Chris Froome could be stripped of the Vuelta title he won in September and faces a potentially lengthy ban after testing positive for excessive levels of an anti-asthma drug during the Spanish race.
News of the failed drugs test was broken by the Guardian and French newspaper Le Monde following a joint investigation, and has subsequently been confirmed by world cycling’s governing body, the UCI, and by Team Sky.
The anti-doping control, conducted on 7 September after Stage 18 of the Vuelta, found that the 32-year-old had twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug, Salbutamol, in his urine.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) permits athletes to use the drug provided the level does not exceed 1,000 nanograms per millilitre. No therapeutic use exemption (TUE) is required.
But Froome, who in July secured his fourth Tour de France victory in five years before going on to claim victory in Spain, returned a reading of 2,000 nanograms per millilitre.
Both the rider, who used the drug with an inhaler to treat his asthma, and Team Sky are adamant he did not exceed the dose permitted under WADA rules, which is a maximum of 1,600 micrograms (mcg) over a period of 24 hours and no more than 800mcg over 12 hours.
Froome was notified of the adverse analytical finding on 20 September. Later that day he won the bronze medal in the individual time trial at the UCI Road World Championships in Bergen, Norway.
Analysis of his B sample confirmed the results of the A sample, and the UCI said that “the proceedings are being conducted in line with the UCI anti-doping rules.”
It added: “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.”
In a statement, Team Sky said that due to Froome’s asthma getting worse in the final week of the Vuelta, he increased his dosage of Salbutamol on the advice of the team doctor, but within the permitted level.
It added: “The notification of the test finding does not mean that any rule has been broken. The finding triggers requests from the UCI which are aimed at establishing what caused the elevated concentration of Salbutamol and to ensure that no more than the permissible doses of Salbutamol were inhaled.”
Froome said: “It is well known that I have asthma and I know exactly what the rules are. I use an inhaler to manage my symptoms (always within the permissible limits) and I know for sure that I will be tested every day I wear the race leader’s jersey.
“My asthma got worse at the Vuelta so I followed the team doctor’s advice to increase my Salbutamol dosage. As always, I took the greatest care to ensure that I did not use more than the permissible dose.”
He added: “I take my leadership position in my sport very seriously. The UCI is absolutely right to examine test results and, together with the team, I will provide whatever information it requires.”
Sir Dave Brailsford, team principal at Team Sky, said: “There are complex medical and physiological issues which affect the metabolism and excretion of Salbutamol. We’re committed to establishing the facts and understanding exactly what happened on this occasion.
I have the utmost confidence that Chris followed the medical guidance in managing his asthma symptoms, staying within the permissible dose for Salbutamol. Of course, we will do whatever we can to help address these questions.”
That Froome uses an inhaler to treat his asthma has been public knowledge for several years. In 2014, he was shown using one during Stage 2 of the Critérium du Dauphiné.
He said at the time: "I have had an inhaler since childhood, I have exercise induced asthma. It is ok. I didn't need a TUE.
"I don’t use (the inhaler) every time I race, normally only when I have a big effort coming up.
"Given sports history, people are obviously looking for a reason. There's no reason to make a big deal out. It's completely allowed by the UCI.
"It's a bit of a surprise everyone is talking about it," he added.
The attention that today’s news will bring is less surprising, with Froome at the very top of the sport having won four Tour de France titles and now the Vuelta.
He has said he plans to ride the Giro d’Italia in May as he seeks a third consecutive victory in a Grand Tour, before attempting to win the Tour de France for a record-equalling fifth time.
All of those plans are now in doubt, as is the question of whether Froome will keep his Vuelta title and even if he is found not to be at fault, he could still be handed a ban.
Meanwhile the news alone of the failed test will not only damage Froome’s reputation but also further tarnish the image of Team Sky in the wake of the recent UK Anti-doping investigation.
Riders including Alessandro Petacchi and Diego Ulissi in 2014 have received bans in the past for excessive levels of Salbutamol after failing to satisfy the authorities that they remained within the permitted dosage.
Petacchi, who was found to have a reading of 1,320 nanograms per millilitre at the Giro d’Italia in 2007, was banned for a year, although the Court of Arbitration for Sport was clear that he did not intend to cheat.
Ulissi, with a result of 1,920 nanograms per millilitre at the 2014 Giro d’Italia, got a nine-month ban.
However, Leonardo Piepoli, who tested positive for the drug during the same edition of the Giro d’Italia as Petacchi with 1,800 nanograms per millilitre, escaped sanction.
Last year, Simon Yates missed the Tour de France after he was banned for four months after testing positive for excessive levels of another anti-asthma drug, Terbutaline.
The doctor at his Orica-GreenEdge team had failed to apply for a TUE to permit the British rider to use the drug, and while the UCI ruled that it was a non-intentional anti-doping rule violation, it still imposed the ban.
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
- FionaJJ 0 sec ago
It was written by a dyed in the wool Tory, on a website for dyed in the wool Tories. Of course some might not take heed, but the mistake some on...
- Rendel Harris 34 sec ago
It would also be very weird for Zakarin do you have been blowing himself up trying to get Kittel a win on stage 17 as that year he (Zakarin) was in...
- Samtheeagle 5 min 30 sec ago
I have worked in developing and delivering environmental enhancement for wildlife and people for the past 35+ years. It never ceases to disappoint...
- Legin 12 min 5 sec ago
Car makers absolutely do that. A case from the 1970s sums up the attitude of manufacturers, we won't recall until we don't have a choice https:/...
- anotherflat 1 hour 14 min ago
Clearly a design fail for them to make these 3D printed sections too stiff....
- wtjs 1 hour 53 min ago
Norfolk Police said the woman has since been reported for driving without due care and attention. Motorists charged with the offence face a fine of...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 2 min ago
Yes, unfortunately with all local authority contractors there always has to be the caveat "if it's done properly".
- chrisonabike 11 hours 45 min ago
Presumably a) expense b) for something that (mostly) works against your customers' convenience? And the usual "but emergencies - what about when...
- quiff 16 hours 10 min ago
I was going to suggest the Fairlight Strael too, and went to check if it came in on budget. While there, I finally ordered the frameset I've been...
- quiff 19 hours 6 min ago
"No darling, I said a cactus bike holder, not a bike cactus holder."...
Add new comment
80 comments
Why not go the whole hog and do like they do in motor sport and have "standard" and "fully modified" classes? What a moral and ethical tin of worms that would open up.
Even then Sky would be right on the boundary of what constituted standard v modified.
What also strikes me as funny is that Henao got suspended after posting some dodgy blood result, Tiernan-Lock had the same fate when he returned some dodgy results. All staff with jaded pasts got the sack.
But Froome? Nah, don't worry about it!
Sprinters are not physologically suited to hill climbing, can they set off an hour in advance or use a motor on gradients over 6%?
Rapha, not sure anyone has said don't worry about it, more investigate it. I hope they do and come up with some findings that are clearly understandable and deemed legitimate (or clearly not).
is this really a bit of a non story escalated out of proportion maybe? I mean he's not been a darling of the press in some areas, but really going to town on 1 anomaly out of a gazillion daily tests?
Or was it fumes from a hidden motor that made him wheezy?
Let's call Oprah Winfrey to investigate - she'll get to the truth.
Everyone should be allowed to cheat just the once...
ROFL
Salbutamol is administered in acute cases of asthematic attack. The only next step is steroids.
If you as a cyclist are riding uphill and you can't breathe then perhaps it's your limit. Hint, hint. You don't go on about taking substitute medication in order to make it so. So blatantly, incredibly daft.
Ban the cyclist, twice or thrice.
Most spectators will agree that this isn't the first time we've seen sick men rising up from their death beds at Team Sky to finish a GT in podium style.
If Froome gets banned from the 2018 Giro ( which the stakeholders in the Pro Tour are allegedly paying him $10M to appear in ) for one failed test on a substance not even enhancing enough to be on the TUE list - let alone the banned list I would be very surprised.
Salbutamol is not enhacing enough? You need to enhance your knowledge or your education.
Salbutamol is plenty enhancing when the others aren't taking any.
12/06/2017 , per Brian "I'm friends with Sky" Cookson
http://road.cc/content/news/233520-sir-bradley-wiggins-and-team-sky-shou...
Not a very good timing apparently
If you're not on the dope, you won't cope!
Can a short basketball player wear platform shoes to make himself taller? Can a swimmer with small feet compete wearing flippers? Can a boxer with a glass jaw wear a helmet? Can a cyclist who sometimes struggles to breathe under exertion take meds to help him breathe? All these are levelling the field for those who are competing where genetically maybe they shouldn't be. Why is the cyclist example acceptable but the others not? I would have loved to be a pro cyclist but physically I can't so I've chosen a career that suits my strengths rather than my weaknesses
Maybe there needs to be a 'para tour' for those who need medical assistance to compete.
Ultimately I'd like to see who can win these events without any medical assistance and has been purely genetically gifted by the gods. If not for medical science then Chris Froome wouldn't be a winner and it's medical science, whilst essential to everyday life, muddies the waters of sport.
I've got long levers so I struggle with certain weight exercises, should I be allowed steroids if I wanted to compete in certain sports, just to take account of this? Sport shouldn't be about an equal playing field and if Froome essentially has a disability, then this would stop him from achieving success if we took all medicine away for these events.
It's a bit odd really because if Lewis Hamilton has a puncture then he has to come in and lose time, he doesn't get 15s taken off his time at the end of the race, or if his engine blows then that's it. We're essentially asking those in charge to make allowances for physical failings.
Looking at the dosages per puff he could have achieved this from literally 10 puffs anyone having an asthma attack doesn't really give a fuck how many puffs it takes for the symptoms to start easing off!
I really believe that Froome is the victim of someone who was rather out of his depth.
When you look at the doctor's CV it doesn't look that impressive. Certainly, there is a lot of mention of sports people and clubs many at a high level in their chosen professional sports. Sky have selected a doctor who has had experience and training in treating the general public for a multitude of ailments at a basic level, with some postgraduate qualification in sports.
There is nothing on his CV to suggest that he has any expertise in calculating the residual values for salbutamol when given to a genetic "freak" under an extreme workload.
You might say that being professional would be keeping your levels just within the limitations of the law.
Now, imagine that you ran at that level all the time, lovely jubbly. A bit of stimulation and all the other benefits, no sanctions.
Would it be too far a stretch that maybe one day, despite being off your tits on your meds you had an asthma attack and needed to supplement your dosage... boom, you are going to test positive.
Marginal gains gone wrong.
Bullshit conjecture like the rest of this sodding forum.
The whole hysteria around this is totally frenetic at the moment considering the fact that not all of the relevant details are in the public domain. There are load of "web informed" salbutamol experts putting in their opinions as well as loads of Froome fans vouching for his integrtiy. There are comments on the virtues of salbutamol as a PED, others to say it won't help and some saying that it is a commonly used medication that should be available to all. One thing that no one has mentioned, is that as the leader of any Grand Tour Froome will have been tested every day. If this is the only abnormal result, what about all the tests before and after? If there is one abnormal test among 20 others, can people be certain that the testing procedure followed protocols on that one test? Before, any conclusions can be drawn, the facts need to be known. However, it is certain that this will be one more battle that Team Sky would, no doubt, not have to deal with.
Where were you when Contador was getting slated? He could have done with a bit of support like this...
We could always ask Brian "I'm friends with Sky" Cookson seeing as was presiding over the sport at the time.
FFS sports people get asthma; it has been forever thus. Either deprive asthma sufferers of a sports career or get over it. It's all fairly boring now.
If they all get it then there is no need to level the playing field.
Just heard a doctor/specialist chap explain it all on Radio 4 news (5 pm edition). Seemed fairly straight forward and easy to understand as to how levels could be higher. I'm with Froome on this as I don't think he has a cheating cell in his body.
If only there was an objective, scientific way of finding out exactly what is in someone's body.
One thing we've also ignored is that the Vuelta organisers, the UCI and the Froome Sky machine must all think there's doubt in here.
Not sure why more immediate action wouldn't have been taken at the Vuelta and why Sky would announce the Giro if they didn't think all would be cleared up...
Am i the only person here that has struggled to find the words "failed drug test" in the UCI report?
According to the UCI statement an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) as been detected. Particular attention should be made to the word 'potential' in their statement.
It is not unsual for the media to jump on things like this and make sweeping generalisations that could ruin a sports persons career. I notice that the BBC this morning had "Failed Drugs Test" plastered all over their pages. This afternoon that has been changed to "faces questions over adverse results" so someone has seen sense, maybe a lawyer nudged the editor?
Cycling has a chequered history meaning that we all have suspicions when someone performs well. Sadly that is a fact and we have commonly been proven correct.
We must however stop this defamation of a career over something that , at this time, has not been proven.
Derek, you've used a relative's expertise and then linked it to your opinion on what the UCI should do. If she could clarify why the UCI have banned 2 of those riders but not the 3rd it may help us to decipher why you formed that opinion...
Nano, one thousand millionth of one. Micro, one millionth of one.
Pages