• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1044 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
red_flanders said:
I'm not convinced the discussion on concentration addressed the possibility I suggested. The got something wrong, not sure what is most or least likely.



At this point, I’d say that in descending order of probability, the explanations are intentional oral dosing >> accidentally inhaled too much > blood transfusion.

What would be the benefit of doing that. Isn't high dosage of Sal used only for off-race long term training purposes (fat burning)?
 
Re: Re:

glassmoon said:
Merckx index said:
red_flanders said:
I'm not convinced the discussion on concentration addressed the possibility I suggested. The got something wrong, not sure what is most or least likely.



At this point, I’d say that in descending order of probability, the explanations are intentional oral dosing >> accidentally inhaled too much > blood transfusion.

What would be the benefit of doing that. Isn't high dosage of Sal used only for off-race long term training purposes (fat burning)?

I'm still confused by the dilution rate of high dosage sal in a blood bag. I have a high platelet count and there is no way I could be a blood donor for that reason. If the bag was drawn out of competition and stored carefully with high values then the bb hypothesis might still stand. It explains his recovery on the stage also. Whatever was done, was done with the purpose of putting time into Nibali and this objective was achieved.
 
One of many pieces in this puzzle that's still...puzzling...is the timing. OK, so Sky knew right away about the abnormality, and presumably they've been trying to gin up some kind of defense for three months. So, when this comes out last week, Froome professes he has no idea what to do or how it could have happened. Something very fishy/wrong there.

If I was running Sky, the best possible outcome would be to have suspended Froome provisionally at the END of the Vuelta, by leaking the results or by publicly declaring the abnormal reading. Then, by the time spring rolled around he'd be 6 months into a suspension that if we go by historical precedents would be 9-12 months. If they manage to clear his name over the winter, so much the better. Sky looks good, Froome can race the Giro/Tour, all's well.

Now, it looks bad for everyone. Given how slowly things like this tend to move, I'd be very surprised if he lines up for the Giro or even the tour. Unless Sky think they have a silver bullet.

I do have some sympathy from Froome -- it would be better if he'd just tested positive for a banned substance. A nice, clean kill. He's now twisting in the wind, and every other rider is probably thinking "There but for the grace of God..."
 
Re:

Bolder said:
One of many pieces in this puzzle that's still...puzzling...is the timing. OK, so Sky knew right away about the abnormality, and presumably they've been trying to gin up some kind of defense for three months. So, when this comes out last week, Froome professes he has no idea what to do or how it could have happened. Something very fishy/wrong there.

If I was running Sky, the best possible outcome would be to have suspended Froome provisionally at the END of the Vuelta, by leaking the results or by publicly declaring the abnormal reading. Then, by the time spring rolled around he'd be 6 months into a suspension that if we go by historical precedents would be 9-12 months. If they manage to clear his name over the winter, so much the better. Sky looks good, Froome can race the Giro/Tour, all's well.

Now, it looks bad for everyone. Given how slowly things like this tend to move, I'd be very surprised if he lines up for the Giro or even the tour. Unless Sky think they have a silver bullet.

I do have some sympathy from Froome -- it would be better if he'd just tested positive for a banned substance. A nice, clean kill. He's now twisting in the wind, and every other rider is probably thinking "There but for the grace of God..."

:lol:

Give over man. You have sympathy for a charlatan earning millions?
 
Aug 15, 2013
46
0
0
Visit site
We can't assume CF has an unlimited stock of clean blood bags ready at all times. Maybe after stage 17 they panic, come to the conclusion they need to do something drastic, and all they have left in their blood stock is one bag that is glowing. They might have been aware of it, might have blundered it. Hard to say.

My point here is really dark, it's a bit, maybe CF did so many transfusions during the Tour/Vuelta all he had left by stage 18 was some last tainted pints.
If all they had to manage was a couple of blood bags for emergencies, it's very hard to believe anyone would make the mistake of storing a bad bag. On other hand, if they have to manage a LOT of blood bags, then the probability someone messes it up along the way is much higher.
 
Re:

rsergio007 said:
We can't assume CF has an unlimited stock of clean blood bags ready at all times. Maybe after stage 17 they panic, come to the conclusion they need to do something drastic, and all they have left in their blood stock is one bag that is glowing. They might have been aware of it, might have blundered it. Hard to say.

My point here is really dark, it's a bit, maybe CF did so many transfusions during the Tour/Vuelta all he had left by stage 18 was some last tainted pints.
If all they had to manage was a couple of blood bags for emergencies, it's very hard to believe anyone would make the mistake of storing a bad bag. On other hand, if they have to manage a LOT of blood bags, then the probability someone messes it up along the way is much higher.

What? You've gotta be kidding me right?

The notion of him having a refrigerator full of blood bags, one shelf labelled 'good uns' and another labelled 'bad uns-only to be used in case of emergency'

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re:

Bolder said:
One of many pieces in this puzzle that's still...puzzling...is the timing. OK, so Sky knew right away about the abnormality, and presumably they've been trying to gin up some kind of defense for three months. So, when this comes out last week, Froome professes he has no idea what to do or how it could have happened. Something very fishy/wrong there.

If I was running Sky, the best possible outcome would be to have suspended Froome provisionally at the END of the Vuelta, by leaking the results or by publicly declaring the abnormal reading. Then, by the time spring rolled around he'd be 6 months into a suspension that if we go by historical precedents would be 9-12 months. If they manage to clear his name over the winter, so much the better. Sky looks good, Froome can race the Giro/Tour, all's well.

Now, it looks bad for everyone. Given how slowly things like this tend to move, I'd be very surprised if he lines up for the Giro or even the tour. Unless Sky think they have a silver bullet.

I do have some sympathy from Froome -- it would be better if he'd just tested positive for a banned substance. A nice, clean kill. He's now twisting in the wind, and every other rider is probably thinking "There but for the grace of God..."
It's like they didn't even consider this could go public. They had to be sure (for the whole 3 months) this would "go away" somehow... It's the only explanation for the Sky's/Froome's lack of any action whatsoever.
 
With blood bags, I always thought the idea was to train at a less-than-full level, so when you reinjected it, you suddenly got a boost from the ability to carry more oxygen.

Is the idea that now they reinjecting blood plus drugs? Or that Froome simply reinjected a bag with tainted/doped blood?
 
Re: Re:

glassmoon said:
It's like they didn't even consider this could go public. They had to be sure (for the whole 3 months) this would "go away" somehow... It's the only explanation for the Sky's/Froome's lack of any action whatsoever.

Exactly.

Consider what you would do if you were Sky or Froome and you knew about the positive 3 months ago and you assumed or knew it was going to be announced shortly or immediately. Of if you thought there were ANY chance it would be publicly announced. Consider it.

You would have your story down, from the soigneurs to Brailsford. You would push your version of it out to control the narrative. You'd have PR firms seeing news reports with your talking points, you'd be flooding comments sections of news stories with friendly views, you'd have the science lined up.

Consider how you'd act if you thought the result was a mistake and you actually were not doping. What actions, legal and otherwise would you be taking?

Compare to what Sky and Froome have done. I can't imagine that after considering those scenarios, how anyone could believe any part of the Sky/Froome narrative.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
glassmoon said:
It's like they didn't even consider this could go public. They had to be sure (for the whole 3 months) this would "go away" somehow... It's the only explanation for the Sky's/Froome's lack of any action whatsoever.

Exactly.

Consider what you would do if you were Sky or Froome and you knew about the positive 3 months ago and you assumed or knew it was going to be announced shortly or immediately. Of if you thought there were ANY chance it would be publicly announced. Consider it.

You would have your story down, from the soigneurs to Brailsford. You would push your version of it out to control the narrative. You'd have PR firms seeing news reports with your talking points, you'd be flooding comments sections of news stories with friendly views, you'd have the science lined up.

Consider how you'd act if you thought the result was a mistake and you actually were not doping. What actions, legal and otherwise would you be taking?

Compare to what Sky and Froome have done. I can't imagine that after considering those scenarios, how anyone could believe any part of the Sky/Froome narrative.
Yes, they have a serious credibility problem. A rider with less status would probably have received a temporary suspension by his team. Their zero tolernace story is out of the window. The Guardian is doing a good job in critical reporting.
 
Aug 15, 2013
46
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
rsergio007 said:
We can't assume CF has an unlimited stock of clean blood bags ready at all times. Maybe after stage 17 they panic, come to the conclusion they need to do something drastic, and all they have left in their blood stock is one bag that is glowing. They might have been aware of it, might have blundered it. Hard to say.

My point here is really dark, it's a bit, maybe CF did so many transfusions during the Tour/Vuelta all he had left by stage 18 was some last tainted pints.
If all they had to manage was a couple of blood bags for emergencies, it's very hard to believe anyone would make the mistake of storing a bad bag. On other hand, if they have to manage a LOT of blood bags, then the probability someone messes it up along the way is much higher.

What? You've gotta be kidding me right?

The notion of him having a refrigerator full of blood bags, one shelf labelled 'good uns' and another labelled 'bad uns-only to be used in case of emergency'

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Not sure you understood my post mate.
 
Re: Re:

rsergio007 said:
brownbobby said:
rsergio007 said:
We can't assume CF has an unlimited stock of clean blood bags ready at all times. Maybe after stage 17 they panic, come to the conclusion they need to do something drastic, and all they have left in their blood stock is one bag that is glowing. They might have been aware of it, might have blundered it. Hard to say.

My point here is really dark, it's a bit, maybe CF did so many transfusions during the Tour/Vuelta all he had left by stage 18 was some last tainted pints.
If all they had to manage was a couple of blood bags for emergencies, it's very hard to believe anyone would make the mistake of storing a bad bag. On other hand, if they have to manage a LOT of blood bags, then the probability someone messes it up along the way is much higher.

What? You've gotta be kidding me right?

The notion of him having a refrigerator full of blood bags, one shelf labelled 'good uns' and another labelled 'bad uns-only to be used in case of emergency'

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Not sure you understood my post mate.

I think the confusion comes from this bit...

...and all they have left in their blood stock is one bag that is glowing. They might have been aware of it, might have blundered it. Hard to say.

I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.
 
Re: Re:

MartinGT said:
Bolder said:
One of many pieces in this puzzle that's still...puzzling...is the timing. OK, so Sky knew right away about the abnormality, and presumably they've been trying to gin up some kind of defense for three months. So, when this comes out last week, Froome professes he has no idea what to do or how it could have happened. Something very fishy/wrong there.

If I was running Sky, the best possible outcome would be to have suspended Froome provisionally at the END of the Vuelta, by leaking the results or by publicly declaring the abnormal reading. Then, by the time spring rolled around he'd be 6 months into a suspension that if we go by historical precedents would be 9-12 months. If they manage to clear his name over the winter, so much the better. Sky looks good, Froome can race the Giro/Tour, all's well.

Now, it looks bad for everyone. Given how slowly things like this tend to move, I'd be very surprised if he lines up for the Giro or even the tour. Unless Sky think they have a silver bullet.

I do have some sympathy from Froome -- it would be better if he'd just tested positive for a banned substance. A nice, clean kill. He's now twisting in the wind, and every other rider is probably thinking "There but for the grace of God..."

:lol:

Give over man. You have sympathy for a charlatan earning millions?

Relative sympathy, yes. By the way, they're all charlatans.
 
Re: Re:

rsergio007 said:
brownbobby said:
rsergio007 said:
We can't assume CF has an unlimited stock of clean blood bags ready at all times. Maybe after stage 17 they panic, come to the conclusion they need to do something drastic, and all they have left in their blood stock is one bag that is glowing. They might have been aware of it, might have blundered it. Hard to say.

My point here is really dark, it's a bit, maybe CF did so many transfusions during the Tour/Vuelta all he had left by stage 18 was some last tainted pints.
If all they had to manage was a couple of blood bags for emergencies, it's very hard to believe anyone would make the mistake of storing a bad bag. On other hand, if they have to manage a LOT of blood bags, then the probability someone messes it up along the way is much higher.

What? You've gotta be kidding me right?

The notion of him having a refrigerator full of blood bags, one shelf labelled 'good uns' and another labelled 'bad uns-only to be used in case of emergency'

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Not sure you understood my post mate.

Oh I think I did mate, but eh we've all got our theories and who am I to say that yours are any more or less crazy than mine.

No offence intended brother :)
 
Aug 15, 2013
46
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.
 
Re: Re:

rsergio007 said:
I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.


Here’s the thing about bloodbags. Fuentes once trialled a method known as “Siberia” where he would freeze the bags so you could use many throughout the year. It had disatorious results, ie Hamilton in 2004.

Thus there is limited opportunity to perform the withdrawal. Seeing Froome had done the Tour presumably with two blood bags his only time to withdraw would be between the Tour and Vuelta. He would need to be suitably rested and have his hematocrit nice and high at the upper 40’s percent wise. Because he was resting and would want to maintain GT race weight he’d need to be taking something to keep the weight whilst not riding as much and recovering from the Tour, hence why he would have been taking Salbutamol by injection or orally. He may have never thought he would need the second bag at the Vuelta but when he lost time on S17 and with 3 keys stages to go he took it without thinking and correlating that he had souped up his blood already plus used his inhaler use on the stage taking him well up over 2000ug/ml.

Simple really.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
rsergio007 said:
I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.


Here’s the thing about bloodbags. Fuentes once trialled a method known as “Siberia” where he would freeze the bags so you could use many throughout the year. It had disatorious results, ie Hamilton in 2004.

Thus there is limited opportunity to perform the withdrawal. Seeing Froome had done the Tour presumably with two blood bags his only time to withdraw would be between the Tour and Vuelta. He would need to be suitably rested and have his hematocrit nice and high at the upper 40’s percent wise. Because he was resting and would want to maintain GT race weight he’d need to be taking something to keep the weight whilst not riding as much and recovering from the Tour, hence why he would have been taking Salbutamol by injection or orally. He may have never thought he would need the second bag at the Vuelta but when he lost time on S17 and with 3 keys stages to go he took it without thinking and correlating that he had souped up his blood already plus used his inhaler use on the stage taking him well up over 2000ug/ml.

Simple really.
Guilty m'lord!
:)
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
rsergio007 said:
I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.


Here’s the thing about bloodbags. Fuentes once trialled a method known as “Siberia” where he would freeze the bags so you could use many throughout the year. It had disatorious results, ie Hamilton in 2004.

Thus there is limited opportunity to perform the withdrawal. Seeing Froome had done the Tour presumably with two blood bags his only time to withdraw would be between the Tour and Vuelta. He would need to be suitably rested and have his hematocrit nice and high at the upper 40’s percent wise. Because he was resting and would want to maintain GT race weight he’d need to be taking something to keep the weight whilst not riding as much and recovering from the Tour, hence why he would have been taking Salbutamol by injection or orally. He may have never thought he would need the second bag at the Vuelta but when he lost time on S17 and with 3 keys stages to go he took it without thinking and correlating that he had souped up his blood already plus used his inhaler use on the stage taking him well up over 2000ug/ml.

Simple really.
Yeah but as others already pointed out, there would had to be a shitload of SAL in that 500ml bag to cause 2000 in urine after hours of riding and dilution in 4500ml of his blood.
Someone with more knowledge should do the math maybe if it is mathematically possible to achieve this concentration with 1 bad blood bag (transfused hours before test) + usual amount of puffs (+- some extra as his doc's advise :p).
 
Re: Re:

rsergio007 said:
I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.

Gotcha, I had not considered that. Seems like it would be a very odd way of administering doping agents.
 
Re: Re:

glassmoon said:
thehog said:
rsergio007 said:
I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.


Here’s the thing about bloodbags. Fuentes once trialled a method known as “Siberia” where he would freeze the bags so you could use many throughout the year. It had disatorious results, ie Hamilton in 2004.

Thus there is limited opportunity to perform the withdrawal. Seeing Froome had done the Tour presumably with two blood bags his only time to withdraw would be between the Tour and Vuelta. He would need to be suitably rested and have his hematocrit nice and high at the upper 40’s percent wise. Because he was resting and would want to maintain GT race weight he’d need to be taking something to keep the weight whilst not riding as much and recovering from the Tour, hence why he would have been taking Salbutamol by injection or orally. He may have never thought he would need the second bag at the Vuelta but when he lost time on S17 and with 3 keys stages to go he took it without thinking and correlating that he had souped up his blood already plus used his inhaler use on the stage taking him well up over 2000ug/ml.

Simple really.
Yeah but as others already pointed out, there would had to be a shitload of SAL in that 500ml bag to cause 2000 in urine after hours of riding and dilution in 4500ml of his blood.
Someone with more knowledge should do the math maybe if it is mathematically possible to achieve this concentration with 1 bad blood bag (transfused hours before test) + usual amount of puffs (+- some extra as his doc's advise :p).

It would seem that calculation would depend entirely on knowing how much they're taking to cut weight in non racing blocks, which I don't think anyone knows. Could be a lot.

In terms of salbutamol, I understand the issue with high doses is that it is linked to a muscle-building effect over a certain amount…

It is. It is thought that high doses…it is a similar class of drug to Clenbuterol and it is thought that can build up lean muscle mass and maintain muscle mass at very high doses.

The reason it is banned at high doses in sport is for two reasons. One, for the health effect – it is dangerous. And the second is the anabolic effect.

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/12/certainly-doesnt-look-good-doctor-speaks-froome-case/
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
rsergio007 said:
I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.


Here’s the thing about bloodbags. Fuentes once trialled a method known as “Siberia” where he would freeze the bags so you could use many throughout the year. It had disatorious results, ie Hamilton in 2004.

Simple really.

Rasmussen had almost 40 bb's (i cant remember the exact number in my head now) waiting for him when he was making his comeback, he had them frozen in Austria, I guarantee you that something like siberia is still around.
 
Re: Re:

glassmoon said:
thehog said:
rsergio007 said:
I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.


Here’s the thing about bloodbags. Fuentes once trialled a method known as “Siberia” where he would freeze the bags so you could use many throughout the year. It had disatorious results, ie Hamilton in 2004.

Thus there is limited opportunity to perform the withdrawal. Seeing Froome had done the Tour presumably with two blood bags his only time to withdraw would be between the Tour and Vuelta. He would need to be suitably rested and have his hematocrit nice and high at the upper 40’s percent wise. Because he was resting and would want to maintain GT race weight he’d need to be taking something to keep the weight whilst not riding as much and recovering from the Tour, hence why he would have been taking Salbutamol by injection or orally. He may have never thought he would need the second bag at the Vuelta but when he lost time on S17 and with 3 keys stages to go he took it without thinking and correlating that he had souped up his blood already plus used his inhaler use on the stage taking him well up over 2000ug/ml.

Simple really.
Yeah but as others already pointed out, there would had to be a shitload of SAL in that 500ml bag to cause 2000 in urine after hours of riding and dilution in 4500ml of his blood.
Someone with more knowledge should do the math maybe if it is mathematically possible to achieve this concentration with 1 bad blood bag (transfused hours before test) + usual amount of puffs (+- some extra as his doc's advise :p).

Well, no. It didn’t need to reach 2000ug/ml in the bag alone .If he was using SAL via an injection straight into the bloodstream and then withdrew, coupled that bag with inhaler use up to his 8 puffs then he’s going to blow close to 2000ug/ml.
 
Re: Re:

markene2 said:
thehog said:
rsergio007 said:
I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.


Here’s the thing about bloodbags. Fuentes once trialled a method known as “Siberia” where he would freeze the bags so you could use many throughout the year. It had disatorious results, ie Hamilton in 2004.

Simple really.

Rasmussen had almost 40 bb's (i cant remember the exact number in my head now) waiting for him when he was making his comeback, he had them frozen in Austria, I guarantee you that something like siberia is still around.

If he was using bb's then surely that would mean it is occurring at a team level. Otherwise he would have to lug a fridge around with him or have his own personal motoman which seem somewhat unlikely and as Mercx Index said in the all about salbutamol thread bb's are unlikely as the main cause of the AAF.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

glassmoon said:
thehog said:
rsergio007 said:
I think it's hard to imagine they'd knowingly store a glowing bag. Easy to see how it could be an error.

You are right, it was most probably an error. Or, also to be considered, having souped-up blood bags is part of their method. Maybe the error was not the storage/administration of a bad bag, maybe it was not properly obfuscating it's application.


Here’s the thing about bloodbags. Fuentes once trialled a method known as “Siberia” where he would freeze the bags so you could use many throughout the year. It had disatorious results, ie Hamilton in 2004.

Thus there is limited opportunity to perform the withdrawal. Seeing Froome had done the Tour presumably with two blood bags his only time to withdraw would be between the Tour and Vuelta. He would need to be suitably rested and have his hematocrit nice and high at the upper 40’s percent wise. Because he was resting and would want to maintain GT race weight he’d need to be taking something to keep the weight whilst not riding as much and recovering from the Tour, hence why he would have been taking Salbutamol by injection or orally. He may have never thought he would need the second bag at the Vuelta but when he lost time on S17 and with 3 keys stages to go he took it without thinking and correlating that he had souped up his blood already plus used his inhaler use on the stage taking him well up over 2000ug/ml.

Simple really.
Yeah but as others already pointed out, there would had to be a shitload of SAL in that 500ml bag to cause 2000 in urine after hours of riding and dilution in 4500ml of his blood.
Someone with more knowledge should do the math maybe if it is mathematically possible to achieve this concentration with 1 bad blood bag (transfused hours before test) + usual amount of puffs (+- some extra as his doc's advise :p).

Perhaps he did have a shitload and thats just it. I think they (Sky) worked out that x + y (salbutamol) = mutant recovery & performance. Kind of like salt + pepper = seasoning. The testers found the sal (knowing it to be one half of the equation) but only because a team doctor has royally fuckered up his glow calcs.

Stopping for a moment - a guy who was vehemently against doping as part of his core belief system would be beside himself and rocked to his core as a result of these allegations possibly even slipping into depression as a result of all this.

He wouldn't be trying to bury it, spin it and portray himself as the innocent asthmatic. He certainly wouldn't be competing in world championships and training for the upcoming season grand tour triple whilst sleeping like a baby at night without a care in the world.

It gives an insight into the mindsets of the lying conniving little toe rags SDB and Froome are.

Somebody definitely assured hem they would bury this- probably Cookson or somebody else prepared to take a bung.
 

TRENDING THREADS