Log in:  

Register

Sky

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

16 Mar 2019 13:13

gillan1969 wrote:
macbindle wrote:
topcat wrote:What we do care about is that there are different rules for Sky than for other teams.



topcat wrote:Tue rules, salbutomol rules, testosterone rules. You should know, you've been defending them.


We don't know enough to be able to say this because we don't know how rules have been applied in every other case involving other teams' riders.

Going through your claims one by one:
1)TUE rules. Which rules did Sky break? Answer: None. I believe Team Sky exploited the rules, but that isn't the same as breaking them and it isn't reliant on a different set of rules. It is unlikely that Team Sky are the only team doing this and it is the fault of the rules rather than the fault of any team exploiting them.

However, Team Sky was afforded a fast-track TUE by the authorities, something which I find unacceptable and is an example of authorities favoring the 'star team'

2) Salbutamol. Not true. See Diego Ulissi.

3) Testosterone rules. As far as I can see there is no clear picture that a different set of rules were applied to BC/Team Sky. I think it is highly likely that Freeman was cheating or planning to cheat, but again, that doesnt mean rules were bent for Sky.


the TUE rules (and others) require the involvement of doctors...some doctors can provide a...how shall we say.....'favourable interpretation' of a riders 'condition'. Once that interpretation/diagnosis is made, the rider can benefit from TUEs which would otherwise not be available to them should, say a less favourable diagnosis be made. Any rule breaking moves from rider to doctor...now..imagine there was a situation where a team doctor didn't want to asnswer any questions...that might be a good indicator of such behaviour, no???? ;) ;) ;)


Totally.

Although the point I am making is that this isn't about favouritism of authorities towards a given rider or team. The simple fact that authorities outside of cycling (DCMS & GMC) have failed to compel Freeman to be held to account is a clear demonstration of the systemic nature of the problem.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,328
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

16 Mar 2019 13:30

macbindle wrote:I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.


I love that you’re actually serious! I shall endeavor to post here more often.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,187
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

16 Mar 2019 13:41

Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.
topcat
Junior Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 04 Jul 2016 21:59

Re:

16 Mar 2019 14:55

topcat wrote:Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.


No. Ulissi got a 2 year ban reduced to 9 months. Petacchi didn't. Is that evidence of different rules for different riders, or merely different mitigating arguments winning in CAS.

Why should Froome be stripped of his Tour titles line Lance when there is no evidence of Froome taking EPO, HGH, Testosterone like Lance did?
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,328
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

16 Mar 2019 15:33

topcat wrote:Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.


There were also numerous Salbutomol AAFs just like Froome that were exonerated like his too, not even by UCI necessarily. Each case is judged on the specifics of the case, that is why Salbutomol isn't simply prohibited with strict liability after-all, because it clearly is ambiguous with urine to inhalation. Anyway, bored of the case, it was talked to death, WADA said it wasn't unique, we either get upset for all the other athletes exonerated too and identify how, or we accept we don't know the specifics of the case, which we obviously don't.
samhocking
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,071
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

16 Mar 2019 16:02

Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.
topcat
Junior Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 04 Jul 2016 21:59

Re:

16 Mar 2019 16:05

topcat wrote:Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.

AleJet also lost some results sob
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,890
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re:

16 Mar 2019 16:43

topcat wrote:Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.

Was he clean in his younger years?
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,645
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

Re:

16 Mar 2019 19:12

topcat wrote:Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.

It’s all about the empire, we look after our own
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,537
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

Re:

17 Mar 2019 13:51

topcat wrote:Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.


For the most parts this is true. Armstrong’s ban was excessive and not sure how they managed to pull that off. But has become very convenient to pretend the Armstrong era was dirty and everything after is clean. Ulissi’s error was to play by the rules whereas Froome stacked his case and kept riding to be exonerated in unknown circumstances. Sky have learnt a valuable lesson from the Froome case and applied the same tactics for Freeman. And then you have Henao who also wriggled himself out of passport case with a fake study that never eventuated. I wouldn’t suspect anyone from Sky will have issues again, it’s too costly for the authorities.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,487
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

17 Mar 2019 14:49

Regrettably, given that the sporting authorities would rather not catch anybody, and that even if they did they are not resourced so to do, you are probably right.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,328
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

17 Mar 2019 20:40

IMO, after what's happened with Sky they should just end all the anti-doping rules and go back to the free for all. It's apparent that Sky can buy themselves out of ANYTHING.
User avatar Koronin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,688
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re:

17 Mar 2019 22:35

macbindle wrote:I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.


I will continue to call our absurdity when I see it. That you have trouble following is on you.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,187
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re:

17 Mar 2019 23:22

topcat wrote:Ulissi got a 9 month ban. Froome got no ban. Lance was stripped of his TdF titles. Froome hasn't been (yet). The rules are different for different riders.


:lol: Man ... it's like the Golden Oldies channel. Far out! :surprised:
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 773
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

17 Mar 2019 23:24

rick james wrote:
topcat wrote:Petacchi got a one year ban. Froome had a higher level of salbutomol than either. No ban whatsoever. Froome is more suspicious than Lance was. At least Lance was a talented triathlete in his younger years.

It’s all about the empire, we look after our own


You speak the truth. :geek:
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 773
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re:

17 Mar 2019 23:27

Koronin wrote:IMO, after what's happened with Sky they should just end all the anti-doping rules and go back to the free for all. It's apparent that Sky can buy themselves out of ANYTHING.


UCI is on the main line ... tell them what you want.
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 773
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

17 Mar 2019 23:35

red_flanders wrote:
macbindle wrote:I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.


I will continue to call our absurdity when I see it. That you have trouble following is on you.


That 's like .... the Ace of Spades … Skulls and Cross Bones, right? :surprised
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 773
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Sky

Yesterday 15:52

Once again we must applaud in the invaluable insight of Sky's #1 fan:
samhocking wrote:Italian Sponsor wants their sponsorship to be announced in Italy at Italy's biggest bike race?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,957
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

Yesterday 15:58

Alpe73 wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
macbindle wrote:I've understood the thread perfectly, also noted your passive-aggressive sarcastic attitude towards Sam Hocking and myself. If you behave like that, don't complain when held to account.

Also, do not act in a disingenuous manner when trying to account for your own posting. You understand my post very well, you arent stupid.

My previous point stands, you are wilfully exaggerating another person's words into a point that he isn't making and then attacking it. In common parlance, a straw man.

There has been a notable absence of that type of cheap tactic recently, so it stands out somewhat when somebody (you) employs it.


I will continue to call our absurdity when I see it. That you have trouble following is on you.


That 's like .... the Ace of Spades … Skulls and Cross Bones, right? :surprised


Given that RF felt the need to quote my post twice, for two different attacks, I think it is more a case of 'methinks she doth protest too much" ;)
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,328
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

Yesterday 15:58

fmk_RoI wrote:Some people do seem intent on setting themselves up for a fall. The assumption that the project is ended and the personnel will be dispersed is ... optimistic. Still, six months from now, if a new sponsor is announced, these assumptions will be overlooked and reality spun into a new narrative...

What's really, really hilarious of course is that there's some people more willing to believe a real estare agent with no experience can launch a Sky-level Chinese team than are willing to believe that Brailsford can secure fresh funding.


Just a quick tip-of-the-cap to your prescient post, here. It didn't even take six months for a new billionaire behemoth (Ineos, Jim Ratcliffe) to take over the sponsorship of the team: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-to-become-team-ineos-from-may-1/. With a British owner and what is expected to be the biggest budget in cycling, nothing has changed, except maybe even more money than before.
User avatar JosephK
Junior Member
 
Posts: 293
Joined: 24 Jul 2016 15:49

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dr.Guess, Jagartrott and 11 guests

Back to top