Log in:  

Register

Froome Talk Only

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

06 Jan 2018 11:18

Sky won't bring the sport down.

The sport will f@rt out Sky, just like it periodically f@rted out Festina, Landis etc etc

Then, afterwards, it'll be the new era of clean sport...
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 719
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

06 Jan 2018 11:27

macbindle wrote:Sky won't bring the sport down.

The sport will f@rt out Sky, just like it periodically f@rted out Festina, Landis etc etc

Then, afterwards, it'll be the new era of clean sport...


But how many teams can the sport afford to "f@rt" out, without seriously diminishing its sponsorship base?
User avatar rhubroma
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,608
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

Re: Froome Talk Only

06 Jan 2018 11:33

Wiggo's Package wrote:So the Skyfans never believed Brailsfraud's guff about winning ethically!

They knew all along Sky were morally bankrupt!

Explains alot :D

Oh they believed and told the world they did.

Superior morality along with corporate petty nationalism was the whole thing. Anyone can verify this by perusing the Sky threads here, there and everywhere.

The more recent turn to emphasising the absence of moral concerns post festum (ie since froomes positive dope test) is just a convenient lifeboat so as to appear suitably cynical and Rrrreal. But as the Hegelian pointed out this is clearly a false premise.
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

06 Jan 2018 11:48

Simple solution, the UCI invokes a new rule, only morally bankrupt team owners/sponsors need apply, the sport's half way there already

Once a full set of dodgy owners/sponsors are aligned with the already dodgy team managers, doctors and riders that perfect synchronicity will streamline the business model

Dodgy sponsors target marketing campaigns at morally bankrupt fans who lap up dubious products. Rinse and repeat
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Froome Talk Only

06 Jan 2018 11:52

meat puppet wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:So the Skyfans never believed Brailsfraud's guff about winning ethically!

They knew all along Sky were morally bankrupt!

Explains alot :D

Oh they believed and told the world they did.

Superior morality along with corporate petty nationalism was the whole thing. Anyone can verify this by perusing the Sky threads here, there and everywhere.

The more recent turn to emphasising the absence of moral concerns post festum (ie since froomes positive dope test) is just a convenient lifeboat so as to appear suitably cynical and Rrrreal. But as the Hegelian pointed out this is clearly a false premise.


Quoted for truth especially the corporate petty nationalism part. Thats all there is to it.
Lo squalo di messina
New Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: 05 Sep 2017 17:05

Re: Froome Talk Only

06 Jan 2018 11:56

meat puppet wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:So the Skyfans never believed Brailsfraud's guff about winning ethically!

They knew all along Sky were morally bankrupt!

Explains alot :D

Oh they believed and told the world they did.

Superior morality along with corporate petty nationalism was the whole thing. Anyone can verify this by perusing the Sky threads here, there and everywhere.

The more recent turn to emphasising the absence of moral concerns post festum (ie since froomes positive dope test) is just a convenient lifeboat so as to appear suitably cynical and Rrrreal. But as the Hegelian pointed out this is clearly a false premise.


Correct, of course

Only reason the Sky fans are still clinging on is they are overly emotionally invested

They drank the Brailsfraud Kool-Aid no way that man would lie

And they just know in their bones that Brits Don't Dope they just know it
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Froome Talk Only

06 Jan 2018 12:33

Wiggo's Package wrote:
meat puppet wrote:
Wiggo's Package wrote:So the Skyfans never believed Brailsfraud's guff about winning ethically!

They knew all along Sky were morally bankrupt!

Explains alot :D

Oh they believed and told the world they did.

Superior morality along with corporate petty nationalism was the whole thing. Anyone can verify this by perusing the Sky threads here, there and everywhere.

The more recent turn to emphasising the absence of moral concerns post festum (ie since froomes positive dope test) is just a convenient lifeboat so as to appear suitably cynical and Rrrreal. But as the Hegelian pointed out this is clearly a false premise.


Correct, of course

Only reason the Sky fans are still clinging on is they are overly emotionally invested

They drank the Brailsfraud Kool-Aid no way that man would lie

And they just know in their bones that Brits Don't Dope they just know it


I think you've got a bunch of people out there all coming from different positions in terms of exposure to cycling prior to this latest 6 year instalment of make-believe.

You've got the Man U style fans who will support anything as long as it's winning but you've also got people who genuinely want to believe the winners and riders are clean. There's a guy in my club like this. He's an old boy and a very decent ex-racer of 40 years. I had what became a semi-heated discussion with him a couple of years ago when I said that Wiggins and Froome were as fraudulent as those that had come before them. We reprised this conversation recently in the light of Jiffy bag and Puffergate. His attitude was one of huge disappointment that people could be so immoral. He almost coildnt bear to think it possible and nationality doesn't come into it.

Then you've got people who fully know what is going on but accept the sport for what it is, and that may include aligning themselves with a team they know aren't clean. There are lots of Astana fans out there just as there are lots of BMC and Quickstep fans ;)

Sky?? Pfft. Here today, gone tomorrow. If they'd been less smug and not pushed the hypocrisy to the max they may have got an easier ride from everybody.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 719
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

06 Jan 2018 13:14

rhubroma wrote:Cycling seems poised to get bogged down in the morass of another farce, in which the long drawn-out legal proceedings risk allowing Froome to compete in the Giro and Tour, potentially win them, only to have the results invalidated when he is subsequently given a definitive ban. It will be interesting to see how the cycling establishment handles this predicament, for major sponsorship is getting increasingly difficult to come by and without it the sport risks folding (or getting seriously downscaled). It would be supremely ironic if Sky, the beacon of virtue, transparency and ethical conduct, were to become the fulcrum of the sport's precipitous financial decline. Especially given the Murdoch empire till recently behind the British squadra, for which the sport has potentially enticed big money toward its own extinction.


Great stuff, Rhub.

Now you can’t tell me you haven’t done the odd ... “The whole world’s a stage ...” round at the community playhouse.

Am I right? Ha ha! Sure I am, lad.

I don’t suppose you have a fecking clue about pro sport ... but who gives a feck, anyway?
Drama’s your strong point, lad.
User avatar Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 562
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Froome Talk Only

06 Jan 2018 14:15

Wiggo's Package wrote:
TheSpud wrote:
samhocking wrote:I think what he means is there are substances permitted you can take up to a limit in small amounts without any risk. Not sure this applies to Froomes, but if you take a much more holistic view of performance enhancement, there's likely multiple ways you can do it and stay within the rules. Asthma drugs are just one of many permitted substances.


Absolutely - 'immoral' but not breaking the (letter of the) rules ...

For instance in the past I'm sure Meldonium was in the mix, wasn't it Brad that said "they tell us - 'you cant take that anymore' ..."

I would imagine Xenon gas was there. OOC cortisone (Kenacort?) used to slim down. TUEs for Kenacort are more dodgy in my view - was it used to mask the OOC just in case?

Salbutamol as well - although oral use is outlawed I believe, so very dodgy if they did this.


Leaving morals aside the only problem with taking a marginal gains approach to pushing the envelope on the full range of grey area meds/supplements is you significantly increase the chance of tripping the wire...


And if that is a heavy cocktail it's also possible that there could be odd interactions between things that are unknown / unplanned.
TheSpud
Member
 
Posts: 1,352
Joined: 03 Jul 2014 20:43

Re: Froome Talk Only

06 Jan 2018 14:20

The Hegelian wrote:
TheSpud wrote:
samhocking wrote:I think what he means is there are substances permitted you can take up to a limit in small amounts without any risk. Not sure this applies to Froomes, but if you take a much more holistic view of performance enhancement, there's likely multiple ways you can do it and stay within the rules. Asthma drugs are just one of many permitted substances.


Absolutely - 'immoral' but not breaking the (letter of the) rules ...

For instance in the past I'm sure Meldonium was in the mix, wasn't it Brad that said "they tell us - 'you cant take that anymore' ..."

I would imagine Xenon gas was there. OOC cortisone (Kenacort?) used to slim down. TUEs for Kenacort are more dodgy in my view - was it used to mask the OOC just in case?

Salbutamol as well - although oral use is outlawed I believe, so very dodgy if they did this.


I think the obvious question is: if they're so willing to do all of that, on what basis might one assume that they have any kind of fidelity to the letter of the rules?

i.e. it seems to follow very consistently that if they knew they could beat epo tests, they certainly would.

What matters morally is simply: winning without getting caught for anything. That is the surely the axiomatic moral calculus. Because if you have a fidelity to the letter of the laws but not the spirit of them, it means there is no abiding principle of fairness to draw a line somewhere - the 'letter' is merely a reference point for what might invalidate a win.


In my view I think it's how they would still claim to be clean - and consistent with them saying they'd push the rules to the limit.
TheSpud
Member
 
Posts: 1,352
Joined: 03 Jul 2014 20:43

Re: Froome Talk Only

06 Jan 2018 14:24

samhocking wrote:I think for full perspective of what anti-doping is, you have to separate morals and ethics from rules. After all being found to cheat, is simply a legal matter. You get tested when you win, the result comes back as an AAF or not and from the AAF, rules decide if there has been an ADRV. What substance is actually found in the sample returning an AAF is not immaterial to that ADRV, but 35% of all AAFs result in no sanction so a large proportion is immaterial. That 35% is a huge untapped area to explore, when everyone else is actually simply trying avoid the 65% they will definitely get busted for if they mess up and actually has a much bigger reflect on the bio passport anyway.
Ethics do not exist in wada rules, therefore while [b]morally clean to one person means bread and water, morally clean to an athlete means not doing anything that ends you up in the 65% ADRV group with a sanction. For me this is not even a grey area, it's simply the area everyone has traditionally ignored in cycling and Sky are ahead of the gsme, because they were doing it at BC for the 20 years everyone else was getting busted while attempting to evade the 65% group[b]


Great point well made that outlined it better than I have ever managed to.
TheSpud
Member
 
Posts: 1,352
Joined: 03 Jul 2014 20:43

Re: Re:

06 Jan 2018 14:43

Alpe73 wrote:
rhubroma wrote:Cycling seems poised to get bogged down in the morass of another farce, in which the long drawn-out legal proceedings risk allowing Froome to compete in the Giro and Tour, potentially win them, only to have the results invalidated when he is subsequently given a definitive ban. It will be interesting to see how the cycling establishment handles this predicament, for major sponsorship is getting increasingly difficult to come by and without it the sport risks folding (or getting seriously downscaled). It would be supremely ironic if Sky, the beacon of virtue, transparency and ethical conduct, were to become the fulcrum of the sport's precipitous financial decline. Especially given the Murdoch empire till recently behind the British squadra, for which the sport has potentially enticed big money toward its own extinction.


Great stuff, Rhub.

Now you can’t tell me you haven’t done the odd ... “The whole world’s a stage ...” round at the community playhouse.

Am I right? Ha ha! Sure I am, lad.

I don’t suppose you have a fecking clue about pro sport ... but who gives a feck, anyway?
Drama’s your strong point, lad.


Est modus in rebus, beyond which there can be no justice. Everything else is for the suckers.
Image
User avatar rhubroma
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,608
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

Re: Froome Talk Only

06 Jan 2018 15:11

TheSpud wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:What matters morally is simply: winning without getting caught for anything. That is the surely the axiomatic moral calculus. Because if you have a fidelity to the letter of the laws but not the spirit of them, it means there is no abiding principle of fairness to draw a line somewhere - the 'letter' is merely a reference point for what might invalidate a win.


In my view I think it's how they would still claim to be clean - and consistent with them saying they'd push the rules to the limit.

Precisely. This goes back to Festina, and beyond.

If you don't test positive, you're clean.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,144
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re: Froome Talk Only

06 Jan 2018 15:24

Alpe d'Huez wrote:
TheSpud wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:What matters morally is simply: winning without getting caught for anything. That is the surely the axiomatic moral calculus. Because if you have a fidelity to the letter of the laws but not the spirit of them, it means there is no abiding principle of fairness to draw a line somewhere - the 'letter' is merely a reference point for what might invalidate a win.


In my view I think it's how they would still claim to be clean - and consistent with them saying they'd push the rules to the limit.

Precisely. This goes back to Festina, and beyond.

If you don't test positive, you're clean.


Not quite the same. Using, EPO for example is specifically called out as against the rules whereas breathing Xenon gas to achieve the same effect wasn't (it is now I believe). EPO = cheating, Xenon = pushing the boundaries.

OOC cortisone isn't against the rules, using it systematically to lean out is certainly at a minimum pushing the boundaries.
TheSpud
Member
 
Posts: 1,352
Joined: 03 Jul 2014 20:43

06 Jan 2018 16:17

So Froome should then be able to walk away comfortably knowing in all honesty that he's clean?
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,144
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

06 Jan 2018 16:55

Yet still,
if a guiding light
no longer resides
in “being right”
I don’t see it hid among
this simply
not being wrong.
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,238
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re:

06 Jan 2018 18:23

Wiggo's Package wrote:Simple solution, the UCI invokes a new rule, only morally bankrupt team owners/sponsors need apply, the sport's half way there already

Once a full set of dodgy owners/sponsors are aligned with the already dodgy team managers, doctors and riders that perfect synchronicity will streamline the business model

Dodgy sponsors target marketing campaigns at morally bankrupt fans who lap up dubious products. Rinse and repeat


Hmm, interesting concept and business model, and one that doesn't seem too far removed from the one being currently employed with great financial success for football and the English Premier League.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

06 Jan 2018 18:59

With WT racing set to begin one short week from now, it is looking less and less likely that we see Froome sitting out any racing for quite some time. I predict he/Sky dominate all lead up races to the Giro and TDF, taking the top two podium places in each. Froome wins the Giro and Tour, racks up another million $'s in post Tour crits and appearances, then recieves a back dated suspension of 6 months from AAF. Froome is stripped of his wins in the lead up races, making the the 2nd place finisher (from Sky) victorious. Froome keeps his GT wins and $. Brailsford claims all was sorted fairly.
User avatar spetsa
Member
 
Posts: 633
Joined: 03 Aug 2010 13:45
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle

Re:

06 Jan 2018 19:14

spetsa wrote:With WT racing set to begin one short week from now, it is looking less and less likely that we see Froome sitting out any racing for quite some time. I predict he/Sky dominate all lead up races to the Giro and TDF, taking the top two podium places in each. Froome wins the Giro and Tour, racks up another million $'s in post Tour crits and appearances, then recieves a back dated suspension of 6 months from AAF. Froome is stripped of his wins in the lead up races, making the the 2nd place finisher (from Sky) victorious. Froome keeps his GT wins and $. Brailsford claims all was sorted fairly.


Whatever happens with this case, I struggle to believe that we see the same Chris Froome this year.

No matter how brazen he may be in public, the whole saga has to be taking a toll on him mentally, and ultimately anything that distracts from you having 100% focus on your goals at the very top level of a sport where preparation is everything is going to negatively impact upon your performance.

Added to this, are Sky going to be slightly (or even massively) more cautious about 'pushing the boundaries' with this rumbling on?

Suspension or no suspension, I think the chances of Froome winning one GT, let alone 2 this year are greatly diminished.

If he does, then from me at least there will be some respect for an incredible show of mental strength if nothing else.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

06 Jan 2018 19:36

brownbobby wrote:
spetsa wrote:With WT racing set to begin one short week from now, it is looking less and less likely that we see Froome sitting out any racing for quite some time. I predict he/Sky dominate all lead up races to the Giro and TDF, taking the top two podium places in each. Froome wins the Giro and Tour, racks up another million $'s in post Tour crits and appearances, then recieves a back dated suspension of 6 months from AAF. Froome is stripped of his wins in the lead up races, making the the 2nd place finisher (from Sky) victorious. Froome keeps his GT wins and $. Brailsford claims all was sorted fairly.


Whatever happens with this case, I struggle to believe that we see the same Chris Froome this year.

No matter how brazen he may be in public, the whole saga has to be taking a toll on him mentally, and ultimately anything that distracts from you having 100% focus on your goals at the very top level of a sport where preparation is everything is going to negatively impact upon your performance.

Added to this, are Sky going to be slightly (or even massively) more cautious about 'pushing the boundaries' with this rumbling on?

Suspension or no suspension, I think the chances of Froome winning one GT, let alone 2 this year are greatly diminished.

If he does, then from me at least there will be some respect for an incredible show of mental strength if nothing else.


Never stop believing in the power of the Dawg! If he can transform from sandshoe wearing second rate rider then he can seed Comeback 2.0 and be stronger than ever! :p
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,933
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Benotti69, Brullnux, craigmalone, Eyeballs Out, phil-i-am, skippo12, sworks and 72 guests

Back to top