Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Biciklizam


  • Please log in to reply
3109 replies to this topic

#3106 LUCIFER.

LUCIFER.
  • Members
  • 17,762 posts

Posted 02 July 2018 - 00:04

Frum suspendovan sa Tura


  • 0

#3107 salelesa

salelesa
  • Members
  • 580 posts

Posted 02 July 2018 - 10:24

Ipak vozi .. oslobođen optužbi pre 1h!
🐑🐑🐑
  • 0

#3108 LUCIFER.

LUCIFER.
  • Members
  • 17,762 posts

Posted 02 July 2018 - 13:50

Kriminal

 

Valjda ce mu oduzeti Vueltu


  • 0

#3109 SteveFrancis#3

SteveFrancis#3
  • Members
  • 15,142 posts

Posted 02 July 2018 - 18:04

Na ovakvom profilu ponovo nema takmaca. Da je Nibali dosao u top formi bio bi ozbiljno ugrozen, ovako ga jedino neki pad moze spreciti da osvoji jos jedan TdF.


  • 0

#3110 SteveFrancis#3

SteveFrancis#3
  • Members
  • 15,142 posts

Posted 02 July 2018 - 21:35

 

"I'm quite bemused and it's hard to comprehend how a salbutamol level that high could not constitute an AAF," Parisotto told Cyclingnews from his home in Australia.

"It's now about having full access to the reasoned decision as it's hard to comment without it. This is a case where they need to release the report in order to silence the agitators. I'm bamboozled to be honest.

"My views on WADA have been jaundiced by the role that they played in the IAAF scandal and how they handled that. This result today is probably just the cherry on top. This is another high-profile case where the outcome has not been handled or managed very well because 24 hours ago the ASO gave Froome the finger and now the UCI has said 'bugger everyone, he's racing.'"

Froome's defence appears to have rested on a 1,500-page reported that was submitted to WADA earlier this year.

With no public explanation as to why a rider could returned double the permitted levels of salbutamol and not face a sanction, even experts of Parisotto's stature can only guess as to how and why WADA reached their conclusion.

"There would have to be some kind of physiological explanation," Parisotto said.

"Until that's articulated that would be my assumption for the increased levels. It could be down to the administration but how would you explain that away? Then there are the usual suspects, such as the test was incorrect or there was something wrong with the collection of the sample or the testing process."

Team Sky manager Dave Brailsford quickly jumped to the support of his team leader when the UCI statement was released. However, as with the UCI, Team Sky would not elaborate on the reasons as to why Froome was cleared. There were a lot of words, but transparency and clarity were once again missing.

"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," Brailsford said.

"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."

The decision to clear Froome now leaves WADA open to criticism and possible changes to their own rules. Riders Diego Ulissi and Alessandro Petacchi were both handed bans for returning lower salbutamol readings than Froome, so without a full and detailed report into why Froome was cleared, the anti-doping authorities, in Parisotto's opinion, have created a new series of problems for themselves.

"There are quite a few issues now that have been opened up. This is a real can of worms. It makes a mockery of WADA's threshold limits of salbutamol and more so because other athletes have been banned with lesser levels in the urine. So, does WADA's position on salbutamol need revising and if so why? There are so many questions that have been opened up now. This absolutely harms the credibility of WADA and the UCI. My own personal opinion is that this won't ever be fixed until I and the public see this report."


  • 0