Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[veji11]

Re: Re:

I think it's a big can of worms abolishing TUE. Biggest issue in cycling is illegal performance enhancement, not the number of TUE authorisations. Worrying about 15 TUEs across the whole of cycling last year just seems pointless. Would 15 less cyclists across every UCI cycling discipline having a TUE last year make any difference really? I think you just have to focus on perhaps making the TUE process viewable in realtime to the public. If you're so ill you need a TUE and you keep dominating races and the public knows that you have that TUE beforehand, it would at least allow perspective.

Fair enough, my take is that we are in a big can of worms right now. TUEs are a tiny aspect of it, more generally it's chemical doping that remains the key problem, be it through non forbidden substances (à la Sharapova), be it through substance with a short afterlife in the organism, be it throught TUE abus, or be it through clever exploiting of maximum allowed concentration of this or that.

A blanket ban, with the most marginal of adjustments to make it workable, is probably the only real sane system we could have, coupled with regular doctor imposed "temporary disability" breaks in the course of a career. That's it.

 

[samhocking]

The thing is, the TUE framework is set up for a reason. It addresses many issues there used to be, before it existed under WADA code and was a random process dealt with internally by a riders own Federation or Olympic Committee and open to far more abuse than we've seen in the last 10 years. Asthma treatments are clearly linked to all the last big AAFs anti-doping cases from Contador, Pettachi, Wiggins, Yates & now Froome. Those cases span across those asthma treatments being prohibited and then not prohibited however, especially Wiggins, so clearly prohibiting or not in-compeition is unlikely to change that based on it has already happened for Salbutomol and various other B2s. Wiggins had TUE for Corticosteroids at Cofidis & FdJ for example long before the threshold and WADA TUE existed.

 

[King Boonen]

we should perhaps move to a system where we see whats in a sample rather than what is not

I'm unsure what you mean?

 

[veji11]

Re:

The thing is, the TUE framework is set up for a reason. It addresses many issues there used to be, before it existed under WADA code and was a random process dealt with internally by a riders own Federation or Olympic Committee and open to far more abuse than we've seen in the last 10 years. Asthma treatments are clearly linked to all the last big AAFs anti-doping cases from Contador, Pettachi, Wiggins, Yates & now Froome. Those cases span across those asthma treatments being prohibited and then not prohibited however, so clearly prohibiting or not in-compeition is unlikely to change that based on it has already happened for Salbutomol and various other B2s.

I disagree. Prohibition would have made those cases impossible.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

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.

Trouble with that is it's the racing that is remembered not so much the bans. The bans have become like water off a duck's back........barely noticeable. Just one race in the last 20 years the Tour, if it is used as a guide re the winners and podiums it makes for depressing reading and then you have the Menchov's in the Giro and Vuelta, Pantani and Heras, Rumsas, Gotti,Hesjedal and so on. A cast of many and if the most talented riders are doping what are the others doing ? If no one doped at all would a Contador still be winning, I think he would.

Many drug enforcement officials think the war on recreational drugs was lost year's ago, what governments see as a win is playing around the edges of the problem. I think sport is the same, sport is big business like drugs if nothing else and fame and winning are all the matters especially for the people at the top. There is no doubt that what has been found in Russia with doping is also being done in other countries. And if it is this bad now what was it like 40 years ago when drug authorities were so less vigilant ? If drugs in sport worried people that much they would not watch at all. Some people may do that but not many. Unfortunately people have accepted cheating in sport and that is the only way to keep watching.

Bada bing, bada boom.

Last spring, had the pleasure of visiting The Kingdom of the United. Most pleasant and most interesting. On entering a Public House one afternoon, saw a sign that read ... "No Team Colors Allowed." How tribal, I thought. WTF, I thought. Now, I know that depending on the pub, the town, the teams and colors and eras ... that there is a broad variance in the manifestation of this particular, peculiar phenomena.

As Dylan Casey suggested on the Dawg Stages podcast, today, whyTF ... do people care so much about Chris Froome and his apparent indiscretion? Why do people want him buried? Why is the sport of cycling so self-flagellating. FFS, don't say it's because you all want to do your small bit to clean up the sport? That's the same *** you all offered about Armstrong.

I'll answer your question. First I'll ask my own one.

Why do you pretend to come from outside the United Kingdom and to not be British?

To answer your question, very simply put I don't like Chris Froome and I don't like Team Sky. I also didn't like Armstrong and Brunyeel. Because I think they are liars and I don't like liars. I didn't like them taking credit for what other people had done.
So I wanted him to get caught.

And now he has and I am happy.

But go ahead. Put false motivations on us to make yourself feel superior, all you want.

Nope/wouldn’t matter if I was/nice try trying to get my country/irrelevant “in this particular circumstance” ... but not in other circumstances on this forum, clearly.

Thanks for answering the question. Now I know for sure, in regards to you, it’s not about the dope. Deadly sins, the rich man, heaven, the camel, the needle .... voodoo. I figured as much.

Feeling superior? Like ... I’m outa olive branches for the week. No need to be running your vigilance so hot in this weather. Save it for the real cold weather.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

The thing is, the TUE framework is set up for a reason. It addresses many issues there used to be, before it existed under WADA code and was a random process dealt with internally by a riders own Federation or Olympic Committee and open to far more abuse than we've seen in the last 10 years. Asthma treatments are clearly linked to all the last big AAFs anti-doping cases from Contador, Pettachi, Wiggins, Yates & now Froome. Those cases span across those asthma treatments being prohibited and then not prohibited however, so clearly prohibiting or not in-compeition is unlikely to change that based on it has already happened for Salbutomol and various other B2s.

I disagree. Prohibition would have made those cases impossible.

EPO is prohibited and without TUE possible. What difference does it make if you want to cheat illegally if a TUE system exists or not?

 

[rick james]

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

 

[veji11]

Re: Re:

The thing is, the TUE framework is set up for a reason. It addresses many issues there used to be, before it existed under WADA code and was a random process dealt with internally by a riders own Federation or Olympic Committee and open to far more abuse than we've seen in the last 10 years. Asthma treatments are clearly linked to all the last big AAFs anti-doping cases from Contador, Pettachi, Wiggins, Yates & now Froome. Those cases span across those asthma treatments being prohibited and then not prohibited however, so clearly prohibiting or not in-compeition is unlikely to change that based on it has already happened for Salbutomol and various other B2s.

I disagree. Prohibition would have made those cases impossible.

EPO is prohibited and without TUE possible. What difference does it make if you want to cheat illegally if a TUE system exists or not?

Prohibition of chemicals does still imply detection of chemicals of course. If you can't find it...

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

it's because people hoped for something bigger.
just salbutamol instead, oh fkuc! just 9 months off!

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

it's because people hoped for something bigger.
just salbutamol instead, oh fkuc! just 9 months off!

something bigger?? hell, Salbutamol is the worst drug ever invented by man kind....its killing our sport

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

shurely shome mishtake.... you must mean weight loss treatment???

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

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.

Trouble with that is it's the racing that is remembered not so much the bans. The bans have become like water off a duck's back........barely noticeable. Just one race in the last 20 years the Tour, if it is used as a guide re the winners and podiums it makes for depressing reading and then you have the Menchov's in the Giro and Vuelta, Pantani and Heras, Rumsas, Gotti,Hesjedal and so on. A cast of many and if the most talented riders are doping what are the others doing ? If no one doped at all would a Contador still be winning, I think he would.

Many drug enforcement officials think the war on recreational drugs was lost year's ago, what governments see as a win is playing around the edges of the problem. I think sport is the same, sport is big business like drugs if nothing else and fame and winning are all the matters especially for the people at the top. There is no doubt that what has been found in Russia with doping is also being done in other countries. And if it is this bad now what was it like 40 years ago when drug authorities were so less vigilant ? If drugs in sport worried people that much they would not watch at all. Some people may do that but not many. Unfortunately people have accepted cheating in sport and that is the only way to keep watching.

Bada bing, bada boom.

Last spring, had the pleasure of visiting The Kingdom of the United. Most pleasant and most interesting. On entering a Public House one afternoon, saw a sign that read ... "No Team Colors Allowed." How tribal, I thought. WTF, I thought. Now, I know that depending on the pub, the town, the teams and colors and eras ... that there is a broad variance in the manifestation of this particular, peculiar phenomena.

As Dylan Casey suggested on the Dawg Stages podcast, today, whyTF ... do people care so much about Chris Froome and his apparent indiscretion? Why do people want him buried? Why is the sport of cycling so self-flagellating. FFS, don't say it's because you all want to do your small bit to clean up the sport? That's the same *** you all offered about Armstrong.

because he's an interloper.....not in terms of geography, in terms of he's not one of the greats...you know the greats because the win races as juniors and the old men in the bars say to watch out for that one, then they win at U23 and the old men say watch that and we told you...then that start winning smaller races and the old men look forward to having witnessed the growth of what they see before them...Froome (and Wiggins before him) entered GT world stage left with nobody having any investment in them emotionally and them literally not being able to believe what they saw....everybody knows the speeds that (all) these guys achieve are 'not normal' in terms of the amateur but then expecting to suspend belief twice over is too much....

....and that's without the sky marginal gains bullsh*t, the health problems, the train, the looking down and the gangly styleee...

forza Vincenzo

Gangly sports romance, bro ... banjo ‘n all. You’ve been left behind by the 21st century.

 

[Lo squalo di messina]

Gotta love the fact the sky fans can do nothing about the fact that sky and froome are tainted forever. It s more then time to put the dawg down.

 

[Merckx index]

The rules and past precedent is clear. The suspension starts on/is backdated to the day of the failed test.

Except that isn’t what happened with Petacchi. He failed a test in May. His backdated suspension began in November.

Granted, there is a difference. He was suspended after his positive test, but as far as I can tell, he didn’t have to be. The rules then were a little different. There was no automatic 1000 ng/ml threshold, one had to have a TUE to be allowed to have urine levels up to that threshold. But Petacchi did have a TUE, so he was in a similar situation to Froome’s. It just happened he was suspended when he crossed the threshold, while Froome has not been.

At this moment, Froome is free to race, and will be until some decision is made. While I freely admit it would seem strange for him to lose the decision after racing the Giro and Tour and not lose those results, here's another somewhat relevant case. Weight-lifter Aleksan Karapetyn tested positive at an event in 2005, though the positive did not come to light until 2006. His suspension was backdated to March of that year, so he was allowed to keep all results following the 2005 event up to March 2006, including the Commonwealth Games.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/six-examples-of-wada-appeals
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-04-23/australian-weightlifter-banned-for-doping/2530468

As far as I can tell, the rules do allow for flexibility in back-dating if the athlete hasn't been suspended:

Article 10.8 of the WADA code:

Disqualification of Results in Competitions Subsequent to Sample Collection or Commission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation In addition to the automatic disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9, all other competitive results of the athlete obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or out-of-Competition), or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf

I think the key is the bolded. Thus far there has not been any suspension or ineligibility period. The fairness clause also suggests that if Froome were found not negligent, he might also keep results after the Vuelta but before a decision.

10.11.1:

Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of doping Control not attributable to the athlete or other Person, the body imposing the sanction may start the period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of Sample collection

Note that it says “may”, not “must”

The paper I provided showed, unequivocally, that it does manifest itself in children. I'm not making a claim that Froome was like those children or making suggestions about how active he was as a child. I’m not even making a claim that Froome is telling the truth. I'm purely pointing out that EIA affects children and it is not necessary to "live the exercise-intense life of the pro" for it to manifest.

Fair enough, but it doesn’t change my original point about a valid question being raised about Froome. That was what started this discussion, whether Froome had asthma from childhood, or EIA. The poster who put it that way was dismissed by you and someone else, on the grounds that he could have had asthma from childhood and at the same time it could have been EIA:

Robert said:

So has he always had asthma or is it EIA?

KB replied:

I'm not sure why you are confused? Maybe he has always had EIA?

Der Effe followed with:

Yeah what King Boonen said

But given that Dickinson, apparently an authority, says that EIA mostly results from the large volume of air that elite athletes process (and cites far higher proportions of EIA among swimmers than found in the study of children), that seems like a very reasonable question to ask. I think Dickinson would argue that most EIA, at least among elite athletes, begins in adulthood.

Sam Hocking, for most people, illness and disease are basically synonyms. I take it by illness you mean a disease that has progressed to the point where symptoms interfere with normal function. I wonder what JV would think of this discussion about needing medication to compete. As many here may remember, he had to abandon the TDF because he wasn’t allowed to treat a bee sting.

By the way, asthma treatments had nothing to do with the Contador case. CB could be used to treat asthma, I guess, but that wasn't his argument.

 

[glassmoon]

Say he get 9 months backdated to the end of Sept. 2017. Will he go for TdF-Vuelta double again?

 

[jilbiker]

I think Sky and Froome assumed this would go away quietly under some negotiated deal. I also think this is not the first time this has happened to Sky and Froome but everything or everyone has been settled. Is the UCI this bad? is it un-rescureable? After Festina, we thought well everyone has wisened up, then we get LA right in out face! 7 TDF! Take that, cycling fans, its all junk! Then after LA, we "cleaned" up UCI with the into of Cookson, then we get Froome, right in our face again! 4 TDFs with performances that were more baffling than LA! Take that cycling fans!

The fact that it took a leak, 3 months and still hanging, debate that he may get off, makes me want to say scrap the UCI? New boss comes in, to me he seems to be a whole lot of blah-blah...talk...lets see some action, please

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Fair enough, but it doesn’t change my original point about a valid question being raised about Froome. That was what started this discussion, whether Froome had asthma from childhood, or EIA. The poster who put it that way was dismissed by you and someone else, on the grounds that he could have had asthma from childhood and at the same time it could have been EIA. But given that Dickinson, apparently an authority, says that EIA mostly results from the large volume of air that elite athletes process (and cites far higher proportions of EIA among swimmers than found in the study of children), that seems like a very reasonable question to ask. I think Dickinson would argue that most EIA, at least among elite athletes, begins in adulthood.

No, this is wrong.


Literally no evidence for that but this is getting really boring so I'm done.

 

[jilbiker]

I wonder if the Vuelta-TDF double was too much for some UCI folks, may be the whole double deal was dis-allowed (in the backroom deal house) post Festina. Then he announces Giro double?? "Too much" meaning excess juice and no where to "safely" hide it. You are exposed, they (UCI) are exposed.....

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Fair enough, but it doesn’t change my original point about a valid question being raised about Froome. That was what started this discussion, whether Froome had asthma from childhood, or EIA. The poster who put it that way was dismissed by you and someone else, on the grounds that he could have had asthma from childhood and at the same time it could have been EIA. But given that Dickinson, apparently an authority, says that EIA mostly results from the large volume of air that elite athletes process (and cites far higher proportions of EIA among swimmers than found in the study of children), that seems like a very reasonable question to ask. I think Dickinson would argue that most EIA, at least among elite athletes, begins in adulthood.

No, this is wrong.


Literally no evidence for that but this is getting really boring so I'm done.

I don't think it makes any difference if you have asthma or not as a child or adult. All riders with or without asthma are allowed upto the 1000 threshold for Salbutomol and will not be required any medical proof of having asthma under that. Of course the difference comes when you exceed that threshold. Without medical diagnosis of asthma and/or a TUE to exceed the limit, there is no possible way you can escape the AAF for A + B Sample exceeding 1000, so kind of self-fulfilling to catch those trying to cheat and don't have legitimate asthma.
I think there's probably multiple AAFs that go by each year we never hear about. The only ones you'll hear about are either those leaked before final decision, those appealing a decision at CAS or those riders simply sanctioned and therefore serving a simple ban. We simply don't hear about those riders with AAF, but not sanctioned because the WADA rules say it isn't to be made public.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

Little sins
Short bans
Makes sense
Even happens here

 

[deviant]

A big part of Froomes defence is now going to be UCI leaked AAF results before they made a final decision I would imagine. UCI are not even adhering to the very protocol they said they would adhere to in such cases playing Cookson politics or not, they've screwed up from a legal defence that's for sure.

I'm going for this approach from Froome...turn an AAF into an attack on the UCI itself for not following their own policies and procedures...aim for a technicality.

I did the same to a Police force in the UK with an official complaint to the IPCC when they tried to report me to the DVLA and have my driving license revoked for a medical condition i didnt actually have...got them on not following their own policies and procedures and not informing me the were carrying out this action...i recieved a 'surprise' letter from the driving licence agency telling me to surrender my licence or be subject to various medical examinations to ascertain whether i should be driving or not...when i got back to them they said the police officer that pulled me over should have informed me what their concerns were and what they were going to do about it...i didnt get pulled over, i was visited at home by officers using out of date 'intel' on their system and they never informed me they were going to report me to the DVLA...once i complained an investigating officer phoned me at home and tried to argue, bully and intimidate me into retracting the complaint but i pushed on as i knew they'd cocked up (as did he)...and ultimately the incident was forgotten about.

Judging by the reputation of the lawyer Froome has hired i'm going for this approach....he knows he wont be able to get in a lab and reproduce this finding for the authorities so best head them off before it gets that far.

 

[gillan1969]

A big part of Froomes defence is now going to be UCI leaked AAF results before they made a final decision I would imagine. UCI are not even adhering to the very protocol they said they would adhere to in such cases playing Cookson politics or not, they've screwed up from a legal defence that's for sure.

I'm going for this approach from Froome...turn an AAF into an attack on the UCI itself for not following their own policies and procedures...aim for a technicality.

I did the same to a Police force in the UK with an official complaint to the IPCC when they tried to report me to the DVLA and have my driving license revoked for a medical condition i didnt actually have...got them on not following their own policies and procedures and not informing me the were carrying out this action...i recieved a 'surprise' letter from the driving licence agency telling me to surrender my licence or be subject to various medical examinations to ascertain whether i should be driving or not...when i got back to them they said the police officer that pulled me over should have informed me what their concerns were and what they were going to do about it...i didnt get pulled over, i was visited at home by officers using out of date 'intel' on their system and they never informed me they were going to report me to the DVLA...once i complained an investigating officer phoned me at home and tried to argue, bully and intimidate me into retracting the complaint but i pushed on as i knew they'd cocked up (as did he)...and ultimately the incident was forgotten about.

Judging by the reputation of the lawyer Froome has hired i'm going for this approach....he knows he wont be able to get in a lab and reproduce this finding for the authorities so best head them off before it gets that far.

unless they can demonstrate that the UCI (as a corporate body) sanctioned the leak then they are currently following procedures...

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

it's because people hoped for something bigger.
just salbutamol instead, oh fkuc! just 9 months off!

Caught with EPO or motors or caught bribing the UCI, that would have been the quick way out, the shot to the head.

When that happens you know the gig is up. Maybe go depressed for a year or so like Armstrong Floyd etc and then give up and learn to live a new life. And the fans can go on to believe in the next Armstrong/ Froome.

This way, when its "just salbutamol", he will keep fighting keep digging keep lying.

Keep hoping that "it was just salbutamol" will keep the lie alive.

It seems scarier, but its easier in the long run to just let it all go rather than fight for a career claiming like all the liars before, that in this case, it really really really was just an accident

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

small quantities of weak drug.

Didn't seem to stop you from going after Contador

Hypocrite much?

yip gifted his final stage by the Dawg and Poels. good riddance to the dirty cheat and unrepentant doper

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

it's because people hoped for something bigger.
just salbutamol instead, oh fkuc! just 9 months off!

Caught with EPO or motors or caught bribing the UCI, that would have been the quick way out, the shot to the head.

When that happens you know the gig is up. Maybe go depressed for a year or so like Armstrong Floyd etc and then give up and learn to live a new life. And the fans can go on to believe in the next Armstrong/ Froome.

This way, when its "just salbutamol", he will keep fighting keep digging keep lying.

Keep hoping that "it was just salbutamol" will keep the lie alive.

It seems scarier, but its easier in the long run to just let it all go rather than fight for a career claiming like all the liars before, that in this case, it really really really was just an accident

asthma treatment.....Smoking gun indeed