Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1068 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Alpe73 said:
rhubroma said:
Merckx index said:
I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.
As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.
Rhub ... let me play this one straight up.

1. The majority of the world’s pro cycling fan base ... those who will attend ‘live’ ... those who will watch on television .... millions of them ... the millions who will again tune into Lance’s “Stages” podcast over the duration ... really don’t give much of a ****. I’m not saying, in the circumstances, that is right or wrong of them ... it’s just the facts, mate.

2. Lawyers reading your comments, businessmen reading your comments .... are busting a gut. Why in the world would you keel over so easily? Just because you alluded to some “promise” of being transparent. Henao, JTL, Wiggins ... have all been dealt with ... obviously not to YOUR liking ... but to those authorities with jurisdiction.

To date .... Froome’s case is still in a holding pattern. He may well get pasted. If he does, I won’t lose a wink.

All this pathos of hang ‘im high ... NOW ... has little to do with the Clinic’s abhorrence of doping, more to do with No Team Colors Allowed and a lot to do with the 7th deadly sin.
You obviously take the general fanbase for schmucks. I don't think unapologetic Lance fans can be extended to the millions watching cycling you claim. The lawyers will do what lawyers do. And certainly folks now, other than the Sky brigade, (especially outside Britain) aren't as apathetic about Froome's case as you make them out to be. To the contrary most are proably relishing in the Sky/Froome predicament.
 
rhubroma said:
Merckx index said:
rhubroma said:
Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic.
Contador's situation was quite different from Froome's. Alberto was cleared by the Spanish federation, so he had every right to race. The only reason there was ambiguity was because UCI and WADA chose to appeal the decision. I don't blame Contador for continuing plans to race after the appeal, because if he had suspended himself and won the appeal--and having been cleared by Spain, winning at CAS wasn't far-fetched--it would have been too late to participate in the Giro and Tour. Think how he would have felt if he sat out the entire season in 2011, only to be cleared at the end of it. You can't backdate GT wins! Another rationale for racing was that it allowed his legal team to take its time and thoroughly prepare for the hearing; there was no pressure to have a decision by a certain date.

So, no, it was not a risky tactic. On the contrary, it was the least risky tactic under the circumstances, the only downside being the bad publicity of someone racing under a cloud, knowing that the results could be taken away later.

Froome is actually in a worse position than Contador in that respect. Since Contador won at the national level, the burden of proof was not on him at CAS. It was on UCI/WADA, at least, more so than it would be in a conventional doping hearing. In contrast, the burden of proof is entirely on Froome. He is not innocent till proven guilty; he most definitely is guilty until proven not guilty. Unlike, say, Peatcchi and Ulissi, he also caught a major break in being notified of his AAF on his very last day of racing for the season. So he could have provisionally suspended himself without missing any races, and if he was so confident in his innocence, cleared himself in time for the 2018 season. Even if he lost the initial hearing, he might have gotten a short enough back-dated suspension to allow him to race in at least one if not both of the first two GTs.

But even that much risk was too much for Froome, so he wouldn't suspend himself. Again, bad PR aside, it's the least risky move in his situation. The only risk he's taking is declaring that he definitely did not inhale more than the allowed amount; that hurts his chances of a relatively short suspension if he loses his case. Had he just said, maybe I made a mistake, without committing to it, he would be in a much better position to plead negligence if he couldn't explain the high level. Contador took the same risk when he declared that he hadn't used any supplements, and it came back to bite him. It quite possibly cost him an extra year.

S2Sturges said:
This USG test talk just muddies up the waters, a speciality of Sky, diffuse and cast doubts on the process.
On the contrary, it could clarify the situation enormously. Sky is not the one talking about the USG, but I wish they were. We internet warriors are the ones pointing out its implications.
I think the differences in the type of substances found has largely to do with the formal discrepancies you bring up. Otherwise Sky is taking access to the same praxis as Saxo, namely permitting their rider to race until a formal ban from the juridical authority/s and, until then, using every legal expedient to obfuscate and exonerate.
A bit of obfuscation on your part, Rhub.
 
rhubroma said:
Alpe73 said:
rhubroma said:
Merckx index said:
I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.
As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.
Rhub ... let me play this one straight up.

1. The majority of the world’s pro cycling fan base ... those who will attend ‘live’ ... those who will watch on television .... millions of them ... the millions who will again tune into Lance’s “Stages” podcast over the duration ... really don’t give much of a ****. I’m not saying, in the circumstances, that is right or wrong of them ... it’s just the facts, mate.

2. Lawyers reading your comments, businessmen reading your comments .... are busting a gut. Why in the world would you keel over so easily? Just because you alluded to some “promise” of being transparent. Henao, JTL, Wiggins ... have all been dealt with ... obviously not to YOUR liking ... but to those authorities with jurisdiction.

To date .... Froome’s case is still in a holding pattern. He may well get pasted. If he does, I won’t lose a wink.

All this pathos of hang ‘im high ... NOW ... has little to do with the Clinic’s abhorrence of doping, more to do with No Team Colors Allowed and a lot to do with the 7th deadly sin.
You obviously take the general fanbase for schmucks. I don't think unapologetic Lance fans can be extended to the millions watching cycling you claim. The lawyers will do what lawyers do. And certainly folks now, other than the Sky brigade, (especially outside Britain) aren't as apathetic about Froome's case as you make them out to be. To the contrary most are proably relishing in the Sky/Froome predicament.
No ... I don’t see the general fanbase as schmucks. To the contrary ... I see them as pragmatists who enjoy professional sports entertainment. So, I’m not sure you fit into that particular cohort?? You are right to question numbers (re: fans watching and those listening to Lance). Look it up yourself ... or ask someone on here.

If Froome is exonerated ... or short ban and races Tour ... of course there will be noise. Not so sure about a full blown boycott, Rhub ... but you may yet prove me wrong bro ... and to that I will eat crow.
 
Alpe73 said:
rhubroma said:
Merckx index said:
rhubroma said:
Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic.
Contador's situation was quite different from Froome's. Alberto was cleared by the Spanish federation, so he had every right to race. The only reason there was ambiguity was because UCI and WADA chose to appeal the decision. I don't blame Contador for continuing plans to race after the appeal, because if he had suspended himself and won the appeal--and having been cleared by Spain, winning at CAS wasn't far-fetched--it would have been too late to participate in the Giro and Tour. Think how he would have felt if he sat out the entire season in 2011, only to be cleared at the end of it. You can't backdate GT wins! Another rationale for racing was that it allowed his legal team to take its time and thoroughly prepare for the hearing; there was no pressure to have a decision by a certain date.

So, no, it was not a risky tactic. On the contrary, it was the least risky tactic under the circumstances, the only downside being the bad publicity of someone racing under a cloud, knowing that the results could be taken away later.

Froome is actually in a worse position than Contador in that respect. Since Contador won at the national level, the burden of proof was not on him at CAS. It was on UCI/WADA, at least, more so than it would be in a conventional doping hearing. In contrast, the burden of proof is entirely on Froome. He is not innocent till proven guilty; he most definitely is guilty until proven not guilty. Unlike, say, Peatcchi and Ulissi, he also caught a major break in being notified of his AAF on his very last day of racing for the season. So he could have provisionally suspended himself without missing any races, and if he was so confident in his innocence, cleared himself in time for the 2018 season. Even if he lost the initial hearing, he might have gotten a short enough back-dated suspension to allow him to race in at least one if not both of the first two GTs.

But even that much risk was too much for Froome, so he wouldn't suspend himself. Again, bad PR aside, it's the least risky move in his situation. The only risk he's taking is declaring that he definitely did not inhale more than the allowed amount; that hurts his chances of a relatively short suspension if he loses his case. Had he just said, maybe I made a mistake, without committing to it, he would be in a much better position to plead negligence if he couldn't explain the high level. Contador took the same risk when he declared that he hadn't used any supplements, and it came back to bite him. It quite possibly cost him an extra year.

S2Sturges said:
This USG test talk just muddies up the waters, a speciality of Sky, diffuse and cast doubts on the process.
On the contrary, it could clarify the situation enormously. Sky is not the one talking about the USG, but I wish they were. We internet warriors are the ones pointing out its implications.
I think the differences in the type of substances found has largely to do with the formal discrepancies you bring up. Otherwise Sky is taking access to the same praxis as Saxo, namely permitting their rider to race until a formal ban from the juridical authority/s and, until then, using every legal expedient to obfuscate and exonerate.
A bit of obfuscation on your part, Rhub.
Only for the shmucks.
 
rhubroma said:
Merckx index said:
rhubroma said:
Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic.
Contador's situation was quite different from Froome's. Alberto was cleared by the Spanish federation, so he had every right to race. The only reason there was ambiguity was because UCI and WADA chose to appeal the decision. I don't blame Contador for continuing plans to race after the appeal, because if he had suspended himself and won the appeal--and having been cleared by Spain, winning at CAS wasn't far-fetched--it would have been too late to participate in the Giro and Tour. Think how he would have felt if he sat out the entire season in 2011, only to be cleared at the end of it. You can't backdate GT wins! Another rationale for racing was that it allowed his legal team to take its time and thoroughly prepare for the hearing; there was no pressure to have a decision by a certain date.

So, no, it was not a risky tactic. On the contrary, it was the least risky tactic under the circumstances, the only downside being the bad publicity of someone racing under a cloud, knowing that the results could be taken away later.

Froome is actually in a worse position than Contador in that respect. Since Contador won at the national level, the burden of proof was not on him at CAS. It was on UCI/WADA, at least, more so than it would be in a conventional doping hearing. In contrast, the burden of proof is entirely on Froome. He is not innocent till proven guilty; he most definitely is guilty until proven not guilty. Unlike, say, Peatcchi and Ulissi, he also caught a major break in being notified of his AAF on his very last day of racing for the season. So he could have provisionally suspended himself without missing any races, and if he was so confident in his innocence, cleared himself in time for the 2018 season. Even if he lost the initial hearing, he might have gotten a short enough back-dated suspension to allow him to race in at least one if not both of the first two GTs.

But even that much risk was too much for Froome, so he wouldn't suspend himself. Again, bad PR aside, it's the least risky move in his situation. The only risk he's taking is declaring that he definitely did not inhale more than the allowed amount; that hurts his chances of a relatively short suspension if he loses his case. Had he just said, maybe I made a mistake, without committing to it, he would be in a much better position to plead negligence if he couldn't explain the high level. Contador took the same risk when he declared that he hadn't used any supplements, and it came back to bite him. It quite possibly cost him an extra year.

S2Sturges said:
This USG test talk just muddies up the waters, a speciality of Sky, diffuse and cast doubts on the process.
On the contrary, it could clarify the situation enormously. Sky is not the one talking about the USG, but I wish they were. We internet warriors are the ones pointing out its implications.
I think the differences in the type of substances found has largely to do with the formal discrepancies you bring up. Otherwise Sky is taking access to the same praxis as Saxo, namely permitting their rider to race until a formal ban from the juridical authority/s and, until then, using every legal expedient to obfuscate and exonerate.
A bit of obfuscation on your part, Rhub.
 
Alpe73 said:
rhubroma said:
Alpe73 said:
rhubroma said:
Merckx index said:
I just noticed that Ulissi’s case was not resolved until about seven months after he was notified of a positive, and that case involved no appeal to CAS. This may be why the media are predicting Froome’s case will drag on, and it may be the kind of situation Walsh was referring to when he said UCI had no motivation to rush Froome’s case.

But Ulissi’s situation was a little different from Froome’s, and worth discussing in some detail for the insight it provides into the processes occurring between an AAF and final decision. While, like Froome, Ulissi did not have to be suspended, his team chose to do so when his AAF was announced in late June 2014. According to one report around that time, he also was suspended for three months by UCI.

Ulissi then “underwent a battery of tests in Lausanne in July in a bid to explain the anomaly.” At the end of August, it was announced that UCI was expected to issue a decision within two weeks. In the middle of September, a report said that Ulissi’s lawyer had received unofficial word from UCI that his client had been cleared, so Ulissi returned to racing. “That very evening, however, the UCI announced that it had instigated disciplinary proceedings against the Italian and he was again removed from Lampre’s active roster.”

It’s not clear to me from the articles whether he underwent more tests following his resuspension, but he was due to receive the verdict at a hearing just before Christmas, 2014. But the hearing was delayed about a month because Ulissi’s legal team wanted more time to prepare their final statement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verdict-in-ulissi-case-delayed-until-early-january/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ulissi-to-appear-before-disciplinary-committee-in-december/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lampre-merida-await-confirmation-from-uci-on-ulissi-case/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-decide-on-ulissi-hearing/

So the big difference between Ulissi’s case and Froome’s is that Ulissi was suspended virtually the entire time between the announcement of the AAF and the final decision and imposition of the backdated suspension. When he tried to return to racing in September, UCI immediately brought down the hammer. This makes the delay in Ullissi’s case more understandable. If the rider is suspended, then it’s up to him to clear himself, and UCI shouldn’t care how long the process takes. That doesn't explain why three months elapsed between the AAF and the official imposition of a case against Ulissi, but one can at least appreciate that UCI had nothing to lose. But if the rider is not suspended, and is planning to ride two GTs, obviously UCI should want the case resolved as soon as possible.

Note also that Ulissi completed a series of lab tests within a month of being notified of his AAF. It certainly seems he was being proactive. And it seems that once UCI got serious, they were able to move reasonably quickly. The hearing was set to occur about three months after Ulissi's resuspension, and was delayed by Ulissi's team, not UCI.
As has been already noted Ullissi's case establishes a precedent, among others, for which Team Sky has no credible reason not to follow suit. Especially considering how, with much pomp and circumstance, Sky steadfastly proclaims no tolerance. Henao's precautionary suspension conformed to this. By contrast Sky has chosen to treat Froome's case in the manner of Contador's, by letting him race while betting on his legal staff's ability to exonerate him. It's a risky tactic. Ullissi was unsuccessful in his bid to show physiological anomalies and Froome was found with even more salmbuamol in his urine. At the same time, people are on to this sort of legal posturing, Contador's case being the leading example. Whatever the outcome, the cycling fanbase "knows" what's up. The gig is up. Froome and Sky are irrevokably compromised. In fact, it would be in the team's and the sport's best interest to show consistancy here by a) Sky immediately suspending Froome and b) the UCI, after all the case making and legal harangue, follows protocal with a full suspension.
Rhub ... let me play this one straight up.

1. The majority of the world’s pro cycling fan base ... those who will attend ‘live’ ... those who will watch on television .... millions of them ... the millions who will again tune into Lance’s “Stages” podcast over the duration ... really don’t give much of a ****. I’m not saying, in the circumstances, that is right or wrong of them ... it’s just the facts, mate.

2. Lawyers reading your comments, businessmen reading your comments .... are busting a gut. Why in the world would you keel over so easily? Just because you alluded to some “promise” of being transparent. Henao, JTL, Wiggins ... have all been dealt with ... obviously not to YOUR liking ... but to those authorities with jurisdiction.

To date .... Froome’s case is still in a holding pattern. He may well get pasted. If he does, I won’t lose a wink.

All this pathos of hang ‘im high ... NOW ... has little to do with the Clinic’s abhorrence of doping, more to do with No Team Colors Allowed and a lot to do with the 7th deadly sin.
You obviously take the general fanbase for schmucks. I don't think unapologetic Lance fans can be extended to the millions watching cycling you claim. The lawyers will do what lawyers do. And certainly folks now, other than the Sky brigade, (especially outside Britain) aren't as apathetic about Froome's case as you make them out to be. To the contrary most are proably relishing in the Sky/Froome predicament.
No ... I don’t see the general fanbase as schmucks. To the contrary ... I see them as pragmatists who enjoy professional sports entertainment. So, I’m not sure you fit into that particular cohort?? You are right to question numbers (re: fans watching and those listening to Lance). Look it up yourself ... or ask someone on here.

If Froome is exonerated ... or short ban and races Tour ... of course there will be noise. Not so sure about a full blown boycott, Rhub ... but you may yet prove me wrong bro ... and to that I will eat crow.
Well Sky has lost its grip on the narrative that's for sure. Even the pragmatists willing to close an eye, won't let them slide untarnished for this. Of course, same as Lance for what it's worth, there will still be those heavily invested willing to overlook anything. But... in the final analysis, it's the now sullied legacy of Sky that counts. For the average tifoso this is all that matters. If you can't have faith "in miracles," then Sky has lost (the propaganda war) and so it's raison d'etre in the sport.
 
brownbobby said:
If Froome is exonerated ... or short ban and races Tour ... of course there will be noise. Not so sure about a full blown boycott, Rhub ... but you may yet prove me wrong bro ... and to that I will eat crow.
...and noise isn't necessarily something to be feared.
This! As in “cheering”, you mean (Muted, [barely audible, but, ‘officially’, above threshold, as to constitute a ‘ noise’] of course)?
 
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.
Sounds scientific enough to me. Froome and his legal team should seriously use your study as an integral part of his defense strategy.
 
Alpe73 said:
brownbobby said:
If Froome is exonerated ... or short ban and races Tour ... of course there will be noise. Not so sure about a full blown boycott, Rhub ... but you may yet prove me wrong bro ... and to that I will eat crow.
...and noise isn't necessarily something to be feared.
This! As in “cheering”, you mean (Muted, [barely audible, but, ‘officially’, above threshold, as to constitute a ‘ noise’] of course)?
Noise....Interest, debate, passion, cheering, even booing. Atmosphere!! Call it what you will, it's all there to be embraced and exploited. Not feared.
 
Re:

yaco said:
I doubt Froome will ride the TDF suspended or not - Think the ASO will advise Froome they can't guarantee his safety at the TDF - Anyway the Giro and the Vuelta is a better prospect.
That’s when G will save the day and win the Tour for Sky! :surprised:
 
None, for two reasons. The athlete is responsible for what is in his body. Secondly, Froome has already put his cards on the table by saying that he did not exceed the maximum permitted dose. So in other words, the doctor cannot be blamed.

I might pop into town tomorrow and put £20 on Nibali to win the Tour.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
None, for two reasons. The athlete is responsible for what is in his body. Secondly, Froome has already put his cards on the table by saying that he did not exceed the maximum permitted dose. So in other words, the doctor cannot be blamed.

I might pop into town tomorrow and put £20 on Nibali to win the Tour.
Boo!!!!!!!! You’re no fun, you need to let the imaginations run wild..
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re: Re:

thehog said:
yaco said:
I doubt Froome will ride the TDF suspended or not - Think the ASO will advise Froome they can't guarantee his safety at the TDF - Anyway the Giro and the Vuelta is a better prospect.
That’s when G will save the day and win the Tour for Sky! :surprised:
With the team that Sky can put together for the Tour I think this line of rhetoric is not too far over the top.

A fully protected G in serious GT form is a scary thought. :surprised:
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
thehog said:
yaco said:
I doubt Froome will ride the TDF suspended or not - Think the ASO will advise Froome they can't guarantee his safety at the TDF - Anyway the Giro and the Vuelta is a better prospect.
That’s when G will save the day and win the Tour for Sky! :surprised:
With the team that Sky can put together for the Tour I think this line of rhetoric is not too far over the top.

A fully protected G in serious GT form is a scary thought. :surprised:
A fully amped and motorized G with a sprinkle of Moscon, Pouls and Kwit sauce on top! Awwwwwesssome! It’s like when Lance retired first time around and TommyD was going to win all the GTs! :lol:
 
Re:

macbindle said:
None, for two reasons. The athlete is responsible for what is in his body. Secondly, Froome has already put his cards on the table by saying that he did not exceed the maximum permitted dose. So in other words, the doctor cannot be blamed .
I expect a whole bunch of Sky lawyers are trying to prove the opposite! If it worked for the jiffy bag ... :D

Or ... since Froome was feeling poorly, the doc told Dawg to puff twice as hard on his inhaler. There you go - case dismissed! :D
 
Jiffy bag was different. It was whistleblown and very easy for Sky to impede corroboration. No verifiable doping offence. This time there is a verifiable offence.

Sky just have to prove it was all down to a faulty inhaler delivering a quadruple dose with each puff....

You heard it here first ;)
 
Jun 27, 2009
373
1
0
Re:

yaco said:
I doubt Froome will ride the TDF suspended or not - Think the ASO will advise Froome they can't guarantee his safety at the TDF - Anyway the Giro and the Vuelta is a better prospect.
I think the ASO would be better off just not having the whole team there,make for exciting racing for once, and
given the cloud hanging over the team with various allegations and dodgy practises.
Otherwise even if Froome isn't there, Sky will do it's usual modus operandi of negative racing, and tempo riding before the inevitable attack with three teammates and the GC wunderkid, probably GT..
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS