• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1100 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
bigcog said:
If this is his strategy he's an idiot and will get 2 years. Should have copped to an 'accidental' overdose and got a lesser ban.
I don't understand it either, maybe Sky were arrogant enough to think - just threaten to "hijack" the 2018 cycling season, by riding on as if completely innocent and nothing has happened
But UCI called their bluff, and Froome is basically finished, barring an unprecedented "double" victory over both Anti-doping Tribunal and the CAS.
He can "ride the double" in a different way than Sky had expected...

Please look at the above listing of all previous doping cases, in my previous post, and correct that if it's wrong
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,043
0
0
Well I suppose he has the choice between :
- claiming to the grave that he didn't do anything "untoward" but can't prove it so he will get banned for 2 years (at best)
- admit to negligence and try to negotiate a deal. If WADA appeals though he will have lost everything, his "claim to innocence" and a reduced sentence.

Guess he's stuck between a rock and a hard place !:
 
Why wouldn't someone plead guilty, even when they know the evidence means they're almost certain to be found guilty regardless, and by not pleading guilty they are likely to increase the severity of the punishment?

Well one very obvious reason springs to mind....the notion of sticking to the truth as a matter of principle and integrity if you know with absolute conviction that you are not guilty.

Now clearly that possibility isn't even going to be considered by most on this forum, but the only person who knows wether he's guilty or not is Chris Froome. The rest of us just think we know.
 
brownbobby said:
Why wouldn't someone plead guilty, even when they know the evidence means they're almost certain to be found guilty regardless, and by not pleading guilty they are likely to increase the severity of the punishment?

Well one very obvious reason springs to mind....the notion of sticking to the truth as a matter of principle and integrity if you know with absolute conviction that you are not guilty.

Now clearly that possibility isn't even going to be considered by most on this forum, but the only person who knows wether he's guilty or not is Chris Froome. The rest of us just think we know.
:) :)
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
After that list the question remains:

Is it possible to influence the judge
by providing them with marginal gains?
Sky’s bully and bluff techniques have worked for years. Froome on Ventoux motorcycle crash Brailsford was in the judges caravan dictating the terms. Now that Cookson has gone it has limited that approach. The only hope is a Reddie influenced CAS with a sealed outcome of no suspension. Can’t see another way. Worst for Sky is that once a Giro and/or Tour Froome-less will be much more exciting nobody will want him back. The UCI always wins.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
It appears that every single defendant who was referred to the Anti-Doping Tribunal got convicted, with severe sanctions, irrespective of which Judge was assigned to the case :

 UCI ADT 01.2015 UCI c. M. Lloyd Mondory 4 years (EPO) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 02.2015 UCI v. Mr Luca Paolini 1.5 years (cocaine) Haas
 UCI ADT 03.2016 UCI v. Ms Blaza Klemencic 2 years (EPO) Zagklis
 UCI ADT 02.2016 UCI v. Mr Fabio Taborre 4 years (EPO) Wisnosky
 UCI ADT 04.2016 UCI v. Mr Carlos Oyarzun 4 years (FG-4592) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 01.2017 UCI v. Mr Giampaolo Caruso 2 years (EPO) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 05.2016 & 02.2017 UCI v. Mr Jure Kocjan 4 years (EPO) Haas
 UCI ADT 03.2017 UCI v. Ms Isabella Moreira Lacerda 4 years (bio-passport) Wisnosky
 UCI ADT 05.2017 UCI v. Mr Josemberg Nunes Pinho 4 years (19-NA & 19-NE) Wisnosky
 UCI ADT 06.2017 UCI v. Mr Alex Correia Diniz 4 years (bio-passport) Haas
 UCI ADT 09.2017 UCI v. Mr. Nicola Ruffoni 4 years (GHRP) Bachmann
 UCI ADT 08.2017 UCI v. Mr Kleber Da Silva Ramos 4 years (CERA) Zylberstein
 UCI ADT 04.2017 UCI v. Mr Ralf Matzka 2 years (tamoxifen) Zagklis

And both of the two cyclists who appealed their bans to CAS lost their appeals, with the original Anti-Doping Tribunal judgments upheld :

 CAS 2016 / A / Carlos Ivàn Oyarzun Guiñez v. UCI & UCI-ADT & PASO & CNOC 4 years (FG-4592) CAS appeal
 CAS 2016 / A / 4648 Blaza Klemencic v. UCI 2 years (EPO) CAS appeal

So on the basis of precedence, it seems that: Froome either has to pull off something miraculous, or get banned for two years.
I could not find any example of acquittal for cyclists sent to the Anti-Doping Tribunal - someone please correct this, if there were in fact any athletes who were exonerated or who escaped on technicalities
But those are all clear cut positives for substances that are banned in all circumstances and, cocaine aside, would only have been taken to enhance performance.

Froome on the other hand has taken a drug that he was allowed to take and was publicly known to be taking. It's not a clear cut case with strict liability. It's possible that someone can take too much accidentally (and furthermore not realise they have done so).
having twice the legal limit of salbutamol is much more of a clear cut positive than a bio-passport case, of which there are two on that list.
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
pastronef said:
thehog said:
webvan said:
Yep, just sit out 2019, enjoy his money, his wife and his kid ! Will he ever win a GT again is that happens ? It's hard to tell, on the one hand he's been so dominant since 2011, but Bertie was too and it took him a while to get back to his best level, say the 2014 TDF where he unfortunately crashed.
No, no, that won’t do. We need a spectacular fall from grace, months of denial followed by a full confession outlining Sky’s team wide doping program backup with a two part interview with Jeremy Kyle.
I must be honest: that´s what I dont wish. I dont want the anti-Sky anti-Froome to enjoy that.

call me dumb, call me what you want.
You're not dumb at all but I don't really understand your thinking. I am firmly in the anti-Sky camp. And it is entirely possible/probable that nothing will change in pro cycling even if Froome is guilty and gets proper
suspension. But really that sounds like so much apathy from you.
I came home from my ride to catch the last 300 meters of today´s Valencia stage. Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
mine is not apathy, I am just looking at how thing are perceived. yes, Movistar and Astana didnt shout fro the rooftops we are clean but you and I know the doping problems those team had, or have.
so as you say, nothing will change in pro-cycling if Froome is guilty and gets a suspension, I agree with you.
some forum members dont blink and eye if Valverde wins or Astana win or Bahrain, while on the other side when any Sky rider does something wow! bad!
so yes, I dont want Sky, DB, Froome etc to crash down big style, as many wish. for spite.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
But those are all clear cut positives for substances that are banned in all circumstances and, cocaine aside, would only have been taken to enhance performance. Froome on the other hand has taken a drug that he was allowed to take and was publicly known to be taking. It's not a clear cut case with strict liability. It's possible that someone can take too much accidentally (and furthermore not realise they have done so).
Partly agree, partly disagree because

  • - Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
    - But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
    - The bio-passport cases are always somewhat debatable because they are not based on the presence of a drug, so in that list of cases, those are not about strict-liability drug concentrations
    - Tamoxifen has legitimate uses and could be accidentally ingested without the athlete's knowledge by not realizing what was in their medications
Out of curiosity I read through the UCI Tribunal documents to find out the essence of each of the defendants' claims. None of the defenses worked. So from that, can see several approaches which are very unlikely to succeed for Froome

Mondory - claimed that his EPO was endogenously produced by his own body, claimed he didn't inject, just produced more EPO naturally than most people (physiological outlier claim, sort of similar to what Froome might claim about being biologically different from ordinary people - in metabolism, by organ failure, or whatever.)

Paolini - admitted that he used cocaine, but claimed that he was not strictly liable, because claimed he was drunk on alcohol at the same time as snorting coke, affecting the urinary excretion time of the cocaine. Some parallels with Froome case

Klamencic - technicalities about doping laboratory testing, and claimed the EPO was a "false-positive" in the drug testing labs. Lost again on appeal to CAS

Taborre - technicalities about legal jurisdictions, and claimed he was "notified too late" about his positive for FG-4592. That is a specialized synthetic drug, with no reasonable explanation, so the lawyers went for technicalities

Oyarzun - similar, because there is no good explanation for FG-4592, so went for technicalities about alleged improper testing of his 'B' sample. And lost that, again, on appeal to CAS

Caruso - technicality about testing of his 'B' sample - no hope, after it was established the 'B' sample was handled correctly by the labs

Kocjan - technicality about 'A' sample versus 'B' sample, claimed a false positive for EPO because the amount of EPO in the 'B' sample was lower. Didn't work

Moreira Lacerda - said she was sick with dengue virus (her own version of Froome's Badzilla), that she was sleeping in an oxygen tent, and that the bio-passport blood standards are fundamentally flawed, because based on "academic assumptions"

Nunes Pinho - pointed to small differences in anabolic steroid levels between different samples, and claimed the Rio drug testing lab in Brazil is generally too unreliable to prove doping

Correia Diniz - alleged improper handling of blood samples by the Brazil testing lab, claimed has naturally high hemoglobin levels, had been riding for 4 hours on a hot summer day, bio-passport could be wrong. Similar to possible Froome physiology defenses

Ruffoni - said that the Lausanne laboratory must have made a mistake in their testing for growth-hormone releasing peptide. Very weak argument, because the GHRP-2 M2 is a synthetic peptide with no good explanation, and because Lausanne has one of the most hardcore drug testing labs

da Silva Ramos - claimed he accidentally swallowed CERA from a contaminated drink or vitamin tablet, was vague about what he may have ingested. So ridiculous, because that assumes that a very expensive synthetic blood activator could be just floating around somewhere, in food or drinks

Matzka - claimed that tamoxifen could have come from contaminated water (true, but not possible in the concentrations that were detected in his urine), and that the jurisdiction in Switzerland was "null and void" (untrue)
 
Jan 12, 2012
215
0
9,030
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Partly agree, partly disagree because

- Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
- But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
But Froome hasn't denied taking the drug in question unlike the other cases (Paolini aside). The case hinges on the correlation between the amount take and the amount expelled (and the possibility of negligence over malice). The other cases (excluding the bio-passports) are about drugs that shouldn't be there and mostly they aren't drugs you take by mistake.
 
silvergrenade said:
brownbobby said:
Why wouldn't someone plead guilty, even when they know the evidence means they're almost certain to be found guilty regardless, and by not pleading guilty they are likely to increase the severity of the punishment?

Well one very obvious reason springs to mind....the notion of sticking to the truth as a matter of principle and integrity if you know with absolute conviction that you are not guilty.

Now clearly that possibility isn't even going to be considered by most on this forum, but the only person who knows wether he's guilty or not is Chris Froome. The rest of us just think we know.
:) :)
It's the hope of hopes
It's the love of loves
This is the song for every man

God is watching us
God is watching us
God is watching us from a distance
 
Re: Re:

VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Partly agree, partly disagree because

- Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
- But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
But Froome hasn't denied taking the drug in question unlike the other cases (Paolini aside). The case hinges on the correlation between the amount take and the amount expelled (and the possibility of negligence over malice). The other cases (excluding the bio-passports) are about drugs that shouldn't be there and mostly they aren't drugs you take by mistake.
As I understand it negligence, which is what Ulissi admitted to, is tantamount to malice in terms of a rider being sanctioned. You know, all that troublesome stuff about a rider being responsible for what goes in his body.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Parker said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Partly agree, partly disagree because

- Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
- But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
But Froome hasn't denied taking the drug in question unlike the other cases (Paolini aside). The case hinges on the correlation between the amount take and the amount expelled (and the possibility of negligence over malice). The other cases (excluding the bio-passports) are about drugs that shouldn't be there and mostly they aren't drugs you take by mistake.
As I understand it negligence, which is what Ulissi admitted to, is tantamount to malice in terms of a rider being sanctioned. You know, all that troublesome stuff about a rider being responsible for what goes in his body.
There's a difference with regards to intent. It won't get you off a sanction though - but will inform the nature of the sanction.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling nations? If yes, on what grounds? As I mentioned in the LA Part 3 thread:

"Perhaps more then repressing the decade, as far as the current Anglo dominated narrative is concerned it's about a self-declared ethicalness (with Murdock media sponsorship in tow) to assume a leadership role of a movement in peril. In this sense the cultural parameters dovetale nicely into the business interests" (of the sport and its markets).

To clarify, Sky and British Cycling made a grand entrance into road cycling on the premise that they can show you how its done cleanly, with the implicit notion that British culture is more ethical and thus more suited to changing the sports image by example. The reality is that it was all a marketing ploy.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
pastronef said:
VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling nations? If yes, on what grounds? As I mentioned in the LA Part 3 thread:

"Perhaps more then repressing the decade, as far as the current Anglo dominated narrative is concerned it's about a self-declared ethicalness (with Murdock media sponsorship in tow) to assume a leadership role of a movement in peril. In this sense the cultural parameters dovetale nicely into the business interests" (of the sport and its markets).

To clarify, Sky and British Cycling made a grand entrance into road cycling on the premise that they can show you how its done cleanly, with the implicit notion that British culture is more ethical and thus more suited to changing the sports image by example. The reality is that it was all a marketing ploy.
no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
rhubroma said:
pastronef said:
VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling nations? If yes, on what grounds? As I mentioned in the LA Part 3 thread:

"Perhaps more then repressing the decade, as far as the current Anglo dominated narrative is concerned it's about a self-declared ethicalness (with Murdock media sponsorship in tow) to assume a leadership role of a movement in peril. In this sense the cultural parameters dovetale nicely into the business interests" (of the sport and its markets).

To clarify, Sky and British Cycling made a grand entrance into road cycling on the premise that they can show you how its done cleanly, with the implicit notion that British culture is more ethical and thus more suited to changing the sports image by example. The reality is that it was all a marketing ploy.
no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.
By all accounts, it's been Sky's way of treating the other teams as their class inferiors.
 
Re: Re:

No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling

no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.[/quote]

By all accounts, it's been Sky's way of treating the other teams as their class inferiors.[/quote]

By beating them consistently at their own game?

Yeah that does tend to riĺe people....by all accounts.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling

no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.


By all accounts, it's been Sky's way of treating the other teams as their class inferiors.[/quote]

By beating them consistently at their own game?

Yeah that does tend to riĺe people....by all accounts.[/quote]

Don't know what beating someone has to do with treating them as class inferiors, but I'm all ears.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
Tour de France multiple winner runs afoul of the rules is going to always be the biggest story. Add to that riding for the highest profile team in the sport, by design, and all this attention should be expected. Why it comes as a surprise to some is rather baffling. This "Oh poor Froome/Sky, setupon unfairly by the masses" attitude is just a symptom of the problem of ignoring the obvious, likely just to make it easier to deal with what has put many in a state of denial.

When you covet attention from the media for all the successes and then an equal amount of attention is given for the failures, why is the latter all of a sudden a case of unfair treatment?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS