Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1111 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I understand what you mean Hitch and we talked about it before. but this also makes me think about this: the Sky-Froome experience and existence, for fans and non fans, has become something beyond cycling.
sentences like I hope this experience will change you for the better seem like we are not anymore in the anti-doping matters, it´s about people´s character, feelings, way of thinking, life.

isn´t it a bit too much? wtf, you are telling a forum member that something will change him for the better, like if he has to open his mind or hearth and see he was wrong before, but now we all hope he has understood, seen the light.

ffs it´s cycling, it´s racing, top fuelled sportmen racing each other. entertaiment, nothing more. life goes on anyway, with or without froome or sky. Parker´s posts are not aggressive or full of disdain towards any member, or any rider or any rider´s wife. he writes his own view and tries to read the facts and reply to the questions and posts.
he does not want to change us for the better
It’s NOT about doping ... it never was ... on this thread.

This thread, the Armstrong thread ... are about the politics of envy; camel through the eye of the needle; Emperor’s New Clothes; 7th deadly sin .... voodoo.

Cycling, corporate teams, uppity sports pros .... they’re just the actors for the Theatre of Frustration.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
pastronef said:
The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I understand what you mean Hitch and we talked about it before. but this also makes me think about this: the Sky-Froome experience and existence, for fans and non fans, has become something beyond cycling.
sentences like I hope this experience will change you for the better seem like we are not anymore in the anti-doping matters, it´s about people´s character, feelings, way of thinking, life.

isn´t it a bit too much? wtf, you are telling a forum member that something will change him for the better, like if he has to open his mind or hearth and see he was wrong before, but now we all hope he has understood, seen the light.

ffs it´s cycling, it´s racing, top fuelled sportmen racing each other. entertaiment, nothing more. life goes on anyway, with or without froome or sky. Parker´s posts are not aggressive or full of disdain towards any member, or any rider or any rider´s wife. he writes his own view and tries to read the facts and reply to the questions and posts.
he does not want to change us for the better
It’s NOT about doping ... it never was ... on this thread.

This thread, the Armstrong thread ... are about the politics of envy; camel through the eye of the needle; Emperor’s New Clothes; 7th deadly sin .... voodoo.

Cycling, corporate teams, uppity sports pros .... they’re just the actors for the Theatre of Frustration.
Speaking only for myself, I have found this thread to be informative and compelling in its presentation of a variety of perspectives on the AAF. I imagine that my perspective would not be shared by everyone, but to say that this thread is comprised solely of people who are motivated by jealousy and the wish to take Froome's successes away from him seems to be the mirror image of the motivations you ascribe to others. In this formulation, no one could ever have arrived at the conclusions these posters have legitimately, but only through nefarious machinations.

Your point of view is your point of view, but I will continue to make every effort to think for myself.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I tend to be centerist on most issues. I don't posture on any issue. I tend work on facts not opinion. In general I am on the side of most cyclists whom I don't feel owe me anything. I've been watching cycling since the 80s. I have a good idea of what a proper doping scandal is. And I have seen enough not to need to seek out another.

If Froome had tested positive for a 'proper' drug I wouldn't defend him. But he hasn't. When I first heard the news I thought 'salbutamol, is that it?'

For the record:

I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product. Just as I don't think people build houses out of Lego. It's possible (James May did it), but it's stupid.
I think he may very well have taken too many puffs, Maybe deliberately in reaction to a genuine attack or desperately trying to tackle a problem that should have been dealt with by a TUE. Or maybe inadvertently by negligence or by swallowing or by faulty equipment.
Even if he is completely innocent, I don't think he will be able to prove it. And will be banned for 6-9 months
He will ride the Giro due the length of times these things take. He even get to ride the Tour.
He will keep these results.
Many, most even, on this forum had determined whether he was guilty or innocent before he had even taken the test.

Now unlike you I start everything from a position of 'I don't know' and build up from there. And always start from the point of view that humans are good people. You should try it. It will change you for the better (in the real meaning, not the 'I'm better than you, be like me' meaning)

And always remember the old adage that what can be stated without evidence (which is the baulk of the Clinic) can be rejected without evidence
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
red_flanders said:
Alpe73 said:
What you have going hear, RF, is Mode of Persuasion that borders on Appeal to Freight Train. No facts ... just a collection of spiralling mob-type hysteria about the evil Sky network. Fill your boots. You’re in too deep to turn back now.
Near as I can make out this post is a collection of words intended to make anyone calling out Sky on their incessant BS sound like they're purveyors of nonsense. No? Sorry if I'm not getting it right, it is hard to follow.

Sky amassed enough BS by the end of their second year of their existence to let anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex know they're full of it. They've only added to it since then and plenty has surfaced to support that conclusion. The facts are listed over and over in this and the Sky thread. I won't recap it for you, but to state "no facts" simply shows ignorance on the topic.
Let’s assume, as you implore, there have spoken many lies, about many things. Sky’s incessant BS. Fine. So what is it you want? You want something right? You sure as F seem like you want something. Quest-ce que c’est?
No need to assume, simply go through the record of public statements on dozens of topics and see how they don't match reality. The record is clear, embarrassing, obtuse, and absurd.

I made it clear what I'd like to see in my first post in this sequence.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I tend to be centerist on most issues. I don't posture on any issue. I tend work on facts not opinion. In general I am on the side of most cyclists whom I don't feel owe me anything. I've been watching cycling since the 80s. I have a good idea of what a proper doping scandal is. And I have seen enough not to need to seek out another.

If Froome had tested positive for a 'proper' drug I wouldn't defend him. But he hasn't. When I first heard the news I thought 'salbutamol, is that it?'

For the record:

I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product. Just as I don't think people build houses out of Lego. It's possible (James May did it), but it's stupid.
I think he may very well have taken too many puffs, Maybe deliberately in reaction to a genuine attack or desperately trying to tackle a problem that should have been dealt with by a TUE. Or maybe inadvertently by negligence or by swallowing or by faulty equipment.
Even if he is completely innocent, I don't think he will be able to prove it. And will be banned for 6-9 months
He will ride the Giro due the length of times these things take. He even get to ride the Tour.
He will keep these results.
Many, most even, on this forum had determined whether he was guilty or innocent before he had even taken the test.

Now unlike you I start everything from a position of 'I don't know' and build up from there. And always start from the point of view that humans are good people. You should try it. It will change you for the better (in the real meaning, not the 'I'm better than you, be like me' meaning)

And always remember the old adage that what can be stated without evidence (which is the baulk of the Clinic) can be rejected without evidence
I will apply this adage to the views you've offered on Salbutamol. There is tremendous evidence that cyclists have used this drug for performance enhancement. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of or reject the facts.

Let's also not confuse proof and evidence. The evidence against Froome is overwhelming. We know he tested positive to twice the limit. The burden of proof to avoid sanction lies (pun intended) with Froome and his team to prove this was some kind of accident. There is more than enough evidence for thoughtful, reasonable and rational people to form a view on whether Froome doped, and ther has been for many years.

Good people dope, bad people dope. Asserting this is a criteria for evaluating the question is a logical fallacy.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I understand what you mean Hitch and we talked about it before. but this also makes me think about this: the Sky-Froome experience and existence, for fans and non fans, has become something beyond cycling.
sentences like I hope this experience will change you for the better seem like we are not anymore in the anti-doping matters, it´s about people´s character, feelings, way of thinking, life.

isn´t it a bit too much? wtf, you are telling a forum member that something will change him for the better, like if he has to open his mind or hearth and see he was wrong before, but now we all hope he has understood, seen the light.

ffs it´s cycling, it´s racing, top fuelled sportmen racing each other. entertaiment, nothing more. life goes on anyway, with or without froome or sky. Parker´s posts are not aggressive or full of disdain towards any member, or any rider or any rider´s wife. he writes his own view and tries to read the facts and reply to the questions and posts.
he does not want to change us for the better
Well said that man :)
 
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
brownbobby said:
Saying that 25-30 hours is overtraining is too much of a generic statement. You've got to consider the circumstances and the individual ....one man's overtraining is another man's undertraining.
Could be lots of reasons
- work ethic, show he's spending a lot of time on the bike
- real preparation for earliest race debut
- intimidation factor to show he's coming prepared
- official Sky narrative is he is doing something related to physiology simulation, could be true, or they want to give that impression

The drafting the motorbike for 271 kilometers is weird. "Empty The Tank" could mean to empty the fuel tank of the motorcycle, but Froome didn't mention that part
Possibly all of the above, but all supporting the fact that he's simply training.....the only unusual thing here is that he's decided to post it up on Strava for all to see, clearly done with intent.

For me that's mind games, letting his rivals and supporters know that he intends it to be business as usual again this year.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I tend to be centerist on most issues. I don't posture on any issue. I tend work on facts not opinion. In general I am on the side of most cyclists whom I don't feel owe me anything. I've been watching cycling since the 80s. I have a good idea of what a proper doping scandal is. And I have seen enough not to need to seek out another.

If Froome had tested positive for a 'proper' drug I wouldn't defend him. But he hasn't. When I first heard the news I thought 'salbutamol, is that it?'

For the record:

I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product. Just as I don't think people build houses out of Lego. It's possible (James May did it), but it's stupid.
I think he may very well have taken too many puffs, Maybe deliberately in reaction to a genuine attack or desperately trying to tackle a problem that should have been dealt with by a TUE. Or maybe inadvertently by negligence or by swallowing or by faulty equipment.
Even if he is completely innocent, I don't think he will be able to prove it. And will be banned for 6-9 months
He will ride the Giro due the length of times these things take. He even get to ride the Tour.
He will keep these results.
Many, most even, on this forum had determined whether he was guilty or innocent before he had even taken the test.

Now unlike you I start everything from a position of 'I don't know' and build up from there. And always start from the point of view that humans are good people. You should try it. It will change you for the better (in the real meaning, not the 'I'm better than you, be like me' meaning)

And always remember the old adage that what can be stated without evidence (which is the baulk of the Clinic) can be rejected without evidence
Couple of points to pick up on here.

1. you not thinking people use salbutamol to dope doesn't make it a fact.
2. you don't think people make houses out of lego: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/these-real-life-lego-houses-are-built-from-bricks-made-of-recycled-plastic_uk_57ab31f0e4b08ab70dc0f380

Flawed thinking maybe ?
 
Froome had double the permitted amount of Salbutamol in his urine. The malfunctioning kidney story will hopefully not be accepted. It seems unlikely that the Salbutamol entered his body via a puffer. I suspect he was using Salbutamol to give himself a relatively minor advantage. It certainly doesn't account for Froome's amazing performances compared to pre 2011 Vuelta.

But that doesn't actually matter. It's still doping. It's a bit like Floyd's tezzy positive. Small victories count.
 
Re:

bigcog said:
There is document I saw somewhere (if I find I will post the link) that describes the protocol for experimental testing. The rider comes to lab venue and is monitored and chaperoned, for the whole time and that is when the baseline and subsequent testing is done. He might be searched I would have thought too. I doubt he will be able to game the experimental tests but I am sure if he does demonstrate similar results to his AAF result which I doubt he will but for sake of argument he does you can say he has I am sure..
Thanks Bigcog - that sounds like a link we could do with finding, would help answer my questions.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
The Hitch said:
100% right.

Don't know what angle you are trying to pull that yiy are saying something true for once (I'm assuming jv said something bad about froome hence becomes the enemy) but I hope this experience will change you for the better
I tend to be centerist on most issues. I don't posture on any issue. I tend work on facts not opinion. In general I am on the side of most cyclists whom I don't feel owe me anything. I've been watching cycling since the 80s. I have a good idea of what a proper doping scandal is. And I have seen enough not to need to seek out another.

If Froome had tested positive for a 'proper' drug I wouldn't defend him. But he hasn't. When I first heard the news I thought 'salbutamol, is that it?'

For the record:

I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product. Just as I don't think people build houses out of Lego. It's possible (James May did it), but it's stupid.
I think he may very well have taken too many puffs, Maybe deliberately in reaction to a genuine attack or desperately trying to tackle a problem that should have been dealt with by a TUE. Or maybe inadvertently by negligence or by swallowing or by faulty equipment.
Even if he is completely innocent, I don't think he will be able to prove it. And will be banned for 6-9 months
He will ride the Giro due the length of times these things take. He even get to ride the Tour.
He will keep these results.
Many, most even, on this forum had determined whether he was guilty or innocent before he had even taken the test.

Now unlike you I start everything from a position of 'I don't know' and build up from there. And always start from the point of view that humans are good people. You should try it. It will change you for the better (in the real meaning, not the 'I'm better than you, be like me' meaning)

And always remember the old adage that what can be stated without evidence (which is the baulk of the Clinic) can be rejected without evidence
Parker

here is where we differ...it raises more questions than it answers don't you think?

And with it, and it being only an AAF, allows us (in this case through the leaks) to have a glimpse into the workings of the 'corporate machine' that keeps the assembled throng thinking these guys (the insiders) are superhuman to us mere mortals (the outsiders).

Jiffygate and the subsequent fallout and the Select Affairs inquiry brought us the delights of the Sky/BC medicine cupboard, the sick doc and his stolen laptop and Sutton/SDB making fools of themselves.

It's far better than a straight positive for epo...we actually learn something of what is going on behind the curtain

I mean, we all know something is going on behind the curtain...right? ;)

This is the sport we all choose to follow as much as the show-downs in the mountains

PPS on the actual specifics, we know that salbutomol can be used as a PED to aid weight loss and we know that Sky have super skinny riders...and we know that e.g. Kennaugh lost so much even SDB thought how he achieved it in such a short time was good question to ask (he of course never answered :) )...so even substantively there is a case to answer...the main one being how did it his dose get mismanaged so badly...
 
Re:

CTQ said:
UCI have some satellite centres in the world and one of them is in South Africa. if all the km have been done for the test, maybe he was supervised each day until the test day. Maybe the test have been under the supervision of this centre.They have access to North West University High Performance Institute, sports physiologist, medical facilities. as somerone arealdy posted https://twitter.com/WCCAfrica
After all those years, scandals and fu*kups I'm not even convinced that UCI/FIFA/IOC/etc actually wants the all dopers (especially high profile ones) to be really caught :idea:
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
And always remember the old adage that what can be stated without evidence (which is the baulk of the Clinic) can be rejected without evidence
So your recent statement in this thread that Wiggo didn't come in for Froome levels of criticism when he won the TdF - remind me again what evidence you have for that...?

And your recent statement in this thread that Zorzoli signing off Froome's Romandie TUE rather than referring it to a panel of 3 doctors was WADA Code compliant - remind me again what evidence you have for that...?

I rebutted both with links/quotes (evidence!) which you ignored. Moved on. Re-boot the instant rebuttal machine!

You claim to have a rigorous and rational system for forming opinions. Great. So why not just the once apply that system to what Froome, Wiggo and Brailsfraud have said and done over the years. Such scrutiny is wasted if it's only used on internet conspiracy theorists! Go on knock yourself out ;)
 
Good piece by Philippa York here at CN:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/author/philippa-york-blog-chris-froome-is-at-the-centre-of-a-team-sky-mess-not-the-other-way-around/

"... the most surprising thing has been the promotion of the idea that somehow the excess of salbutamol that Froome had on stage 18 of the Vuelta a Espana was Froome's personal doing. It’s been subtle, but it’s been there, if you read the language used by Brailsford and Team Sky."

.................

"As for the Sky management's guarded stance I'm reminded of the classic situation when a politician sitting in a cabinet position finds themselves in a spot of bother and the Prime Minister comes out and says: "We fully support our colleague and believe they have done no wrong."

The victim is then gone in less than a week.

Chris Froome hasn't been thrown under the bus just yet. However, if – or when – he is, will it be driven by the doctor who has lost his files, or better yet, will he be spared that scenario? After all, Dave Brailsford seems to have history of forgetting when and where the Team Sky bus is located."
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
"As a comparison, look at how GreenEdge dealt with the Adam Yates episode. They fessed up that it was their fault and accepted the consequences. Now, compare that to how Dave Brailsford has handled the Froome positive and it's night and day. Come on guys, we aren't stupid, the rider has been in your team's care, under your team's supervision and somehow you are surprised. Really?"
 
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
"As a comparison, look at how GreenEdge dealt with the Adam Yates episode. They fessed up that it was their fault and accepted the consequences. Now, compare that to how Dave Brailsford has handled the Froome positive and it's night and day. Come on guys, we aren't stupid, the rider has been in your team's care, under your team's supervision and somehow you are surprised. Really?"
As I posted about SDB believing Froome's innocent ... oh, yeah Sky's docs have problems with record keeping :rolleyes:
 
Aug 14, 2010
128
0
8,680
Re: Re:

Parker said:
I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product.
This is beyond naive. There's an entire thread on salbutamol and you don't think anyone uses it as doping?

Okay, it's not blood doping or EPO, but it is doping when used in a certain way which, judging by the amount found in Froome's sample, indicates he used it in an illegal way.
 
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
"As a comparison, look at how GreenEdge dealt with the Adam Yates episode. They fessed up that it was their fault and accepted the consequences. Now, compare that to how Dave Brailsford has handled the Froome positive and it's night and day. Come on guys, we aren't stupid, the rider has been in your team's care, under your team's supervision and somehow you are surprised. Really?"
Except it was Simon Yates - Much misinformation in this thread.
 
Re: Re:

fasthill said:
Parker said:
I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product.
This is beyond naive. There's an entire thread on salbutamol and you don't think anyone uses it as doping?

Okay, it's not blood doping or EPO, but it is doping when used in a certain way which, judging by the amount found in Froome's sample, indicates he used it in an illegal way.
Hang on. You're holding up the fact that there's a thread on here devoted to Salbutamol as proof that it's being used as a doping product?

A thread by the way which was only started on the back of Froome's AAF.

I mean, maybe it is, I think it probably is fwiw. But how the existence of a thread on an internet forum proves this I have no idea :confused:
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
fasthill said:
Parker said:
I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product.
This is beyond naive. There's an entire thread on salbutamol and you don't think anyone uses it as doping?

Okay, it's not blood doping or EPO, but it is doping when used in a certain way which, judging by the amount found in Froome's sample, indicates he used it in an illegal way.
Hang on. You're holding up the fact that there's a thread on here devoted to Salbutamol as proof that it's being used as a doping product?

A thread by the way which was only started on the back of Froome's AAF.

I mean, maybe it is, I think it probably is fwiw. But how the existence of a thread on an internet forum proves this I have no idea :confused:
No, but the content of the thread could help you form your opinion.

Honestly the bit about being able to teset below threshold on very high oral doses with legal masking agents looks plausible, and there's a lot of other good stuff in there, even though it's almost all speculative
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
brownbobby said:
fasthill said:
Parker said:
I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product.
This is beyond naive. There's an entire thread on salbutamol and you don't think anyone uses it as doping?

Okay, it's not blood doping or EPO, but it is doping when used in a certain way which, judging by the amount found in Froome's sample, indicates he used it in an illegal way.
Hang on. You're holding up the fact that there's a thread on here devoted to Salbutamol as proof that it's being used as a doping product?

A thread by the way which was only started on the back of Froome's AAF.

I mean, maybe it is, I think it probably is fwiw. But how the existence of a thread on an internet forum proves this I have no idea :confused:
No, but the content of the thread could help you form your opinion.

Honestly the bit about being able to teset below threshold on very high oral doses with legal masking agents looks plausible, and there's a lot of other good stuff in there, even though it's almost all speculative
Yeah I get that, it's a great thread which I've followed avidly and learnt a great deal towards forming an opinion.

But it's just that, an opinion.

As informative as the thread is, it proves nothing. Even less so the mere existence of a thread. Which was the point of my post .
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Red Rick said:
brownbobby said:
fasthill said:
Parker said:
I don't think he or any other cyclist are using salbutamol as a doping product.
This is beyond naive. There's an entire thread on salbutamol and you don't think anyone uses it as doping?

Okay, it's not blood doping or EPO, but it is doping when used in a certain way which, judging by the amount found in Froome's sample, indicates he used it in an illegal way.
Hang on. You're holding up the fact that there's a thread on here devoted to Salbutamol as proof that it's being used as a doping product?

A thread by the way which was only started on the back of Froome's AAF.

I mean, maybe it is, I think it probably is fwiw. But how the existence of a thread on an internet forum proves this I have no idea :confused:
No, but the content of the thread could help you form your opinion.

Honestly the bit about being able to teset below threshold on very high oral doses with legal masking agents looks plausible, and there's a lot of other good stuff in there, even though it's almost all speculative
Yeah I get that, it's a great thread which I've followed avidly and learnt a great deal towards forming an opinion.

But it's just that, an opinion.

As informative as the thread is, it proves nothing. Even less so the mere existence of a thread. Which was the point of my post .
the point might have been perhaps that a thread about plain flour being a PED would have lasted a couple of posts before being closed...so the fact that there's an active and ongoing thread probably means means it got some legs......the proposition from Parker was that nobody was using salbutomol for doping...when...they evidently are...and wada ban it....and...there are plenty of studies showing that it is a PED when taken in high does i.e. orally
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS