Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
Nothing to do with his supposed illness. TUEs should not and are not private.

Perhaps the topic for a thread on its own but TUE management is the most misunderstood element of cycling medication program.

They are often abused. Once you see an athletes TUE usage you start to get a better idea about the nature of the medical program they're using.

Best part for a cyclists is the TUE is legal. Why do you think they hired Leinders and not a regular sports Doctor? Leinders's knowledge of TUEs is second to none.

The part or TUEs that is missed is its supposed to be for "therapeutic" use. Not performance enhancement.

Maybe Cycling news will ask them the question at the next interview? Or that may get them put on the journalist blacklist.

I think about TUEs often when the subject of UCI "protection" is raised. There is a lot of political cover for the UCI if the protection is in the form of a TUE.

A blood destroying parasite that requires one treatment per year during the off season? Depending upon the TUE that is allowed for this condition you might see more cyclists training in Africa soon.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
If the sport was interested in cleanliness and transparency TUEs would be published. But they are not. Easy to figure why.

Sky talked about transparency but they dont publish ridrs TUEs.

JV wont talk about details of his team.

Not clean.
 
spalco said:
Well, I would like to know too, I'm just not sure if it's right to force them to disclose it. It would certainly be an impressive gesture for any cyclists to publicise it themselves though.



What am I misunderstanding? Let's say I'm a pro athlete and I get diagnosed with, whatever, let's say some skin condition and my doctor gives me a cortisone creme, despite it being on the WADA list, because it's simply the most effective medication for whatever I've got. That's what TUE are for, right?

My concern now is, what if I've got syphilis or hemorroids, and I don't want my mother in law to know?
Again. Requires its own thread. It should be for therapeutic use.

If Sky are as clean as they are then the TUEs can be released. Along with the amounts if particular medications.

CyclingNews should ask the question. Lets see the response they get.
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
panache said:
I think about TUEs often when the subject of UCI "protection" is raised. There is a lot of political cover for the UCI if the protection is in the form of a TUE.

A blood destroying parasite that requires one treatment per year during the off season? Depending upon the TUE that is allowed for this condition you might see more cyclists training in Africa soon.
Surely the TUE you would get is for medication to kill the parasite.That would be useless to anyone who doesn't have bilharzia.It's not like anyone gets a TUE for EPO and testosterone.
 
armchairclimber said:
You are right to a large extent but look at it this way. If you regard the clinic more as a comedy stage for the likes of Hog to strut his stuff, you can just sit back and enjoy the show. If you want something more cerebral, you can enjoy The Hitch, who just makes stuff up...think of him like the story tellers of Jemaa L Fna. He's actually ok as long as he remembers that he's not really The Hitch. For more earthy entertainment, just look upon it as cyclists in the stocks being pelted by toothless, tomato weilding assailants in some medieval ritual.... "He's not the Tour de France winner, he's a very naughty boy".

It's only if you actually, seriously, would like to see the issue of doping being tackled, without all the irrational hatred of individual riders, that you'll get frustrated and upset. I hope this helps.
Sorry, what have I "made up".
 
Jun 12, 2010
519
0
0
simo1733 said:
Surely the TUE you would get is for medication to kill the parasite.That would be useless to anyone who doesn't have bilharzia.It's not like anyone gets a TUE for EPO and testosterone.
You are wrong. You don't need a TUE for normal meds. You don't even need a TUE for a normal dosed asthma treatments. You can have a steroid injection in articulations all fine without a TUE.
 
Alpechraxler said:
You are wrong. You don't need a TUE for normal meds. You don't even need a TUE for a normal dosed asthma treatments. You can have a steroid injection in articulations all fine without a TUE.
There's a lot of misinformation about TUEs.

Someone should start a thread.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Alpechraxler said:
You are wrong. You don't need a TUE for normal meds. You don't even need a TUE for a normal dosed asthma treatments. You can have a steroid injection in articulations all fine without a TUE.
That's not entirely accurate

From Wada

If the medication an athlete is required to take to treat an illness or condition happens to fall under the Prohibited List, a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) may give that athlete the authorization to take the needed medicine.
Salbutemol was legalised in 2010. good news for my son, that.

Again from WADA

As of January 01, 2013, inhaled formoterol up to a maximum dose of 54
micrograms over 24 hours is no longer prohibited. If a delivered dosage in excess of 54
mcg/day is legitimately required by the athlete, then a TUE must be requested
Read more here.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Dalakhani said:
Do you look back at Armstrong's 10 years+ or denials, do you care what he said?

(Is this the cycling equivalent of Godwin's law?)

If Froome, or Wiggins said anything that's different to what Lance said, it would be interesting.

If they were providing us with a description of how they legitimately improved over the winter of 2011-2012 in the case of Wiggins, and just before the 2011 Vuelta in the case of Froome, I'm sure we'd find it fascinating.

Unfortunately, we're not getting that. Wiggins gave us Armstrong's greatest hits - insulting people with questions, saying he'd be stupid to take the risk - but nothing new.

Not even an explanation of why Sky chose to hire Leinders.

So what we have is a team that did nothing prior to hiring a doping doctor and then became world beaters after hiring a doping doctor... and who claim that, for 2 years, they had no idea he was a doping doctor.



I've just given you some "reality". Would you care to deal with it?
To me, it's pretty plain. Either you choose advanced doping programme, fight for GT's and play denials or you prefer to ride clean (relatively clean) and agree to be a rider of some Sandy Casar's level qua your career ceiling, figuratively speaking, or quit cycling and pick a civil profession. Everyone makes its choice. Talented riders choose between 1 & 2. As soon as you chose, you have no way back because since that moment you are not obliged to himself by and large. What do you want to hear from Wiggins and Froome? What answers would be okay for you? I'm sure you have no proper response to this question.

I don't believe in one's pharmacologic edge. Telekom and CSC used the same products like US Postal, Rabobank too, ONCE too...I don't believe in it now too. Do you really think Froome can have access to the products that Nibali or Contador don't have to?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
spalco said:
I understand why Froome saying those thing ****es you off, but... hypothetically imagine that there is a clean rider with a palmares like Froome's, wouldn't you expect that person to say or at least think exactly things like that?
No. There are plenty of doped up riders with many wins who kept their pie holes shut and have a much more impressive palmares than Froome.

What we don't have a lot of are people who won lots of races and talked about how clean they were...who were actually clean. There are even some anti-doping tattoos on riders who were obviously doped.

Then again, I'm nothing but a bone idle c**t, so what do I know?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
No. There are plenty of doped up riders with many wins who kept their pie holes shut and have a much more impressive palmares than Froome.

What we don't have a lot of are people who won lots of races and talked about how clean they were...who were actually clean. There are even some anti-doping tattoos on riders who were obviously doped.

Then again, I'm nothing but a bone idle c**t, so what do I know?
now BikePure solves that problem. you dont have to be the little Prince Cunego and get a tattoo, all you gotta do is sign up to bikePure and wear a blue band. Its the livestrong band for the new ages. When you have gone positive, you can recycle it as a co(k ring by doubling it over.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
blackcat said:
now BikePure solves that problem. you dont have to be the little Prince Cunego and get a tattoo, all you gotta do is sign up to bikePure and wear a blue band. Its the livestrong band for the new ages. When you have gone positive, you can recycle it as a co(k ring by doubling it over.
Do they kick out their dopers, or just give them a stern talking to?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Do they kick out their dopers, or just give them a stern talking to?
i think it is the stern talking to plus a dozen proud marys and felatio in the confessional booth

hail marys hail marys, you can tell i'm not a catholic
 
ChewbaccaD said:
No. There are plenty of doped up riders with many wins who kept their pie holes shut and have a much more impressive palmares than Froome.

What we don't have a lot of are people who won lots of races and talked about how clean they were...who were actually clean. There are even some anti-doping tattoos on riders who were obviously doped.

Then again, I'm nothing but a bone idle c**t, so what do I know?
Yeah, because that's kind of a unicorn, isn't it?

There are lots of riders who doped, who made big speeches about doping, and lots of riders who were cautious who doped and riders who didn't say anything who doped, and few of any other kind, because there aren't many confirmed clean, successful riders in the past at all. So how can you draw any conclusion one way or another from Froome's comments?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
spalco said:
Yeah, because that's kind of a unicorn, isn't it?

There are lots of riders who doped, who made big speeches about doping, and lots of riders who were cautious who doped and riders who didn't say anything who doped, and few of any other kind, because there aren't many confirmed clean, successful riders in the past at all. So how can you draw any conclusion one way or another from Froome's comments?
apart from the fact that Lemond is perhaps the ONLY winner on bread and water, and even if he was on a little testo, then NO rider has ever won the TdF without getting some help.

Its a pretty easy function. No clean rider, with exception of Greg, has won the Tour on bread and water. And basically, Froome won last year. He just had to let Wiggins stand on the top step. And the callow human muttonchop was too small of a 6'3" rider to man up and repay Froome in this years Tour. definition of d0uchebag.

d0uchebag is swear filter'ed. wtf?
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
blackcat said:
apart from the fact that Lemond is perhaps the ONLY winner on bread and water, and even if he was on a little testo, then NO rider has ever won the TdF without getting some help.

Its a pretty easy function. No clean rider, with exception of Greg, has won the Tour on bread and water. And basically, Froome won last year. He just had to let Wiggins stand on the top step. And the callow human muttonchop was too small of a 6'3" rider to man up and repay Froome in this years Tour. definition of d0uchebag.

d0uchebag is swear filter'ed. wtf?
There it is - the clinic Lemond fanboi nonsense. A unique human being the likes of which never seen before, and never seen again.

You expect to be taken seriously with this silly hero worship?
 
martinvickers said:
There it is - the clinic Lemond fanboi nonsense. A unique human being the likes of which never seen before, and never seen again.

You expect to be taken seriously with this silly hero worship?
Agreed, its as fecking absurd as all the pro Armstrong stuff spouted back in the day.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
spalco said:
Yeah, because that's kind of a unicorn, isn't it?

There are lots of riders who doped, who made big speeches about doping, and lots of riders who were cautious who doped and riders who didn't say anything who doped, and few of any other kind, because there aren't many confirmed clean, successful riders in the past at all. So how can you draw any conclusion one way or another from Froome's comments?
You answered your own question.

Your point was that anyone who was winning clean would naturally respond in the way Froome has...only, the people who have said almost exactly the same things he just said were all dopers. How can I draw any conclusions? Observation of the history of people who claimed to be clean who also won major races.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY