Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1066 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Froome is hopeful that the process will move relatively quickly but this is not usually how it plays out. Lawyers get paid by the hour and when a cyclist challenges an adverse analytical finding, the UCI does not see that it is obliged to rush anything. Perhaps this is to discourage those wishing to challenge the system, but it may also relate to the need to do everything by the book.
I think Walsh is dead wrong here. It’s almost certainly Froome, not UCI, who is delaying this case. If Froome had a simple explanation for his positive, he would have produced it, and this would have been over by now—indeed, there never would have been a leak, and we never would have known about the positive. To say that Froome wants a quick resolution to his case is like saying Trump wants a quick resolution to the Russia investigation: he only wants that if it exonerates him.

AAFs are supposed to go to a hearing “as soon as possible”. Unless Froome has a very high USG, UCI holds most of the cards here, and should have wanted the hearing to begin a month or two ago. Froome is still searching for a magic bullet, and if he can’t find it, he can at least take the case to CAS, knowing he can continue to ride while that goes on. Absolutely no advantage at all for him to push for a hearing if he isn’t very confident he will be exonerated.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Froome is hopeful that the process will move relatively quickly but this is not usually how it plays out. Lawyers get paid by the hour and when a cyclist challenges an adverse analytical finding, the UCI does not see that it is obliged to rush anything. Perhaps this is to discourage those wishing to challenge the system, but it may also relate to the need to do everything by the book.
I think Walsh is dead wrong here. It’s almost certainly Froome, not UCI, who is delaying this case. If Froome had a simple explanation for his positive, he would have produced it, and this would have been over by now—indeed, there never would have been a leak, and we never would have known about the positive. To say that Froome wants a quick resolution to his case is like saying Trump wants a quick resolution to the Russia investigation: he only wants that if it exonerates him.

AAFs are supposed to go to a hearing “as soon as possible”. Unless Froome has a very high USG, UCI holds most of the cards here, and should have wanted the hearing to begin a month or two ago. Froome is still searching for a magic bullet, and if he can’t find it, he can at least take the case to CAS, knowing he can continue to ride while that goes on. Absolutely no advantage at all for him to push for a hearing if he isn’t very confident he will be exonerated.
Yeah my first reaction when reading it was less he's dead wrong than trying to obfuscate the situation to put Froome in a better light. Better we talk about the UCI and the process than Froome and obvious, egregious doping.

He's running point on the Sky PR attack here IMO. Floating talking points and gauging reaction.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Froome is hopeful that the process will move relatively quickly but this is not usually how it plays out. Lawyers get paid by the hour and when a cyclist challenges an adverse analytical finding, the UCI does not see that it is obliged to rush anything. Perhaps this is to discourage those wishing to challenge the system, but it may also relate to the need to do everything by the book.
I think Walsh is dead wrong here. It’s almost certainly Froome, not UCI, who is delaying this case. If Froome had a simple explanation for his positive, he would have produced it, and this would have been over by now—indeed, there never would have been a leak, and we never would have known about the positive. To say that Froome wants a quick resolution to his case is like saying Trump wants a quick resolution to the Russia investigation: he only wants that if it exonerates him.

AAFs are supposed to go to a hearing “as soon as possible”. Unless Froome has a very high USG, UCI holds most of the cards here, and should have wanted the hearing to begin a month or two ago. Froome is still searching for a magic bullet, and if he can’t find it, he can at least take the case to CAS, knowing he can continue to ride while that goes on. Absolutely no advantage at all for him to push for a hearing if he isn’t very confident he will be exonerated.
The approach Froome has taken is to say that he didn't take more than the legal number of puffs. That necessitates some sort of lab based investigation, rather than a verbal explanation from Froome. This will of course take time. I don't think taking time is his raison d'etre. He is going for total exoneration rather than a "whoops" and "I'll take a limited ban".

Happy New Year, by the way!
 
Jun 27, 2009
373
1
0
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
Merckx index said:
Froome is hopeful that the process will move relatively quickly but this is not usually how it plays out. Lawyers get paid by the hour and when a cyclist challenges an adverse analytical finding, the UCI does not see that it is obliged to rush anything. Perhaps this is to discourage those wishing to challenge the system, but it may also relate to the need to do everything by the book.
I think Walsh is dead wrong here. It’s almost certainly Froome, not UCI, who is delaying this case. If Froome had a simple explanation for his positive, he would have produced it, and this would have been over by now—indeed, there never would have been a leak, and we never would have known about the positive. To say that Froome wants a quick resolution to his case is like saying Trump wants a quick resolution to the Russia investigation: he only wants that if it exonerates him.

AAFs are supposed to go to a hearing “as soon as possible”. Unless Froome has a very high USG, UCI holds most of the cards here, and should have wanted the hearing to begin a month or two ago. Froome is still searching for a magic bullet, and if he can’t find it, he can at least take the case to CAS, knowing he can continue to ride while that goes on. Absolutely no advantage at all for him to push for a hearing if he isn’t very confident he will be exonerated.
The approach Froome has taken is to say that he didn't take more than the legal number of puffs. That necessitates some sort of lab based investigation, rather than a verbal explanation from Froome. This will of course take time. I don't think taking time is his raison d'etre. He is going for total exoneration rather than a "whoops" and "I'll take a limited ban".

Happy New Year, by the way!
Maybe the ploy is the "lost in the mists of time" of "I don't recall" strategy when being quizzed during the investigation... Hoping that doing the triple, yep, I think he'll try for the Worlds this year too, as well as the Giro and le Tour will make him the people's champion again... Or, as many say, it's foot dragging and obfuscation to the point of ad nauseam and everyone just wishes it'll go away.. People just say, geez, it's not like what Lance did, cut the guy some slack.. I'm sure his lawyer will be perusing every slimy angle, which of course, he's happy to do, for a fee...
 
Well, to be fair, it's not like what Lance did, in and of itself its a pretty innocuous doping infringement and had it been a minor rider it would have barely hit the cycling news headlines let alone mainstream media. If it had been Dumoulin the response may have totally different. I think that tells you several things about the suspicion surrounding TdF winners in general, but in particular those from Team Sky. Taken out of this context, I can't see how Salbutamol over-use merits a huge fuss, but it's Froome and by extension Brailsford and Team Sky and people are wise to their tenuous relationship to ethical behaviour.
 
Jun 27, 2009
373
1
0
Re:

macbindle said:
Well, to be fair, it's not like what Lance did, in and of itself its a pretty innocuous doping infringement and had it been a minor rider it would have barely hit the cycling news headlines let alone mainstream media. If it had been Dumoulin the response may have totally different. I think that tells you several things about the suspicion surrounding TdF winners in general, but in particular those from Team Sky. Taken out of this context, I can't see how Salbutamol over-use merits a huge fuss, but it's Froome and by extension Brailsford and Team Sky and people are wise to their tenuous relationship to ethical behaviour.
Definitely... Thanks for rounding out my thoughts on this... With Team Sky so on the nose as it is, public and professional scrutiny of ethics and dodgy delings surely must come into play somewhere along the line.
A successful conviction of say, a year ban would surely give cycling aficionados some hope to repair a fractured image for all of procyling..
 
I suppose it depends on whether the authorities want to make an example of Froome. Team Sky have been bringing the sport back into public ridicule, you could cut the head of that particular hydra, but if Sky are doing it you can bet the other top riders are too. Can the authorities really tackle this? Probably not, but they could and should send a message.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Well, to be fair, it's not like what Lance did, in and of itself its a pretty innocuous doping infringement and had it been a minor rider it would have barely hit the cycling news headlines let alone mainstream media. If it had been Dumoulin the response may have totally different. I think that tells you several things about the suspicion surrounding TdF winners in general, but in particular those from Team Sky. Taken out of this context, I can't see how Salbutamol over-use merits a huge fuss, but it's Froome and by extension Brailsford and Team Sky and people are wise to their tenuous relationship to ethical behaviour.
1, not like what lance did? Lance never failed a test. He got brought down afterwards by a behind the scenes investigation. Unless we approach the issue with a totally unreasonable biased position assuming that cycling is now no longer corrupt (which this very incident and the 3 months of secrecy sort of prove by their nature, it still is) then froome at this stage of his career has more against him than lance did.

2 you say it's so innocuous if it had been a minor rider it would have barely hit cycling headlines. Well we all knew about ulissi and pettachi. Froome is a bigger story cos he's the 4x champion (glad we finally sorted this out after 5 years of his fans complaining that people weren't as interested in suspicions towards riders with far less success). But It's either an infringement or Its not. The media has always operated on the logic that you either have a test to your name or you don't and are clean. This system has been in froome favour since day 1 since it allows all his paid of journos to hide behind (no positive) and not have to expose all the lies. So now an infringement is an infringement.

3) 2x over the limit on salbutamol isn't as minor as you make It out to be. Especially when we consider that some of the best dopers in history went their whole careers without ever tripping that kind of wire (valverde, lance, riis ullrich while contador and indurain are on the same level) That froome does so - and very possibly as has been speculated from his pre Dec 13th behaviour , not for the first time, suggests that he may be pushing his limits even further than they were.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Well, to be fair, it's not like what Lance did, in and of itself its a pretty innocuous doping infringement and had it been a minor rider it would have barely hit the cycling news headlines let alone mainstream media. If it had been Dumoulin the response may have totally different. I think that tells you several things about the suspicion surrounding TdF winners in general, but in particular those from Team Sky. Taken out of this context, I can't see how Salbutamol over-use merits a huge fuss, but it's Froome and by extension Brailsford and Team Sky and people are wise to their tenuous relationship to ethical behaviour.
1, not like what lance did? Lance never failed a test. He got brought down afterwards by a behind the scenes investigation. Unless we approach the issue with a totally unreasonable biased position assuming that cycling is now no longer corrupt (which this very incident and the 3 months of secrecy sort of prove by their nature, it still is) then froome at this stage of his career has more against him than lance did.

2 you say it's so innocuous if it had been a minor rider it would have barely hit cycling headlines. Well we all knew about ulissi and pettachi. Froome is a bigger story cos he's the 4x champion (glad we finally sorted this out after 5 years of his fans complaining that people weren't as interested in suspicions towards riders with far less success). But It's either an infringement or Its not. The media has always operated on the logic that you either have a test to your name or you don't and are clean. This system has been in froome favour since day 1 since it allows all his paid of journos to hide behind (no positive) and not have to expose all the lies. So now an infringement is an infringement.

3) 2x over the limit on salbutamol isn't as minor as you make It out to be. Especially when we consider that some of the best dopers in history went their whole careers without ever tripping that kind of wire (valverde, lance, riis ullrich while contador and indurain are on the same level) That froome does so - and very possibly as has been speculated from his pre Dec 13th behaviour , not for the first time, suggests that he may be pushing his limits even further than they were.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
macbindle said:
Well, to be fair, it's not like what Lance did, in and of itself its a pretty innocuous doping infringement and had it been a minor rider it would have barely hit the cycling news headlines let alone mainstream media. If it had been Dumoulin the response may have totally different. I think that tells you several things about the suspicion surrounding TdF winners in general, but in particular those from Team Sky. Taken out of this context, I can't see how Salbutamol over-use merits a huge fuss, but it's Froome and by extension Brailsford and Team Sky and people are wise to their tenuous relationship to ethical behaviour.
1, not like what lance did? Lance never failed a test. He got brought down afterwards by a behind the scenes investigation. Unless we approach the issue with a totally unreasonable biased position assuming that cycling is now no longer corrupt (which this very incident and the 3 months of secrecy sort of prove by their nature, it still is) then froome at this stage of his career has more against him than lance did.

2 you say it's so innocuous if it had been a minor rider it would have barely hit cycling headlines. Well we all knew about ulissi and pettachi. Froome is a bigger story cos he's the 4x champion (glad we finally sorted this out after 5 years of his fans complaining that people weren't as interested in suspicions towards riders with far less success). But It's either an infringement or Its not. The media has always operated on the logic that you either have a test to your name or you don't and are clean. This system has been in froome favour since day 1 since it allows all his paid of journos to hide behind (no positive) and not have to expose all the lies. So now an infringement is an infringement.

3) 2x over the limit on salbutamol isn't as minor as you make It out to be. Especially when we consider that some of the best dopers in history went their whole careers without ever tripping that kind of wire (valverde, lance, riis ullrich while contador and indurain are on the same level) That froome does so - and very possibly as has been speculated from his pre Dec 13th behaviour , not for the first time, suggests that he may be pushing his limits even further than they were.
1. You've missed the context in which we were using it. We were discussing the comparison between Froome's test and what Lance did. what he was convicted of, and what he admitted, not whether or not he tested positive, which isn't relevant. What we were talking about was perception not reality.

2. Who's "we"? The general public will have never heard of Ulissi and Petacchi. These are the people whose opinions, albeit half-informed and manipulated, matter. Not yours or mine. But, it's definitely an infringement, just not one that tells us much about what Froome is doing....which brings me on to...

3. You'll never win a GT soley by puffing on a blue inhaler, so as per previous para it doesn't tell us much about what Froome is doing to boost his performance so far in advance of what it was pre Sep 2011. Tripping a Salbutamol wire is nothing like the EPO wires that Valverde at al stepped over so successfully. If anything it just poses more questions as to why this particular drug rather than one which has a meaningful performance boost.

It is just another question that is unlikely to be answered.
 
I think this is a straightforward issue, either Froome is able to produce a silver bullet which enables him to be completely exonerated on a legal technicality or he loses the Vuelta and serves a ban of up to 12 months.

Don't agree with Walsh at all by stating that Froome/Sky will want a quick resolution. If it helps to divert attention away from motor usage by dragging it out, then it's the lesser of two evils. You only have to look at how they dragged out and frustrated the select committee hearings process to see how they will play this one.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
Merckx index said:
Froome is hopeful that the process will move relatively quickly but this is not usually how it plays out. Lawyers get paid by the hour and when a cyclist challenges an adverse analytical finding, the UCI does not see that it is obliged to rush anything. Perhaps this is to discourage those wishing to challenge the system, but it may also relate to the need to do everything by the book.
I think Walsh is dead wrong here. It’s almost certainly Froome, not UCI, who is delaying this case. If Froome had a simple explanation for his positive, he would have produced it, and this would have been over by now—indeed, there never would have been a leak, and we never would have known about the positive. To say that Froome wants a quick resolution to his case is like saying Trump wants a quick resolution to the Russia investigation: he only wants that if it exonerates him.

AAFs are supposed to go to a hearing “as soon as possible”. Unless Froome has a very high USG, UCI holds most of the cards here, and should have wanted the hearing to begin a month or two ago. Froome is still searching for a magic bullet, and if he can’t find it, he can at least take the case to CAS, knowing he can continue to ride while that goes on. Absolutely no advantage at all for him to push for a hearing if he isn’t very confident he will be exonerated.
The approach Froome has taken is to say that he didn't take more than the legal number of puffs. That necessitates some sort of lab based investigation, rather than a verbal explanation from Froome. This will of course take time. I don't think taking time is his raison d'etre. He is going for total exoneration rather than a "whoops" and "I'll take a limited ban".

Happy New Year, by the way!
Didn't they have like 3 month for that already? Seems like they were absolutely sure this will never become the issue (cover up) :p
Guess they were gravely wrong :D
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
The Hitch said:
macbindle said:
Well, to be fair, it's not like what Lance did, in and of itself its a pretty innocuous doping infringement and had it been a minor rider it would have barely hit the cycling news headlines let alone mainstream media. If it had been Dumoulin the response may have totally different. I think that tells you several things about the suspicion surrounding TdF winners in general, but in particular those from Team Sky. Taken out of this context, I can't see how Salbutamol over-use merits a huge fuss, but it's Froome and by extension Brailsford and Team Sky and people are wise to their tenuous relationship to ethical behaviour.
1, not like what lance did? Lance never failed a test. He got brought down afterwards by a behind the scenes investigation. Unless we approach the issue with a totally unreasonable biased position assuming that cycling is now no longer corrupt (which this very incident and the 3 months of secrecy sort of prove by their nature, it still is) then froome at this stage of his career has more against him than lance did.

2 you say it's so innocuous if it had been a minor rider it would have barely hit cycling headlines. Well we all knew about ulissi and pettachi. Froome is a bigger story cos he's the 4x champion (glad we finally sorted this out after 5 years of his fans complaining that people weren't as interested in suspicions towards riders with far less success). But It's either an infringement or Its not. The media has always operated on the logic that you either have a test to your name or you don't and are clean. This system has been in froome favour since day 1 since it allows all his paid of journos to hide behind (no positive) and not have to expose all the lies. So now an infringement is an infringement.

3) 2x over the limit on salbutamol isn't as minor as you make It out to be. Especially when we consider that some of the best dopers in history went their whole careers without ever tripping that kind of wire (valverde, lance, riis ullrich while contador and indurain are on the same level) That froome does so - and very possibly as has been speculated from his pre Dec 13th behaviour , not for the first time, suggests that he may be pushing his limits even further than they were.
1. You've missed the context in which we were using it. We were discussing the comparison between Froome's test and what Lance did. what he was convicted of, and what he admitted, not whether or not he tested positive, which isn't relevant. What we were talking about was perception not reality.

2. Who's "we"? The general public will have never heard of Ulissi and Petacchi. These are the people whose opinions, albeit half-informed and manipulated, matter. Not yours or mine. But, it's definitely an infringement, just not one that tells us much about what Froome is doing....which brings me on to...

3. You'll never win a GT soley by puffing on a blue inhaler, so as per previous para it doesn't tell us much about what Froome is doing to boost his performance so far in advance of what it was pre Sep 2011. Tripping a Salbutamol wire is nothing like the EPO wires that Valverde at al stepped over so successfully. If anything it just poses more questions as to why this particular drug rather than one which has a meaningful performance boost.

It is just another question that is unlikely to be answered.
we didn't know what armstrong was doing when he was doing it...that is the point. Well, of course other than he was a non GT rider dominating GTs...so in that respect they have a bit in common . But at the moment we have a TUE strike which we can cancel out with the '99 cream back-dated TUE. Other than that Froome is, on paper, looking worse than Armstrong....with this one AAF vs nothing. Perception was wonderboy and perception is 'froomey'. 'we' knew armstrong was at it and 'we' know Froome is

I think as speculation here has been thus far...there is a cocktail and salbutomol will perform one part of that cocktail....weight loss is key and its known for it..

in '09 is was unlikely that the armstrong question would be answered and yet here we are in a post-armstrong world
 
...which is kind of the point I'm making. Although Froome may get some sort of comeuppance in the form of a brief ban, it still won't tell us what he was up to. We will still be left with speculation.

Personally, I think Froome will have his Armstrong moment, eventually.
 
Aug 26, 2014
2,148
0
0
I am not entirely sure, no matter what happens next, that Froome will ever be exonerated completely. Perhaps die hard Sky fans will be able to suspend disbelief...for the general public or July fan? Nah, I think his reputation and legacy is already toast. For all the press have gone on about him etc., he's never been as popular a figure as Cav. or Wiggo and so there is little to no incentive to make any effort to believe in him.

For dedicated cycling fans - well, most are already cynical, so this does nothing but confirm their view (or prejudices): i.e. the sport in general is doped to the gills and everyone is at it, Sky included. Added to which the sport's governance is utterly corrupted, and that TPTB have colluded / are colluding / will collude if they can to minimise the damage to themselves and the sport - therefore no results can wholly be trusted.

Sky would have stood much more chance of weathering this storm, I think, if they hadn't behaved so insufferably over the past few years. It's hard to win redemption if you've been behaving like arrogant tools.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
...which is kind of the point I'm making. Although Froome may get some sort of comeuppance in the form of a brief ban, it still won't tell us what he was up to. We will still be left with speculation.

Personally, I think Froome will have his Armstrong moment, eventually.
one can only hope, as asthma treatment is nowhere near EPO
 
Re:

Bronstein said:
"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday."
Although a Salbutamol ban, like a missed whereabouts ban, could be presented as a result of oversight rather than a premeditated desire to cheat.

It's not like an EPO, Testosterone, HGH or blood dopjng pozzy. Its even less clear cut than Contador's Clen pozzy because everybody knows that Clen is a widely used PED but there is nothing very conclusive about the PE attributes of the blue puffer.

I agree with Electress though. I don't think he'll rescue his reputation, and part of the reason is that he's picking up some of the stink from Wiggins TUE abuse and Jiffy bag.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
macbindle said:
...which is kind of the point I'm making. Although Froome may get some sort of comeuppance in the form of a brief ban, it still won't tell us what he was up to. We will still be left with speculation.

Personally, I think Froome will have his Armstrong moment, eventually.
one can only hope, as asthma treatment is nowhere near EPO
yup...because armstrong got caught for epo...oh, wait a minute ;)
 
Re:

Electress said:
I am not entirely sure, no matter what happens next, that Froome will ever be exonerated completely. Perhaps die hard Sky fans will be able to suspend disbelief...for the general public or July fan? Nah, I think his reputation and legacy is already toast. For all the press have gone on about him etc., he's never been as popular a figure as Cav. or Wiggo and so there is little to no incentive to make any effort to believe in him.

For dedicated cycling fans - well, most are already cynical, so this does nothing but confirm their view (or prejudices): i.e. the sport in general is doped to the gills and everyone is at it, Sky included. Added to which the sport's governance is utterly corrupted, and that TPTB have colluded / are colluding / will collude if they can to minimise the damage to themselves and the sport - therefore no results can wholly be trusted.

Sky would have stood much more chance of weathering this storm, I think, if they hadn't behaved so insufferably over the past few years. It's hard to win redemption if you've been behaving like arrogant tools.
Good post, but that jumped out for me. Not sure how one can be a dedicated cycling fan and be prejudiced (to pre-judge) against cyclists. The history of cycling would seem to eradicate that possibility.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
macbindle said:
...which is kind of the point I'm making. Although Froome may get some sort of comeuppance in the form of a brief ban, it still won't tell us what he was up to. We will still be left with speculation.

Personally, I think Froome will have his Armstrong moment, eventually.
one can only hope, as asthma treatment is nowhere near EPO
Being twice over the already wildly lenient level isn't asthma treatment, it's doping. Which is why they have the rule. Which should be obvious.
 
I've read the Salbutamol thread and experimented with my son's blue inhaler. Neither has clarified for me what the exact performance enhancing qualities of Salbutamol actually are. Whatever they are, they aren't what is making Froome win races.
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re:

macbindle said:
I've read the Salbutamol thread and experimented with my son's blue inhaler. Neither has clarified for me what the exact performance enhancing qualities of Salbutamol actually are. Whatever they are, they aren't what is making Froome win races.
You took a few puffs of your son's Salbutamol inhaler to try and understand how Chris Froome could benefit from doing the same?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS