Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1102 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Merckx index said:
Subsequently, Cyclingnews, seeking further verification of the story, understands that there has been no direct contact between Froome’s representatives and the UCI
Which contradicts the previous story of back-and-forth between Froome's team and LADS, a story which was not directly denied by Froome or anyone representing him at the time. Or maybe the contact has been through back channels? Would Cound count as not direct?
When a media outlet writes "[Name of outlet] understands" it means "we haven't got a clue but here's a rumour we heard and liked"
Is there no end to the things you can be wrong about?

"Understands" is journalistic shorthand for CN was only able to speak to one source (so no corroboration) and that source didn't want their name on the public record

"Subsequently, Cyclingnews, seeking further verification of the story, understands that there has been no direct contact between Froome’s representatives and the UCI"
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Merckx index said:
Subsequently, Cyclingnews, seeking further verification of the story, understands that there has been no direct contact between Froome’s representatives and the UCI
Which contradicts the previous story of back-and-forth between Froome's team and LADS, a story which was not directly denied by Froome or anyone representing him at the time. Or maybe the contact has been through back channels? Would Cound count as not direct?
When a media outlet writes "[Name of outlet] understands" it means "we haven't got a clue but here's a rumour we heard and liked"
Is there no end to the things you can be wrong about?

"Understands" is journalistic shorthand for CN was only able to speak to one source (so no corroboration) and that source didn't want their name on the public record

"Subsequently, Cyclingnews, seeking further verification of the story, understands that there has been no direct contact between Froome’s representatives and the UCI"
Does Cyclingnews present much original journalism?
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Wiggo's Package said:
rick james said:
Robert5091 said:
If Cookson was still in charge, we'd probably not even know about Froome's AAF, and this thread would be a lot shorter. :)
we shouldn't know about it, its not a failed test, we should only know when he's getting suspended and what for.

someone leaked it and they broke the rules.

I wonder how many cyclist have had the same abnormal reading as Froome but we haven't heard about.
People who break the rules

They're the absolute worst, eh, Rick? ;)
he's been asked why he had an abnormal reading, As it stands he hasn't broken the rules ...Yet

when they make a judgement, then we can say he's broken the rules
damn whistleblowers....without which large organisations would have been getting away with 'breaking rules' for years...got to hate them eh................
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Wiggo's Package said:
rick james said:
Robert5091 said:
If Cookson was still in charge, we'd probably not even know about Froome's AAF, and this thread would be a lot shorter. :)
we shouldn't know about it, its not a failed test, we should only know when he's getting suspended and what for.

someone leaked it and they broke the rules.

I wonder how many cyclist have had the same abnormal reading as Froome but we haven't heard about.
People who break the rules

They're the absolute worst, eh, Rick? ;)
he's been asked why he had an abnormal reading, As it stands he hasn't broken the rules ...Yet

when they make a judgement, then we can say he's broken the rules
He broke the rules, that's why he's in trouble. The reading was alright, see B sample, only the level of salbumatol was abnormal, like twice the generous limit abnormal. But generally, the generous WADA and UCI give the athlete who broke the rules for a specified substance a better treatment than for those who broke the rules on non-specified substances.

As per WADA Prohibited List 2018 Q&A:

It should be clear that all substances on the Prohibited List are prohibited. The sub-classification of substances as “Specified” or “Non-Specified” are important only in the sanctioning process.

A “Specified Substance” is a substance which potentially allows, under defined conditions, for a greater reduction of a sanction when an athlete tests positive for that particular substance.

The purpose of the sub-classifications of “Specified” or “Non-Specified” on the Prohibited List is to recognize that it is possible for a substance to enter an athlete’s body inadvertently, and therefore allow a tribunal more flexibility when making a sanctioning decision.

“Specified” substances are not necessarily less effective doping agents than “Non-Specified” substances, nor do they relieve athletes of the strict liability rule that makes them responsible for all substances that enter their body.

So, basically it's the other way around, he's guilty until proven innocent.
 
I really don't understand this, does he not care that a lot of cycling fans think he shouldn't be racing till the case is resolved? This is not a GT that adds to his legacy, something he might feel is worth the risk of later having results stripped. It's only for training, why piss off people just for that? Either he is tone deaf, in major denial, or is very confident he's going to skate.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Wiggo's Package said:
rick james said:
Robert5091 said:
If Cookson was still in charge, we'd probably not even know about Froome's AAF, and this thread would be a lot shorter. :)
we shouldn't know about it, its not a failed test, we should only know when he's getting suspended and what for.

someone leaked it and they broke the rules.

I wonder how many cyclist have had the same abnormal reading as Froome but we haven't heard about.
People who break the rules

They're the absolute worst, eh, Rick? ;)
he's been asked why he had an abnormal reading, As it stands he hasn't broken the rules ...Yet

when they make a judgement, then we can say he's broken the rules

yes he has broken the rules Rick, he has twice the permitted level of a drug in both his urine samples, from the studies published there is no way you reach that level in urine by using inhalers, it suggests a salbutamol pill, in the 8 - 20mg range. if he tries to prove this is natural for him (its never happened before, afaik) and he fails to replicate this result in an experiment he will be sanctioned. previous and recent AAF for same drug resulted in bans of 6 + 9 months for two italian riders. there is a reason why up to 2/3 of the peloton claim they are asthmatics, because the drug has a benefit - froome got badly caught out on this occasion. the issue of froome being an asthmatic alsdo seemd ot be at issue? the literature shows he publicly used inhaler at a race and spoke of this condition in 2014 for the first time. combine this with brailsfords and skys blatant hypocrisy about doing things the right way, zero tolerance on doping (hiring of tainted staff, TUE's, jiffy bag, lack of medical records, missing laptop, delivery of testo patches etc) and generally acting holier than thou to fans and the other teams and you have the reasons for many fans disgust and mistrust of team sky and their PR machine
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Merckx index said:
I really don't understand this, does he not care that a lot of cycling fans think he shouldn't be racing till the case is resolved? This is not a GT that adds to his legacy, something he might feel is worth the risk of later having results stripped. It's only for training, why piss off people just for that? Either he is tone deaf, in major denial, or is very confident he's going to skate.
in one word, No.
 
Merckx index said:
I really don't understand this, does he not care that a lot of cycling fans think he shouldn't be racing till the case is resolved? This is not a GT that adds to his legacy, something he might feel is worth the risk of later having results stripped. It's only for training, why piss off people just for that? Either he is tone deaf, in major denial, or is very confident he's going to skate.
Indeed, here's 6 more possible reasons.

1. He is claiming complete innocence so his plan is to stick with the original schedule so his behaviour matches his claim.

2. Money. If he plans to do the Giro, he needs to start his season sooner than later and the Giro is where his first big pay off comes.

3. Doubling down. Calling the bluff of the press, the fans, possibly even the UCI. We are Sky, I am Froome, She is Michelle. We call the shots.

4. Change the narrative. Lots of media outlets and lots of July-only fans only casually cover or follow cycling. They will now hear, TDF winner wins queen stage of, say, Tirreno-Adriatico as opposed to TDF winner postpones doping tribunal hearing.

5. Put pressure on the adjudication process to try to pressure the authorities to allow 2018 GT results to stand by gaming the suspension period (I know this is a very dodgy reason but you never know)

6. Cyclists and race organisers are thick-skinned. Many examples of dubious riders, previously banned riders, under investigation riders (ok not many now) and well-known cheats being welcomed with open arms by race organisers.
 
Merckx index said:
I really don't understand this, does he not care that a lot of cycling fans think he shouldn't be racing till the case is resolved? This is not a GT that adds to his legacy, something he might feel is worth the risk of later having results stripped. It's only for training, why piss off people just for that? Either he is tone deaf, in major denial, or is very confident he's going to skate.
Perhaps the Ruta Del Sol people are offering him 1.5m :p Seriously though, nice bit of publicity for them
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Merckx index said:
I really don't understand this, does he not care that a lot of cycling fans think he shouldn't be racing till the case is resolved? This is not a GT that adds to his legacy, something he might feel is worth the risk of later having results stripped. It's only for training, why piss off people just for that? Either he is tone deaf, in major denial, or is very confident he's going to skate.
He's just a cheat bluffing it out

You see his kind all the time in criminal trials. Could plead guilty and get a shorter sentence. But take it to trial with no viable defence and get the book thrown at them

Whittle's call to ethics sure to fall on deaf ears when both Froome and his team are fundamentally unethical
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Merckx index said:
I really don't understand this, does he not care that a lot of cycling fans think he shouldn't be racing till the case is resolved? This is not a GT that adds to his legacy, something he might feel is worth the risk of later having results stripped. It's only for training, why piss off people just for that? Either he is tone deaf, in major denial, or is very confident he's going to skate.
He's going to brazen it out. Career (stardom/riches at least) is likely over, and he knows it. That Giro start fee is the last big payday. Gotta act in public like everything is normal, and force his way into the Giro to collect the cash. I'd guess that behind closed doors they are threatening all kinds of lawsuits if anyone suspends him or doesn't let him start the Giro while the process is still ongoing. Drag the whole thing out so no official decision can be made and collect that appearance fee.

That Sky hasn't suspended him is telling on many levels. Brailsfraud could've just dumped the troublesome Dawg and moved on ahead with Geeeezus, Poels, etc. Except he can't - for many reasons.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY