Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1060 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
El Pistolero said:
rick james said:
Benotti69 said:
Yeah, but he doesn't have asthma..............smoking....... :lol:
yes he does
He never mentioned it in his crappy book.
"VeloNews reached out to Dr. John Dickinson, a leading expert on asthma in sport and head of the respiratory clinic at the University of Kent’s School of Sport and Exercise Science for help in understanding the science of exercise-induced asthma (EIA). In 2014, Dickinson led a study that revealed more than 70 percent of Britain’s top swimmers and nearly one-third of Team Sky riders were afflicted by EIA. Furthermore, the British physician has objectively tested Froome and confirms the four-time Tour de France champion has asthma. Due to doctor/patient confidentiality, he is not able to divulge how severe Froome’s asthma is."

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/explainer-salbutamol-asthma-and-what-comes-next-for-froome_453676

Don't know about earlier than that but presumably he had before too.
That certainly was one objective testing! :lol:

I don't believe a word to Sky doctors anymore (or their associates). And I would love to see as one poster stated medical record of Froome TUE's for asthma from day one of his professional career (I bet there was none pre-2010, when salbutamol was banned), and if possible his childhood medical record for asthma.
 
"You've hit the Clinic's limitation which is that it is not a philosophy school. OK so the sports industry is a way in which the oligarchs maintain their control over us - agreed. Paul Kimmage, for all his lack of intellect, reads like St Augustine in "The Confessions" where he admits he couldn't resist live Roman sports despite knowing it was all ***".[/quote]

Sorry, i get your point. Wasn't intending to philosophise....just got 2 hours to kill before i shut the office and escape for Xmas :lol:
 
Re: Re:

sittingbison said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
....
Kind of sucks to be a footnote to someone else's doping case.
That's the impression that Ulissi will be remembered for until this whole Froome thing fades away (which is to say, for a long time)
The amusing thing about comparing Ulissi and Dawg is....who is Ulissi? The most famous and decorated cyclist in the world? Winner of FIVE grand tours? Leader of the world's biggest and most successful team? Olympic medallist? Paid mi!!ions$ in appearance money? 7th most popular sports personality? Winner of the Anatomic Jock Strap race?

Nope....and he couldn't even beat Dawg in the dope level.

So why should their bans be the same?
Ulissi 1920 ng
Froome 2000 ng

Ulissi got 9 months. I say give 10 months to Froome.
 
So Prudhomme just weighed in and said the UCI had to get this sorted ASAP, well said !

Is it me or has no one asked the UCI what the friggin' deadline was for Froome to provide his full response? Or maybe he already has and they're just sitting in it? But the Froome camp would probably have said so. What a mess...
 
Cookson knew about the A sample. The B sample results he did not, because they came back after Lappartient's victory. Then Lappartient sat on it for 3 months, we assume because Froome provided medical documents etc, but someone at UCI leaked the AAF before UCI has made a decision based on those documents etc, which is not how these things are usually dealt with today. They are meant to be complying with anti-doping protocol, not going back to how things were leaked traditionally before CADF.


And you this how ? Where are these dates published ? My guess is that you are guessing, like 95% of the clinic.

When was UCI handed the results for the B sample ? Why did Froome announce the "double" if he knew there was a positive test ? Why did Cookson want Skys rep' to be considered "clean" if he knew of a positive ? Why would Froome consult an attorney 3 months after a first positive and not right away ? And what about CADF, they are supposedly an independent agency but clearly their finding stopped from entering the public when they addressed the UCI with a positive test.

This is beyond doping of a rider, it's a dead clear show of how corrupt UCI is.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
sittingbison said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
....
Kind of sucks to be a footnote to someone else's doping case.
That's the impression that Ulissi will be remembered for until this whole Froome thing fades away (which is to say, for a long time)
The amusing thing about comparing Ulissi and Dawg is....who is Ulissi? The most famous and decorated cyclist in the world? Winner of FIVE grand tours? Leader of the world's biggest and most successful team? Olympic medallist? Paid mi!!ions$ in appearance money? 7th most popular sports personality? Winner of the Anatomic Jock Strap race?

Nope....and he couldn't even beat Dawg in the dope level.

So why should their bans be the same?
Ulissi 1920 ng
Froome 2000 ng

Ulissi got 9 months. I say give 10 months to Froome.
AleJet 1320 ng/ml = 1 year
Froome 2000 ng/ml = 20 months?
;)
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
El Pistolero said:
rick james said:
Benotti69 said:
Yeah, but he doesn't have asthma..............smoking....... :lol:
yes he does
He never mentioned it in his crappy book.
So what?
If he had asthma since his childhood, I'd definitely expect him to brag about his amazing fight vs asthma and badzilla since he was 7 with some dumbass language, but that book only covers badzilla for some reason.

Actually, they stopped mentioning badzilla for a while, I am pretty sure that badzilla had an effect on his struggle to Machucos, they should have used it.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I must admit, next years Forward Podcasts focusing on cycling is going to be interesting. I'm in agreement with brownbobby, he has a lot to say and always add something not already said. He's not the sharpest tool in the box, but at least he was in the box unlike most commentators on cycling.
I’m with Sam and BrownB on this one. Armstrong has shown, over the last year, that he has an extensive pro cycling audience. He has alluded to smaller ‘think tanks’ ... merging into larger ones. These players have experience, influence, vision, motivation and money.

The “let’s fix pro cycling by burning at the stake two high profile dopers” is such a feeble, pale, flaccid agenda perpetrated by an evangelical cohort ... devoid of a Scene ii. If another group, other than UCI, can effectively wed the world’s best cyclists with a professional business model that appropriately compensates and protects riders, proliferates pro cycling ... and provides top notch sports entertainment, let them have a go.
 
Re: Re:

burning said:
rick james said:
El Pistolero said:
rick james said:
Benotti69 said:
Yeah, but he doesn't have asthma..............smoking....... :lol:
yes he does
He never mentioned it in his crappy book.
So what?
If he had asthma since his childhood, I'd definitely expect him to brag about his amazing fight vs asthma and badzilla since he was 7 with some dumbass language, but that book only covers badzilla for some reason.

Actually, they stopped mentioning badzilla for a while, I am pretty sure that badzilla had an effect on his struggle to Machucos, they should have used it.
really...he didn't write about it in a book so he must be hung by the baws
 
Conspiracy tinfoil hat on
Seems to me, the only entity who benefits from this is Disney. They surely wanted cut the pro-cycling out of their portfolio (after LA, USPS) and this gives them golden opportunity to do that right away. No obligations till 2020 - provided the "doping clauses" in the Sky contract exist (would be surprise if they don't). The leak benefits them vastly.
Always follow the money.
Conspiracy tinfoil hat off
:Question:
 
Re:

glassmoon said:
Conspiracy tinfoil hat on
Seems to me, the only entity who benefits from this is Disney. They surely wanted cut the pro-cycling out of their portfolio (after LA, USPS) and this gives them golden opportunity to do that right away. No obligations till 2020 - provided the "doping clauses" in the Sky contract exist (would be surprise if they don't). The leak benefits them vastly.
Always follow the money.
Conspiracy tinfoil hat off
:Question:
Lance has pumped the same theory. It wouldn't cost Disney a cent plus the ASO will throw in a start from Euro Disney as a thank you.
 
brownbobby said:
Teddy Boom said:
brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-chris-froomes-reputation-is-tarnished-forever/

I agree with almost every word he has to say here, not just the stuff on Froome, that's obvious, but cycling in general....
The guy is talking *** left and right, and he takes every opportunity to talk bad about UCI, WADA, whoever he thinks is responsible for his downfall, and generally about cycling.
Maybe, sometimes. But use your own filter to separate what he says from what he did, the vendetta and self justification. He still has stuff worth hearing occasionally, for me anyway. In this piece his views on how cycling fuels its own problems resonates with me.
It really comes down to how you feel about doping in sport. If you actually want it eliminated, well cycling is about the only sport that even cares to try. If you think doping control is just about harm reduction, and you just want a big healthy sports-marketing machine, then Lance is dead on the money. We're in the Clinic here, and we all know you can't have it both ways.
Exactly my point.

But for me, the notion of clean sport has become pure fantasy. I’m resigned to history repeating itself, maybe I’m a pessimist. The question is what is cycling. Is it sport? Is it entertainment? If it’s the former, then doping will be the death of cycling, however very few sports remain pure sports. If it’s the latter, or more realistically a combination of the two, then we don’t need to mourn for the death of our beloved sport just yet.

Doping isn’t the only problem. Our reaction to the doping keeps that problem constant. Like a constant vicious circle. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Take football/soccer in the UK. One of the biggest stars in the game at the time, ex England Captain and stalwart of the biggest club team in the world was handed a lengthy ban for missing a drugs test. It was a bit of a story at the time, but soon faded away. Very little focus and interrogation of the issues surrounding the missed test ever saw the light of day. Why? Because drugs in football are not the main story. He served his ban, picked up where he left off, hero status not even slightly dented.

I dare say this pattern repeats itself across all popular national sports.

When presented with the facts, most sane people will acknowledge that most of the major sports in the world, the ones that demand superhuman abilities to compete at the top level, are fuelled by doping. It’s obvious. But people don’t care, or perhaps more to the point they choose not to think about it. They don’t want to see how the show was made, they just want to enjoy the show.

The sponsors, big name sponsors like Nike, Adidas, continue to queue up to pay our heroes to be seen in their product. They don’t care about their morals. They care about how often their faces are going to appear on the TV.

And that’s the difference with cycling. Doping is the main story. Not because it’s any more or less prevalent than other sports, but because we, the fans, every bit as much as the actors (teams/cyclists) keep it that way.
Nothing demonstrated this better than Operacion Puerto. One by one, most/all of the cyclists were hunted down. Exposed. Shamed. But what about the others. Rumours of world famous soccer players, tennis players at the very highest level. But never pursued. Nobody cares. It was all about those dirty cyclists. Don’t blame the media, they will only ever follow public opinion, public interest. That’s how they continue to be relevant.

See we’re different. Cycling is different. We’re obsessed with what goes on behind the scenes. That’s every bit as much a part of the show as what goes on out on the road.

But here’s my view…..It’s not such a bad thing. The whole LA story and eventual scandal bought lots of new people to the sport. Most of them stayed. Sky, with the classic good versus bad story bought new people to the sport. I think most of them will stick around to see the next instalment. Yeah, we see lots of comments like ‘im done with cycling’, ‘I can’t trust it anymore, I’m not interested’. These commenters, so disinterested, they keep subscribing to the news, keep registering on forums, keep reading the articles, just so they can tell everyone how much they hate cycling and how disinterested they are in it all. But they’re still here, they just don’t want to admit it.

Do any of you really see a scenario in ten, twenty years time where there’s a real belief in cycling as a clean sport?

Don’t try to change what can’t be changed. Influence what can be influenced, and embrace what you’re left with.

I don’t believe that for cycling redemption lies in cleaning up the sport. Even if it was ever possible to convince people that this had happened, does this see a sudden flock of new fans? I don’t think so. The problem for cycling is in its business model, not its image. Any business needs consumption to survive, consumption needs interest in the product. Like it or not, doping drives interest in cycling.

We made it so. By making doping the main topic, not just the sub plot we made it so. By refusing to believe in miracles, by questioning every performance that is exceptional. With good reason. Our non-cycling friends, they all think cycling is a dirty sport and everyone cheats. I wonder where they get that impression from? It doesn’t mean they won’t be interested if the entertainment on offer is good enough.

Look to other sports, the adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity rings true. The challenge for cycling is to turn interest into consumption.

See, good stories never start with the good guys prevailing and then continue with them living happily ever after. That’s how the story ends, that’s when people lose interest, when the credits roll. We don’t want the story to end, we want another chapter to be written to hold our interest. The Lance chapter was fascinating whilst it lasted, then we started another; a new set of good guys here to save the sport until they were flushed out, that chapter is ending, we can all see the end is nigh. But we need a new chapter, we need a new set of characters.

Good versus bad. The oldest story ever told. The basis of most every good story ever told. Cycling needs its bad guys, needs its drama and suspense like every other story. We just don’t like to admit it. Chris Froome may be done. Sky may be done. But there’s another chapter to be written. There’s a queue of people waiting to play the next set of villains. Without them the story ends, or at least it gets a hell of a lot less interesting….

I know I arouse suspicion in this forum, some struggle to believe that you can stay neutral on a thing like Sky. But for me it’s a bit like any bad guy in the movies. You know he’s the bad guy eventually, you know he’s got to get his comeuppance eventually and you’ll probably cheer when it happens, but it doesn’t stop you enjoying and appreciating the part he plays, the drama he brings to the show while it lasts…

One of the best posts ..... ever! Chapeau ... BB ... chapeau!

“Then all the women down in the “Amen” section commenced a sayin ... what’d he say!?!
 
danielovichdk2 said:
Cookson knew about the A sample. The B sample results he did not, because they came back after Lappartient's victory. Then Lappartient sat on it for 3 months, we assume because Froome provided medical documents etc, but someone at UCI leaked the AAF before UCI has made a decision based on those documents etc, which is not how these things are usually dealt with today. They are meant to be complying with anti-doping protocol, not going back to how things were leaked traditionally before CADF.


And you this how ? Where are these dates published ? My guess is that you are guessing, like 95% of the clinic.

When was UCI handed the results for the B sample ? Why did Froome announce the "double" if he knew there was a positive test ? Why did Cookson want Skys rep' to be considered "clean" if he knew of a positive ? Why would Froome consult an attorney 3 months after a first positive and not right away ? And what about CADF, they are supposedly an independent agency but clearly their finding stopped from entering the public when they addressed the UCI with a positive test.

This is beyond doping of a rider, it's a dead clear show of how corrupt UCI is.
I'm going by what McQuaid said to CN:

McQuaid pointed out that Froome's AAF came under Cookson's presidency - Froome was notified of the finding one day before David Lappartient won the election - and says Cookson would have been informed about the case.

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe?

Under WADA Code, IF Froome is not appealing the final decision (there is not a final decision yet we know about) and with lawyers now, Froome is clearly going to be appealing the decision / going down the pharmacokinetic study route. After 20 days the UCI must 'then' publish the AAF publically to stay within WADA Code 7 & 8 rules.

Clearly rule 7 & 8 has been broken by UCI.
It would appear that Froome's result, probably was used as a political tool by Lappartient. Remember Cookson saying just days before he believed he had really good support, yet in the final 24 hours before UCI election he had none? This is politics and this is why things are not entirely adding up.
 
samhocking said:
danielovichdk2 said:
Cookson knew about the A sample. The B sample results he did not, because they came back after Lappartient's victory. Then Lappartient sat on it for 3 months, we assume because Froome provided medical documents etc, but someone at UCI leaked the AAF before UCI has made a decision based on those documents etc, which is not how these things are usually dealt with today. They are meant to be complying with anti-doping protocol, not going back to how things were leaked traditionally before CADF.


And you this how ? Where are these dates published ? My guess is that you are guessing, like 95% of the clinic.

When was UCI handed the results for the B sample ? Why did Froome announce the "double" if he knew there was a positive test ? Why did Cookson want Skys rep' to be considered "clean" if he knew of a positive ? Why would Froome consult an attorney 3 months after a first positive and not right away ? And what about CADF, they are supposedly an independent agency but clearly their finding stopped from entering the public when they addressed the UCI with a positive test.

This is beyond doping of a rider, it's a dead clear show of how corrupt UCI is.
I'm going by what McQuaid said to CN:

McQuaid pointed out that Froome's AAF came under Cookson's presidency - Froome was notified of the finding one day before David Lappartient won the election - and says Cookson would have been informed about the case.

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe?

Under WADA Code, IF Froome is not appealing the final decision (there is not a final decision yet we know about) and with lawyers now, Froome is clearly going to be appealing the decision / going down the pharmacokinetic study route. After 20 days the UCI must 'then' publish the AAF publically to stay within WADA Code 7 & 8 rules.

Clearly rule 7 & 8 has been broken by UCI.
It would appear that Froome's result, probably was used as a political tool by Lappartient. Remember Cookson saying just days before he believed he had really good support, yet in the final 24 hours before UCI election he had none? This is politics and this is why things are not entirely adding up.
has it been established
a) the leak came from the UCI?
b) if it did come from the UCI, was it the corporate body or an individual whistleblower?
 
I'm assuming WADA rules are followed obviously.
So Lab sends coded AAF to WADA. WADA forward to UCI. UCI cross-references rider code to establish who the AAF belongs to.
WADA & the Lab do not know the athletes name against the sample. It too is anonymous.

No matter who leaked it to the press, it was originally leaked to them by the UCI, because nobody else receives AAF notification from WADA and WADA don't know who the AAF belongs to according to their own rules. Only Cookson/UCI & Froome know the AAF of the A Sample 24 hours before UCI election.

If I was betting i'd say Lappartient used Froomes AAF as the political tool he needed to switch delegates vote to guarantee himself victory.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I'm assuming WADA rules are followed obviously.
So Lab sends coded AAF to WADA. WADA forward to UCI. UCI cross-references rider code to establish who the AAF belongs to.
WADA & the Lab do not know the athletes sample. It too is anonymous.

No matter who leaked it, it was originally leaked by UCI to them because nobody else received notification from WADA and WADA don't know who the AAF belongs to according to their own rules.

If I was betting i'd say Lappartient used Froomes AAF as the political tool he needed to switch delegates vote to guarantee victory.
potential scenario, granted.........a trail that leaves a lot of loose ends though...

alternatively a disgruntled pro-wiggo sky employee leaked...remember, Froome is a slithering reptile.....
 
Could have been leaked by a Sky employee if Froome had told Sky of course? I'm not sure what the overall advantage is though, leaking the AAF before the UCI's sanction? I guess Sky & UCI could theoretically have swept it under the carpet to make it disappear and leaking the AAF once the B sample came back prevents that being possible, but whoever leaked it, knew Cookson was no longer part of the UCI and walking his dogs in England by then, so that would suggest Lappartient & Sky also wanting to sweep it away?
 
brownbobby said:
Teddy Boom said:
brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-chris-froomes-reputation-is-tarnished-forever/

I agree with almost every word he has to say here, not just the stuff on Froome, that's obvious, but cycling in general....
The guy is talking *** left and right, and he takes every opportunity to talk bad about UCI, WADA, whoever he thinks is responsible for his downfall, and generally about cycling.
Maybe, sometimes. But use your own filter to separate what he says from what he did, the vendetta and self justification. He still has stuff worth hearing occasionally, for me anyway. In this piece his views on how cycling fuels its own problems resonates with me.
It really comes down to how you feel about doping in sport. If you actually want it eliminated, well cycling is about the only sport that even cares to try. If you think doping control is just about harm reduction, and you just want a big healthy sports-marketing machine, then Lance is dead on the money. We're in the Clinic here, and we all know you can't have it both ways.
Exactly my point.

But for me, the notion of clean sport has become pure fantasy. I’m resigned to history repeating itself, maybe I’m a pessimist. The question is what is cycling. Is it sport? Is it entertainment? If it’s the former, then doping will be the death of cycling, however very few sports remain pure sports. If it’s the latter, or more realistically a combination of the two, then we don’t need to mourn for the death of our beloved sport just yet.

Doping isn’t the only problem. Our reaction to the doping keeps that problem constant. Like a constant vicious circle. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Take football/soccer in the UK. One of the biggest stars in the game at the time, ex England Captain and stalwart of the biggest club team in the world was handed a lengthy ban for missing a drugs test. It was a bit of a story at the time, but soon faded away. Very little focus and interrogation of the issues surrounding the missed test ever saw the light of day. Why? Because drugs in football are not the main story. He served his ban, picked up where he left off, hero status not even slightly dented.

I dare say this pattern repeats itself across all popular national sports.

When presented with the facts, most sane people will acknowledge that most of the major sports in the world, the ones that demand superhuman abilities to compete at the top level, are fuelled by doping. It’s obvious. But people don’t care, or perhaps more to the point they choose not to think about it. They don’t want to see how the show was made, they just want to enjoy the show.

The sponsors, big name sponsors like Nike, Adidas, continue to queue up to pay our heroes to be seen in their product. They don’t care about their morals. They care about how often their faces are going to appear on the TV.

And that’s the difference with cycling. Doping is the main story. Not because it’s any more or less prevalent than other sports, but because we, the fans, every bit as much as the actors (teams/cyclists) keep it that way.
Nothing demonstrated this better than Operacion Puerto. One by one, most/all of the cyclists were hunted down. Exposed. Shamed. But what about the others. Rumours of world famous soccer players, tennis players at the very highest level. But never pursued. Nobody cares. It was all about those dirty cyclists. Don’t blame the media, they will only ever follow public opinion, public interest. That’s how they continue to be relevant.

See we’re different. Cycling is different. We’re obsessed with what goes on behind the scenes. That’s every bit as much a part of the show as what goes on out on the road.

But here’s my view…..It’s not such a bad thing. The whole LA story and eventual scandal bought lots of new people to the sport. Most of them stayed. Sky, with the classic good versus bad story bought new people to the sport. I think most of them will stick around to see the next instalment. Yeah, we see lots of comments like ‘im done with cycling’, ‘I can’t trust it anymore, I’m not interested’. These commenters, so disinterested, they keep subscribing to the news, keep registering on forums, keep reading the articles, just so they can tell everyone how much they hate cycling and how disinterested they are in it all. But they’re still here, they just don’t want to admit it.

Do any of you really see a scenario in ten, twenty years time where there’s a real belief in cycling as a clean sport?

Don’t try to change what can’t be changed. Influence what can be influenced, and embrace what you’re left with.

I don’t believe that for cycling redemption lies in cleaning up the sport. Even if it was ever possible to convince people that this had happened, does this see a sudden flock of new fans? I don’t think so. The problem for cycling is in its business model, not its image. Any business needs consumption to survive, consumption needs interest in the product. Like it or not, doping drives interest in cycling.

We made it so. By making doping the main topic, not just the sub plot we made it so. By refusing to believe in miracles, by questioning every performance that is exceptional. With good reason. Our non-cycling friends, they all think cycling is a dirty sport and everyone cheats. I wonder where they get that impression from? It doesn’t mean they won’t be interested if the entertainment on offer is good enough.

Look to other sports, the adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity rings true. The challenge for cycling is to turn interest into consumption.

See, good stories never start with the good guys prevailing and then continue with them living happily ever after. That’s how the story ends, that’s when people lose interest, when the credits roll. We don’t want the story to end, we want another chapter to be written to hold our interest. The Lance chapter was fascinating whilst it lasted, then we started another; a new set of good guys here to save the sport until they were flushed out, that chapter is ending, we can all see the end is nigh. But we need a new chapter, we need a new set of characters.

Good versus bad. The oldest story ever told. The basis of most every good story ever told. Cycling needs its bad guys, needs its drama and suspense like every other story. We just don’t like to admit it. Chris Froome may be done. Sky may be done. But there’s another chapter to be written. There’s a queue of people waiting to play the next set of villains. Without them the story ends, or at least it gets a hell of a lot less interesting….

I know I arouse suspicion in this forum, some struggle to believe that you can stay neutral on a thing like Sky. But for me it’s a bit like any bad guy in the movies. You know he’s the bad guy eventually, you know he’s got to get his comeuppance eventually and you’ll probably cheer when it happens, but it doesn’t stop you enjoying and appreciating the part he plays, the drama he brings to the show while it lasts…
How convenient now that when your boy is found out its time to go all philosophical and restort to bad allegories after having since 2011 chased down every non-GB rider with the slightiest doping accusations hanging over them, whilst posing as the cleanlinest of the cleans. You didnt want to go the "philosophical route" then so we sure wont do that now.

Witch hunt continues.
 
brownbobby said:
Take football/soccer in the UK. One of the biggest stars in the game at the time, ex England Captain and stalwart of the biggest club team in the world was handed a lengthy ban for missing a drugs test. It was a bit of a story at the time, but soon faded away. Very little focus and interrogation of the issues surrounding the missed test ever saw the light of day. Why? Because drugs in football are not the main story. He served his ban, picked up where he left off, hero status not even slightly dented.
"His name is Rio and he watches from the stands"
 
buckle said:
brownbobby said:
Teddy Boom said:
brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
The guy is talking *** left and right, and he takes every opportunity to talk bad about UCI, WADA, whoever he thinks is responsible for his downfall, and generally about cycling.
Maybe, sometimes. But use your own filter to separate what he says from what he did, the vendetta and self justification. He still has stuff worth hearing occasionally, for me anyway. In this piece his views on how cycling fuels its own problems resonates with me.
It really comes down to how you feel about doping in sport. If you actually want it eliminated, well cycling is about the only sport that even cares to try. If you think doping control is just about harm reduction, and you just want a big healthy sports-marketing machine, then Lance is dead on the money. We're in the Clinic here, and we all know you can't have it both ways.
Exactly my point.

But for me, the notion of clean sport has become pure fantasy. I’m resigned to history repeating itself, maybe I’m a pessimist. The question is what is cycling. Is it sport? Is it entertainment? If it’s the former, then doping will be the death of cycling, however very few sports remain pure sports. If it’s the latter, or more realistically a combination of the two, then we don’t need to mourn for the death of our beloved sport just yet.

Doping isn’t the only problem. Our reaction to the doping keeps that problem constant. Like a constant vicious circle. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Take football/soccer in the UK. One of the biggest stars in the game at the time, ex England Captain and stalwart of the biggest club team in the world was handed a lengthy ban for missing a drugs test. It was a bit of a story at the time, but soon faded away. Very little focus and interrogation of the issues surrounding the missed test ever saw the light of day. Why? Because drugs in football are not the main story. He served his ban, picked up where he left off, hero status not even slightly dented.

I dare say this pattern repeats itself across all popular national sports.

When presented with the facts, most sane people will acknowledge that most of the major sports in the world, the ones that demand superhuman abilities to compete at the top level, are fuelled by doping. It’s obvious. But people don’t care, or perhaps more to the point they choose not to think about it. They don’t want to see how the show was made, they just want to enjoy the show.

The sponsors, big name sponsors like Nike, Adidas, continue to queue up to pay our heroes to be seen in their product. They don’t care about their morals. They care about how often their faces are going to appear on the TV.

And that’s the difference with cycling. Doping is the main story. Not because it’s any more or less prevalent than other sports, but because we, the fans, every bit as much as the actors (teams/cyclists) keep it that way.
Nothing demonstrated this better than Operacion Puerto. One by one, most/all of the cyclists were hunted down. Exposed. Shamed. But what about the others. Rumours of world famous soccer players, tennis players at the very highest level. But never pursued. Nobody cares. It was all about those dirty cyclists. Don’t blame the media, they will only ever follow public opinion, public interest. That’s how they continue to be relevant.

See we’re different. Cycling is different. We’re obsessed with what goes on behind the scenes. That’s every bit as much a part of the show as what goes on out on the road.

But here’s my view…..It’s not such a bad thing. The whole LA story and eventual scandal bought lots of new people to the sport. Most of them stayed. Sky, with the classic good versus bad story bought new people to the sport. I think most of them will stick around to see the next instalment. Yeah, we see lots of comments like ‘im done with cycling’, ‘I can’t trust it anymore, I’m not interested’. These commenters, so disinterested, they keep subscribing to the news, keep registering on forums, keep reading the articles, just so they can tell everyone how much they hate cycling and how disinterested they are in it all. But they’re still here, they just don’t want to admit it.

Do any of you really see a scenario in ten, twenty years time where there’s a real belief in cycling as a clean sport?

Don’t try to change what can’t be changed. Influence what can be influenced, and embrace what you’re left with.

I don’t believe that for cycling redemption lies in cleaning up the sport. Even if it was ever possible to convince people that this had happened, does this see a sudden flock of new fans? I don’t think so. The problem for cycling is in its business model, not its image. Any business needs consumption to survive, consumption needs interest in the product. Like it or not, doping drives interest in cycling.

We made it so. By making doping the main topic, not just the sub plot we made it so. By refusing to believe in miracles, by questioning every performance that is exceptional. With good reason. Our non-cycling friends, they all think cycling is a dirty sport and everyone cheats. I wonder where they get that impression from? It doesn’t mean they won’t be interested if the entertainment on offer is good enough.

Look to other sports, the adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity rings true. The challenge for cycling is to turn interest into consumption.

See, good stories never start with the good guys prevailing and then continue with them living happily ever after. That’s how the story ends, that’s when people lose interest, when the credits roll. We don’t want the story to end, we want another chapter to be written to hold our interest. The Lance chapter was fascinating whilst it lasted, then we started another; a new set of good guys here to save the sport until they were flushed out, that chapter is ending, we can all see the end is nigh. But we need a new chapter, we need a new set of characters.

Good versus bad. The oldest story ever told. The basis of most every good story ever told. Cycling needs its bad guys, needs its drama and suspense like every other story. We just don’t like to admit it. Chris Froome may be done. Sky may be done. But there’s another chapter to be written. There’s a queue of people waiting to play the next set of villains. Without them the story ends, or at least it gets a hell of a lot less interesting….

I know I arouse suspicion in this forum, some struggle to believe that you can stay neutral on a thing like Sky. But for me it’s a bit like any bad guy in the movies. You know he’s the bad guy eventually, you know he’s got to get his comeuppance eventually and you’ll probably cheer when it happens, but it doesn’t stop you enjoying and appreciating the part he plays, the drama he brings to the show while it lasts…
You've hit the Clinic's limitation which is that it is not a philosophy school. OK so the sports industry is a way in which the oligarchs maintain their control over us - agreed. Paul Kimmage, for all his lack of intellect, reads like St Augustine in "The Confessions" where he admits he couldn't resist live Roman sports despite knowing it was all ***.
To remain efficacious in one’s life, one must, from time to time, reinvent one’s self. You, me, Kimmage, Lance, The Clinic. If not ... it’s like you’ve pulled over, into a siding ... and all the other trains are sailing on by.
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
bigcog said:
El Pistolero said:
rick james said:
Benotti69 said:
Yeah, but he doesn't have asthma..............smoking....... :lol:
yes he does
He never mentioned it in his crappy book.
"VeloNews reached out to Dr. John Dickinson, a leading expert on asthma in sport and head of the respiratory clinic at the University of Kent’s School of Sport and Exercise Science for help in understanding the science of exercise-induced asthma (EIA). In 2014, Dickinson led a study that revealed more than 70 percent of Britain’s top swimmers and nearly one-third of Team Sky riders were afflicted by EIA. Furthermore, the British physician has objectively tested Froome and confirms the four-time Tour de France champion has asthma. Due to doctor/patient confidentiality, he is not able to divulge how severe Froome’s asthma is."

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/explainer-salbutamol-asthma-and-what-comes-next-for-froome_453676

Don't know about earlier than that but presumably he had before too.
That certainly was one objective testing! :lol:

I don't believe a word to Sky doctors anymore (or their associates). And I would love to see as one poster stated medical record of Froome TUE's for asthma from day one of his professional career (I bet there was none pre-2010, when salbutamol was banned), and if possible his childhood medical record for asthma.
As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?
Doesn't matter. Froome is not an asthmatic. If he was there would be a long paper trail to prove it.
 
Probably important to keep in the back of your mind that asthma is not a constant throuh your life from day one to day end. Like hayfever, you might not suffer any symptoms until later in life. I suffered really badly with hayfever throughout my childhood constantly taking anti-histamines. Now 43, I haven't had a single hayfever attack for over 10 years now no matter where i've been in the World. Lack of a paper trail doesn't always mean it doesn't exist now is all i'm saying.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY