Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1050 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
I am absolutely convinced that the TUE thing should be banned....in all sport. It is a conniving, devious tool to upend the system. Someone has a physical condition that prevents them from competing naturally at the highest level without some chemical intake? then compete at the lower level. What ever level that you can compete naturally without the chemical. it is totally NOT fair to other athletes. There was a time I had heart flutters and i was given medication which kind of silences the heart, that drug is actually banned in Arrow shooting, where a silent heart gives the shooter considerable advantage. Well my Squash game was suddenly at a different level, I could train and play at 3 times my normal intensity without feeling a thing. Should a top Squash athlete get a TUE and use it?? Of course not.

All these top folks with "Asthma" or they say "cycling induced asthma" should drop out of the race if they have to take chemicals. Its the FAIR thing
 
What I don't understand, really, is how Froome would confirm tha giro-tour double without knowing that the B-sample would come out negative OR that the case would somehow go away.

I don't believe that Sky nor Froome would be so naive that they would dare to announce the double without this in mind.

So in my mind, there is little doubt, that someone inside the UCI was trying to make this disappear. And then I think about how ASO has a problem with both UCI and Sky & Froome. It's a wellknown subject that ASO is not a fan of Froome or Sky. So perhaps ASO has a role in this to play too, like they could have been the ones who leaked this.

Israel paid 2 million dollers for Froome to show up, and at the same time Israel is the biggest producer of Salbutamol. Just a fun fact :) :)
 
Re:

sittingbison said:
If you believe 1000 is "acceptable", you are misguided. It is an arbitrary figure devised to exclude accidental positives by being impossible to exceed through taking legal amounts in a legal way. How many positives have there been in tens of thousands of tests?

And twice that?

BTW Dawg is already guilty, he WAS over the limit. The onus is now on him to explain why.
He should already be banned.

"You cheated, but if you can come up with good explanation you will be good. Take all the time you want."

This is a joke...

Im just happy he probably wont win another race anyway after this. Good riddance.
 
Re:

danielovichdk2 said:
What I don't understand, really, is how Froome would confirm tha giro-tour double without knowing that the B-sample would come out negative OR that the case would somehow go away.

I don't believe that Sky nor Froome would be so naive that they would dare to announce the double without this in mind.

So in my mind, there is little doubt, that someone inside the UCI was trying to make this disappear. And then I think about how ASO has a problem with both UCI and Sky & Froome. It's a wellknown subject that ASO is not a fan of Froome or Sky. So perhaps ASO has a role in this to play too, like they could have been the ones who leaked this.

Israel paid 2 million dollers for Froome to show up, and at the same time Israel is the biggest producer of Salbutamol. Just a fun fact :) :)
Yes, i'm intrigued by the source of the leak.

I don't think it was from within Sky. If that was the case i think the Daily Mail (as in Jiffy Bag leak) would have got the story first.

So i veered towards UCI, new French President allowing the story to leak to a French newspaper. Not sure of the link to the Guardian but i'm guessing English print paper thrown into the mix for maximum initial impact.

The ASO option is an interesting one that i hadn't considered. Would they have access to confidential UCI/WADA information like this?
 
Robert5091 said:
Well yeah, but only if you ignore the rest of the quote and the article which it headlines.

What i read is a pretty strong statement of trust and support from Thomas, without missing the opportunity to promote and further his own GT ambitions, which of course we've heard quite a lot of in recent times and way before this story broke.
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
The Hitch said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Red Rick said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
As a Froome's fan, I will wait for UCI/WADA verdict.
But if he is finally banned I will place him between his great rivals, i.e. Contador and Valverde, in a Big Trash of Cycling Dopers and erase his palmaries from my memory.
It's not bans that make dopers, it's doping that makes dopers.
What is obvious for me so far: his level of salbutamol was two times higher than acceptable level.
If CF doesn't clarify enough the reason >> UCI/WADA will ban him >> CF will be a doper.

What (I assume) is obvious for you: his level of salbutamol is two times higher than acceptable level >> CF is a doper.
If Froome is banned the correlation between TDF winners and doping over the last few decades would move even closer to 1. Since the mid 90's The only TDF's not won by suspended athletes would then be 2008 (a lot can be said there) 2011 (even more can be said there) 2012 (basically only hanging on a technicality at the moment)

Move the needle back a bit and you add 5 from Indurain - who by your logic was clean since he wasn't suspended but by everyone else's logic he doped (basically admited it anyway).

So at what point can we say that winning the TDF is enough to say its likely someone dopes?
You forgot 2014.
Tru. My bad.

Though of course a lot can be said about that one as well
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
danielovichdk2 said:
What I don't understand, really, is how Froome would confirm tha giro-tour double without knowing that the B-sample would come out negative OR that the case would somehow go away.

I don't believe that Sky nor Froome would be so naive that they would dare to announce the double without this in mind.

So in my mind, there is little doubt, that someone inside the UCI was trying to make this disappear. And then I think about how ASO has a problem with both UCI and Sky & Froome. It's a wellknown subject that ASO is not a fan of Froome or Sky. So perhaps ASO has a role in this to play too, like they could have been the ones who leaked this.

Israel paid 2 million dollers for Froome to show up, and at the same time Israel is the biggest producer of Salbutamol. Just a fun fact :) :)
Yes, i'm intrigued by the source of the leak.

I don't think it was from within Sky. If that was the case i think the Daily Mail (as in Jiffy Bag leak) would have got the story first.

So i veered towards UCI, new French President allowing the story to leak to a French newspaper. Not sure of the link to the Guardian but i'm guessing English print paper thrown into the mix for maximum initial impact.

The ASO option is an interesting one that i hadn't considered. Would they have access to confidential UCI/WADA information like this?
Testing the waters. The onus in on the Disney board at this stage. ASO to Murdoch: "Dump Sky in exchange for a stage starting at Euro Disney?"
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Rollthedice said:
The Hitch said:
Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Red Rick said:
[quote="

What is obvious for me so far: his level of salbutamol was two times higher than acceptable level.
If CF doesn't clarify enough the reason >> UCI/WADA will ban him >> CF will be a doper.

What (I assume) is obvious for you: his level of salbutamol is two times higher than acceptable level >> CF is a doper.
If Froome is banned the correlation between TDF winners and doping over the last few decades would move even closer to 1. Since the mid 90's The only TDF's not won by suspended athletes would then be 2008 (a lot can be said there) 2011 (even more can be said there) 2012 (basically only hanging on a technicality at the moment)

Move the needle back a bit and you add 5 from Indurain - who by your logic was clean since he wasn't suspended but by everyone else's logic he doped (basically admited it anyway).

So at what point can we say that winning the TDF is enough to say its likely someone dopes?
You forgot 2014.
Tru. My bad.

Though of course a lot can be said about that one as well
It's actually quite remarkable how little controversy he's been considering the teams he's been on
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
brownbobby said:
Robert5091 said:
Well yeah, but only if you ignore the rest of the quote and the article which it headlines.

What i read is a pretty strong statement of trust and support from Thomas, without missing the opportunity to promote and further his own GT ambitions, which of course we've heard quite a lot of in recent times and way before this story broke.
Thomas has to support Froome. It's only a couple of years ago that he decided to go full genius and get on the same programme after all. Remember G suddenly riding the GT specialists off his wheel on the MTFs - beautiful! Another Sky rider making a miraculous transformation in his late 20s - whoda thunk it! :rolleyes:
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Re:

Escarabajo said:
We have to go by sanctions only, otherwise nobody would be spared from the doping accusations.
that's fair for Sastre, Evans, Nibali, even for Wiggins, but not for Indurain where it is established that he was a "normal" 90s turbocharged champ.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
hfer07 said:
nayr497 said:
Geraint suddenly becoming a GT rider has been bizarre to watch.
G has always been the plan B for GTs - but he's been unlucky. His answer on Froome's case hints he'll likely be the leader at the Tour.
Can you elaborate on “always”?
If he is the plan B, he will have to contract a disease plus develop asthma between now and next July
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
hfer07 said:
nayr497 said:
Geraint suddenly becoming a GT rider has been bizarre to watch.
G has always been the plan B for GTs - but he's been unlucky. His answer on Froome's case hints he'll likely be the leader at the Tour.
Can you elaborate on “always”?
A British team was meant to always prioritize British/UK riders above the rest. have you noticed G's dramatic/absurd improvement over the last years? He's always been next in line.
 
Re: Re:

hfer07 said:
red_flanders said:
hfer07 said:
nayr497 said:
Geraint suddenly becoming a GT rider has been bizarre to watch.
G has always been the plan B for GTs - but he's been unlucky. His answer on Froome's case hints he'll likely be the leader at the Tour.
Can you elaborate on “always”?
A British team was meant to always prioritize British/UK riders above the rest. have you noticed G's dramatic/absurd improvement over the last years? He's always been next in line.
I have, it's the dramatic/absurd that made me ask. I remember when it would have been comical that he'd be a GT rider.

Wait.

It still is. :D
 
Re: Re:

veji11 said:
red_flanders said:
hfer07 said:
nayr497 said:
Geraint suddenly becoming a GT rider has been bizarre to watch.
G has always been the plan B for GTs - but he's been unlucky. His answer on Froome's case hints he'll likely be the leader at the Tour.
Can you elaborate on “always”?
Since PORTE left.
Pleeeaaasseee...... LRP was never meant to be Froome's backup- that's the very reason he left SKY in the first place- he was done being Froomie's BFF & shadow while SKY was setting up G for the next chapter. can't blame him one bit.
 
At least by 2013 the plan b or c was still Pete Kennaugh instead of Thomas. Actually, in 2014 Kennaugh was about to lead Sky at the Giro instead of Porte before he fell ill himself. It wasn't until 2015 that Thomas seriously looked to become a gc contender.
 
Jan 6, 2014
548
0
0
Re: Re:

70kmph said:
rote_laterne said:
70kmph said:
LeMonde Article

http://www.lemonde.fr/cyclisme/article/2017/12/14/cyclisme-le-cas-froome-ne-sera-pas-tranche-avant-plusieurs-mois_5229561_1616656.html

Froome hasn't yet taken the lab test

Froome was instructed to take 3 puffs by his Doctor after the finish then go to the controls :eek:
But why would his "doctor" advise this and Froome follow that advise when he wasn't ill like he said after the stage (someone even posted a youtube link to the interview).

Also if it's right that his test results means 40 puffs how can 3 puffs right before doping control explain his test results? Also very unlikely that he took 3 puffs and didn't drink to reduce his dehydration.
His reason for this was to do the post race interview without coughing, being out of breath
Yes, thank you. But again it seems like he only remembered that recently:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-i-havent-broken-any-rules/
By Cycling News December 13, 2017 10:35pm
Updated: December 14, 2017 7:43pm

"The mere fact that journalists were asking me 'are you sick, are you battling something?' it meant they could see I was having problems breathing after the stage. I think it was clear to everyone I was very symptomatic at that time."
So everyone know about his problems after the stage (I'm sure if journalists realize his problems even more so staff of other teams) still he puffs before the TV interviews.

Also after the Dauphiné stage he said he uses Salbutamol before "big efforts" - so giving TV interviews all smiling while lying is a big effort for the greatest alien ever gracing this world.
 
Interesting to note is that UCI did not specify the salbutamol level in Froome's sample only declaring that he was over the allowed max of 1000. Sky said it was 2000. Given that they are serial liers God knows how high was ze Dawg on salbutamol.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY