Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1009 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Brullnux said:
Same as Ulissi, no? And Ulissi got 9 months with results scrapped from the stage (and gc had he not dropped out). So that means goodbye Giro and a race in tine for the Tour if the uci are consistent.
Froome losing a race, getting any sort of a ban, ducks up the entire narrative for them. There would now be a big red flag where Walsh and co swore there are NO red flags and mocked "interent losers," who would suggest there might be.

Put on top of the jiffy bag, it makes sky stink even more, hell this is bigger than the jiffy bag.

Remember the "you can't compare Froome to lance because there were reasons to believe lance doped and There are none for Froome" arguments. Say goodbye to those to.

Essentially the entire sky narrative has to take a massive retreat. The whole pontificating over other riders doping, talking about giving the benefit of the doubt, saying sky do things the right way, all gone. The arguments for Froome having been clean would fall apart of he gets a ban. It would now become a 100% a last stand - beat us in the courts or nothing argument.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
Hopefully they burn him to the stake. Petacchi got banned for a year and he had less of it in his urine.

Get rid of the cancer of this sport please.

Nibali the winner of the Vuelta and Vélo d'Or?
 
hahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaa

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh man I'd like to see all the Sky fans now.
 
Re:

El Pistolero said:
Hopefully they burn him to the stake. Petacchi got banned for a year and he had less of it in his urine.

Get rid of the cancer of this sport please.

Nibali the winner of the Vuelta and Vélo d'Or?
Didn’t Piepoli also get busted for similar amounts to Petacchi but got absolutely no ban whatsoever? Seems they make up the bans as they go along but we knew that anyway.
 
Dekker_Tifosi said:
hahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaahahahahahhaa

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh man I'd like to see all the Sky fans now.
‘All the sky fans’??

I’ve gone on record and said I don’t think you can win (or be close to winning) a GT being clean. That includes every rider.
 
MartinGT said:
Lets be honest.

Nothing is going to happen to the poster boy.
I understand you are cynical. Hey we all are. But even with the cynicism, there is a bright light here.

If we are talking in terms of sanctions, maybe nothing happens, to the poster child.

But if we are talking in terms of reputation, there is nothing more to distinguish Froome now from early 2000s lance.
The holier than thou rep must fall to pieces.

This is already way more than many of us in the clinic ever hoped of getting. They can win this behind the scenes - maybe maybe not. They can even monitor Wikipedia dor247 for eternity to make sure no bad loser ever edits it in there. But how are they going to take away a test result from his history or take away the articles from the webz?

At the very least, we are much better off today than we were 3 hours ago. Do we get more? We will see
 
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
MartinGT said:
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.
Can someone put that into English?
Salbutamol doesn't mean a provisional suspension, not important enough.
Yea you're allowed it up to a point so can't really provisionally suspend someone.
 
Sep 19, 2011
203
0
9,030
Re:

kosmonaut said:
How many puffs would you need to take to reach 2000ng/ml?

Must've been a really big effort coming up since he "only uses it before big efforts".
The limit of 1000 ng/ml in the urine is calculated for 16 puffs (16!!!!!)

Froome took at least twice that dose!
 
Re: Re:

Nicosix said:
kosmonaut said:
How many puffs would you need to take to reach 2000ng/ml?

Must've been a really big effort coming up since he "only uses it before big efforts".
The limit of 1000 ng/ml in the urine is calculated for 16 puffs (16!!!!!)

Froome took at least twice that dose!
Woah. Most asthmatics I know take 2, sometimes 3 max. I could see an athlete taking more, but 32??? :eek:
 
Strip him of the Vuelta. His levels were above the limit. I hope UCI does make an example.
What I don't understand is: why claim to do Giro Tour double while knowing he might be facing a potential ban?
 
MartinGT said:
Lets be honest.

Nothing is going to happen to the poster boy.
I guess...
*) WADA’s Prohibited List provides that: “The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY