Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1114 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Bartalucci has often treated riders with asthma during Grand Tours but struggles to understand why Team Sky increased Chris Froome's use of a salbutamol inhaler instead of requesting a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) from the UCI to use Triamcinolone.

"All the debate about Froome having a TUE in 2014, Wiggins' TUEs for Triamcinolone before Grand Tours and the Jiffy Bag scandal meant that Team Sky were under intense scrutiny, especially from the media. Perhaps that confounded their judgement and led them to make mistakes," Bartalucci suggests.
He seems to be saying that Froome was using salbutamol when he came to Sky, and that he, Bartalucci knew how much Froome was taking at the time. It's something he ought to know. Wish he had been clearer about this, though. Maybe he just means that at the time Froome's inhaler use was first made public in 2014, he assumes Froome was only taking a few puffs a day.
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
brownbobby said:
TourOfSardinia said:
New Whistleblower hits the fan fanboys
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/former-team-sky-doctor-lifts-the-lid-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/

Bartalucci on intravenous recovery, Froome, and Brailsford's mistakes

Another former Team Sky member has confirmed to Cyclingnews that riders used intravenous recovery products at other races during the spring of 2011.
Oh. that's a bit disappointing...having been sucked in by the headline.

So we have a Doctor, one with a bit of an axe to grind against Brailsford/Sky, and the best he can give us is use of IV products for recovery when it was still legal (also note he's very clear that Sky stopped the practice as soon as it was made illegal). Something that Sky have neither admitted to or denied previously.

And Dave SDB is arrogant. No **** Sherlock!
Axe to grind? I didn't get that impession out of the interview at all.
I read into it that he wasn't particularly happy with the way Sky let him go after less than a year, having initially suggested a 3 year contract was on the table.

I did say only 'a bit' of an axe to grind, enough that he's willing to give the press a generally negative interview about them. So yes, based on the promise of the headline a bit disappointing that he doesn't offer up much of any substance.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
veganrob said:
brownbobby said:
TourOfSardinia said:
New Whistleblower hits the fan fanboys
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/former-team-sky-doctor-lifts-the-lid-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/

Bartalucci on intravenous recovery, Froome, and Brailsford's mistakes

Another former Team Sky member has confirmed to Cyclingnews that riders used intravenous recovery products at other races during the spring of 2011.
Oh. that's a bit disappointing...having been sucked in by the headline.

So we have a Doctor, one with a bit of an axe to grind against Brailsford/Sky, and the best he can give us is use of IV products for recovery when it was still legal (also note he's very clear that Sky stopped the practice as soon as it was made illegal). Something that Sky have neither admitted to or denied previously.

And Dave SDB is arrogant. No **** Sherlock!
Axe to grind? I didn't get that impession out of the interview at all.
I read into it that he wasn't particularly happy with the way Sky let him go after less than a year, having initially suggested a 3 year contract was on the table.

I did say only 'a bit' of an axe to grind, enough that he's willing to give the press a generally negative interview about them. So yes, based on the promise of the headline a bit disappointing that he doesn't offer up much of any substance.
the recuperation IV seems like a damp squib tbh, but im very interested in his opinion on the 2 sets of medical records, the internal systems and who knew what, when. the team stated at commons select committee they had lost medical records and could not retrieve them; this doctor suggests that there were records placed on a cloud service or other internet based service and not just stored on a missing laptop....and medical records are mean to be retained for a minimum of 7 years, right?
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
veganrob said:
brownbobby said:
TourOfSardinia said:
New Whistleblower hits the fan fanboys
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/former-team-sky-doctor-lifts-the-lid-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/

Bartalucci on intravenous recovery, Froome, and Brailsford's mistakes

Another former Team Sky member has confirmed to Cyclingnews that riders used intravenous recovery products at other races during the spring of 2011.
Oh. that's a bit disappointing...having been sucked in by the headline.

So we have a Doctor, one with a bit of an axe to grind against Brailsford/Sky, and the best he can give us is use of IV products for recovery when it was still legal (also note he's very clear that Sky stopped the practice as soon as it was made illegal). Something that Sky have neither admitted to or denied previously.

And Dave SDB is arrogant. No **** Sherlock!
Axe to grind? I didn't get that impession out of the interview at all.
I read into it that he wasn't particularly happy with the way Sky let him go after less than a year, having initially suggested a 3 year contract was on the table.

I did say only 'a bit' of an axe to grind, enough that he's willing to give the press a generally negative interview about them. So yes, based on the promise of the headline a bit disappointing that he doesn't offer up much of any substance.
Actually, just gone back to check what i was saying, and the paragraph i was referring to, where he speaks about his initial meeting with SDB, being promised a 3 year contract, and then his disappointment at being let go after 10 months has completely disappeared. Replaced with mention of him working for the team for 18 months :confused:

Either i'm going slightly crazy, or the article has been edited since my first post in response...
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Merckx index said:
Bartalucci has often treated riders with asthma during Grand Tours but struggles to understand why Team Sky increased Chris Froome's use of a salbutamol inhaler instead of requesting a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) from the UCI to use Triamcinolone.

"All the debate about Froome having a TUE in 2014, Wiggins' TUEs for Triamcinolone before Grand Tours and the Jiffy Bag scandal meant that Team Sky were under intense scrutiny, especially from the media. Perhaps that confounded their judgement and led them to make mistakes," Bartalucci suggests.
He seems to be saying that Froome was using salbutamol when he came to Sky, and that he, Bartalucci knew how much Froome was taking at the time. It's something he ought to know. Wish he had been clearer about this, though. Maybe he just means that at the time Froome's inhaler use was first made public in 2014, he assumes Froome was only taking a few puffs a day.
i agree, its far from clear, and open to a lot of mis/interpretation
 
Re:

veganrob said:
I also read it was 18 months two hours ago.
Must be option 1 then...i'm going slightly crazy

Edit....i clearly imagined the 10 months, but this paragraph to me definetely suggests a bit of an axe to grind:

Bartalucci's time at Team Sky ended over five years ago but he still feels let down after Brailsford was initially so enthusiastic about hiring him and agreed to give him a three-year contract. His disappointment is still palpable.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Latest brainstorm from Rai's Beppe Conte:
The Giro's lawyer should send a legal letter to Team Sky
passing on responsibility to them in the
case if CF wins the Giro then gets banned.
Team Sky would have to pick up the tab for any
legal challenge by any sponsors for any damage to their image.
Froome wouldn't start if Sky refused that indemnity clause.

Sounds just to me.
Or the Giro organisers could grow a pair and just tell Sky they don't want Froome at the race. If Sky challenge that decision take it straight to CAS

And CAS's very recent judgement on the recent appeal of Russian athletes from the winter Olympics was potentially helpful to the Giro organisers if they go down that route

https://ca.reuters.com/article/canadaSportsNews/idCAKBN1FT0BE-OCASP

'The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on Friday dismissed 47 appeals from Russian athletes and coaches to take part in the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics...The Russians had appealed their exclusion from the Games by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over the doping scandal from the 2014 Sochi Games.

“In its decisions, the CAS arbitrators have considered that the process created by the IOC to establish an invitation list of Russian athletes to compete as Olympic athletes from Russia (OAR) could not be described as a sanction but rather as an eligibility decision,” CAS secretary general Matthieu Reeb said, reading from a statement.'
 
Re: Re:

53*11 said:
brownbobby said:
veganrob said:
brownbobby said:
TourOfSardinia said:
New Whistleblower hits the fan fanboys
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/former-team-sky-doctor-lifts-the-lid-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/

Bartalucci on intravenous recovery, Froome, and Brailsford's mistakes

Another former Team Sky member has confirmed to Cyclingnews that riders used intravenous recovery products at other races during the spring of 2011.
Oh. that's a bit disappointing...having been sucked in by the headline.

So we have a Doctor, one with a bit of an axe to grind against Brailsford/Sky, and the best he can give us is use of IV products for recovery when it was still legal (also note he's very clear that Sky stopped the practice as soon as it was made illegal). Something that Sky have neither admitted to or denied previously.

And Dave SDB is arrogant. No **** Sherlock!
Axe to grind? I didn't get that impession out of the interview at all.
I read into it that he wasn't particularly happy with the way Sky let him go after less than a year, having initially suggested a 3 year contract was on the table.

I did say only 'a bit' of an axe to grind, enough that he's willing to give the press a generally negative interview about them. So yes, based on the promise of the headline a bit disappointing that he doesn't offer up much of any substance.
the recuperation IV seems like a damp squib tbh, but im very interested in his opinion on the 2 sets of medical records, the internal systems and who knew what, when. the team stated at commons select committee they had lost medical records and could not retrieve them; this doctor suggests that there were records placed on a cloud service or other internet based service and not just stored on a missing laptop....and medical records are mean to be retained for a minimum of 7 years, right?
Slight but important correction. The article states they had an intranet, an internal network used for storing documents. This would indicate a privately owned and operated server, not an external cloud based system. It's important because it indicates a more rigorous approach to document keeping than, I believe, has previously been discussed. In fact I'm pretty sure that any statements about medical records and doctors notes have only covered DropBox, I'd have to check the Select Committee evidence first, and this is the first mention of a second back up system. The idea that doctors only kept local copies and backed-up to DropBox, Freeman didn't do this, and Sky weren't fully aware of this is out there but almost believable. It indicates a negligent, slap-dash attitude to documentation. The idea that Freeman wasn't backing up or logging records in two separate locations but was allowed to continue is not believable at all for me. Having a separate intranet with forms that should have been logged shows a much more rigorous approach, one that would require some IT management and as such it would likely have been noticed if someone wasn't using it. I'd be very interested to know if I've missed this being mentioned before.
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Latest brainstorm from Rai's Beppe Conte:
The Giro's lawyer should send a legal letter to Team Sky
passing on responsibility to them in the
case if CF wins the Giro then gets banned.
Team Sky would have to pick up the tab for any
legal challenge by any sponsors for any damage to their image.
Froome wouldn't start if Sky refused that indemnity clause.

Sounds just to me.
Or the Giro organisers could grow a pair and just tell Sky they don't want Froome at the race. If Sky challenge that decision take it straight to CAS

And CAS's very recent judgement on the recent appeal of Russian athletes from the winter Olympics was potentially helpful to the Giro organisers if they go down that route

https://ca.reuters.com/article/canadaSportsNews/idCAKBN1FT0BE-OCASP

'The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on Friday dismissed 47 appeals from Russian athletes and coaches to take part in the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics...The Russians had appealed their exclusion from the Games by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over the doping scandal from the 2014 Sochi Games.

“In its decisions, the CAS arbitrators have considered that the process created by the IOC to establish an invitation list of Russian athletes to compete as Olympic athletes from Russia (OAR) could not be described as a sanction but rather as an eligibility decision,” CAS secretary general Matthieu Reeb said, reading from a statement.'
But is this really what they want? Really?

They were desperate to get Froome on the start line. He's always been a rider who divides opinion. Yet still they were willing to pay big money to get him on the start line.

Have things really changed so much, from a publicity and promotion point of view with the AAF. Some might say it's piqued even further. In the field of sports promotion, the scenario of the pantomime villain (Froome) lining up against the Golden Boy, the future of clean cycling (Dumoulin) is a bit of a dream scenario.

So despite taking the opportunity to keep the public interest in their event high by commenting on the Froome case at every opportunity, I still think they're desperate to have him start the race.

And this notion of sponsors having their image damaged? Do me a favour, any organisation who chooses to sponsor pro cycling and doesn't accept the risk of occasional links to scandal and doping really does need to think about their marketing strategiès.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Wiggo's Package said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Latest brainstorm from Rai's Beppe Conte:
The Giro's lawyer should send a legal letter to Team Sky
passing on responsibility to them in the
case if CF wins the Giro then gets banned.
Team Sky would have to pick up the tab for any
legal challenge by any sponsors for any damage to their image.
Froome wouldn't start if Sky refused that indemnity clause.

Sounds just to me.
Or the Giro organisers could grow a pair and just tell Sky they don't want Froome at the race. If Sky challenge that decision take it straight to CAS

And CAS's very recent judgement on the recent appeal of Russian athletes from the winter Olympics was potentially helpful to the Giro organisers if they go down that route

https://ca.reuters.com/article/canadaSportsNews/idCAKBN1FT0BE-OCASP

'The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on Friday dismissed 47 appeals from Russian athletes and coaches to take part in the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics...The Russians had appealed their exclusion from the Games by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over the doping scandal from the 2014 Sochi Games.

“In its decisions, the CAS arbitrators have considered that the process created by the IOC to establish an invitation list of Russian athletes to compete as Olympic athletes from Russia (OAR) could not be described as a sanction but rather as an eligibility decision,” CAS secretary general Matthieu Reeb said, reading from a statement.'
But is this really what they want? Really?

They were desperate to get Froome on the start line. He's always been a rider who divides opinion. Yet still they were willing to pay big money to get him on the start line.

Have things really changed so much, from a publicity and promotion point of view with the AAF. Some might say it's piqued even further. In the field of sports promotion, the scenario of the pantomime villain (Froome) lining up against the Golden Boy, the future of clean cycling (Dumoulin) is a bit of a dream scenario.

So despite taking the opportunity to keep the public interest in their event high by commenting on the Froome case at every opportunity, I still think they're desperate to have him start the race.

And this notion of sponsors having their image damaged? Do me a favour, any organisation who chooses to sponsor pro cycling and doesn't accept the risk of occasional links to scandal and doping really does need to think about their marketing strategies.
Sky /21stC Fox included
;)
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
brownbobby said:
Wiggo's Package said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Latest brainstorm from Rai's Beppe Conte:
The Giro's lawyer should send a legal letter to Team Sky
passing on responsibility to them in the
case if CF wins the Giro then gets banned.
Team Sky would have to pick up the tab for any
legal challenge by any sponsors for any damage to their image.
Froome wouldn't start if Sky refused that indemnity clause.

Sounds just to me.
Or the Giro organisers could grow a pair and just tell Sky they don't want Froome at the race. If Sky challenge that decision take it straight to CAS

And CAS's very recent judgement on the recent appeal of Russian athletes from the winter Olympics was potentially helpful to the Giro organisers if they go down that route

https://ca.reuters.com/article/canadaSportsNews/idCAKBN1FT0BE-OCASP

'The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on Friday dismissed 47 appeals from Russian athletes and coaches to take part in the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics...The Russians had appealed their exclusion from the Games by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over the doping scandal from the 2014 Sochi Games.

“In its decisions, the CAS arbitrators have considered that the process created by the IOC to establish an invitation list of Russian athletes to compete as Olympic athletes from Russia (OAR) could not be described as a sanction but rather as an eligibility decision,” CAS secretary general Matthieu Reeb said, reading from a statement.'
But is this really what they want? Really?

They were desperate to get Froome on the start line. He's always been a rider who divides opinion. Yet still they were willing to pay big money to get him on the start line.

Have things really changed so much, from a publicity and promotion point of view with the AAF. Some might say it's piqued even further. In the field of sports promotion, the scenario of the pantomime villain (Froome) lining up against the Golden Boy, the future of clean cycling (Dumoulin) is a bit of a dream scenario.

So despite taking the opportunity to keep the public interest in their event high by commenting on the Froome case at every opportunity, I still think they're desperate to have him start the race.

And this notion of sponsors having their image damaged? Do me a favour, any organisation who chooses to sponsor pro cycling and doesn't accept the risk of occasional links to scandal and doping really does need to think about their marketing strategies.
Sky /21stC Fox included
;)
Definetely, why not. They choose to get into cycling in a big way at the height of the Armstrong infamy. The Murdochs may be many things; naive they are not. Successful marketing comes in many forms, not always immediate to the untrained eye.

I think you'll find that the Murdochs are more than happy with the ROI ;)
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Slight but important correction. The article states they had an intranet, an internal network used for storing documents. This would indicate a privately owned and operated server, not an external cloud based system. It's important because it indicates a more rigorous approach to document keeping than, I believe, has previously been discussed. In fact I'm pretty sure that any statements about medical records and doctors notes have only covered DropBox, I'd have to check the Select Committee evidence first, and this is the first mention of a second back up system. The idea that doctors only kept local copies and backed-up to DropBox, Freeman didn't do this, and Sky weren't fully aware of this is out there but almost believable. It indicates a negligent, slap-dash attitude to documentation. The idea that Freeman wasn't backing up or logging records in two separate locations but was allowed to continue is not believable at all for me. Having a separate intranet with forms that should have been logged shows a much more rigorous approach, one that would require some IT management and as such it would likely have been noticed if someone wasn't using it. I'd be very interested to know if I've missed this being mentioned before.
Indeed. This is an interesting and potentially incriminating development

But given that UKAD don't have investigative powers I doubt we'll find out more

Of course part of that problem is that UKAD had to put Sky on notice before visiting. And then they were only shown what Sky wanted to show them

So Sky could disappear anything incriminating. And come up with a cover story which, however implausible, is impossible to disprove under the current regulatory regime
 
Careful.

An Intranet can be stored locally within an organization but it may not. It too can have remote access capabilities to be accessed over the internet via a VPN connection or it may also be stored in the cloud but secured for the Sky team only. In fact that’s how most organizations set up their intranet sites and storage. Generally it will be stored in a service like AWS or Azure but accessible only to those whom have the entitlements.

The way that Freeman attended to explain it was Dropbox was used to record the document when on the road to later copy it down to the internal network. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Or it might have been Sky’s “off the books medical file”.
 
thehog said:
Careful.

An Intranet can be stored locally within an organization but it may not. It too can have remote access capabilities to be accessed over the internet via a VPN connection or it may also be stored in the cloud but secured for the Sky team only. In fact that’s how most organizations set up their intranet sites and storage. Generally it will be stored in a service like AWS or Azure but accessible only to those whom have the entitlements.


The way that Freeman attended to explain it was Dropbox was used to record the document when on the road to later copy it down to the internal network. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Or it might have been Sky’s “off the books medical file”.
Yeah, that's basically what I said. By internal I meant specifically set up and managed for Sky/BC, rather than a general service they have re-purposed.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
thehog said:
Careful.

An Intranet can be stored locally within an organization but it may not. It too can have remote access capabilities to be accessed over the internet via a VPN connection or it may also be stored in the cloud but secured for the Sky team only. In fact that’s how most organizations set up their intranet sites and storage. Generally it will be stored in a service like AWS or Azure but accessible only to those whom have the entitlements.

The way that Freeman attended to explain it was Dropbox was used to record the document when on the road to later copy it down to the internal network. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Or it might have been Sky’s “off the books medical file”.
indeed! a lot of what freeman and sky had to say about medical records at the select committee did not pas the 'smell 'test. could they have got confused with the official records and the internal unofficial records? could it be potentially another error like giving froome the wrong finish bottle on the vuelta stage 18 leading to his AAF????
 
King Boonen said:
thehog said:
Careful.

An Intranet can be stored locally within an organization but it may not. It too can have remote access capabilities to be accessed over the internet via a VPN connection or it may also be stored in the cloud but secured for the Sky team only. In fact that’s how most organizations set up their intranet sites and storage. Generally it will be stored in a service like AWS or Azure but accessible only to those whom have the entitlements.


The way that Freeman attended to explain it was Dropbox was used to record the document when on the road to later copy it down to the internal network. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Or it might have been Sky’s “off the books medical file”.
Yeah, that's basically what I said. By internal I meant specifically set up and managed for Sky/BC, rather than a general service they have re-purposed.
For the most part internal intranet sites are ‘general service’ external cloud based systems on the internet. They are simply secured and made private unless hacked.
 
thehog said:
King Boonen said:
thehog said:
Careful.

An Intranet can be stored locally within an organization but it may not. It too can have remote access capabilities to be accessed over the internet via a VPN connection or it may also be stored in the cloud but secured for the Sky team only. In fact that’s how most organizations set up their intranet sites and storage. Generally it will be stored in a service like AWS or Azure but accessible only to those whom have the entitlements.


The way that Freeman attended to explain it was Dropbox was used to record the document when on the road to later copy it down to the internal network. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Or it might have been Sky’s “off the books medical file”.
Yeah, that's basically what I said. By internal I meant specifically set up and managed for Sky/BC, rather than a general service they have re-purposed.
For the most part internal intranet sites are ‘general service’ external cloud based systems on the internet. They are simply secured and made private unless hacked.
Again, that's what I said and adds nothing to this discussion. Feel free to continue this line but that's me out.
 
Re: Re:

53*11 said:
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.

i disagree , its about a team sanctimoniously proclaiming their innocence while being caught out numerous times doing the opposite, its about due process; they have had an AAF, after 5 months they cant explain it and are trying to string out the process until the giro/tour. shame on them and shame on uci if they allow sky another 3 months; no other team would be given such latitude in constructing their defence.
For someone new you've made an inauspicious start - Anti-Doping matters take months to be resolved and that's even for straightforward positive tests - The two positives from the Giro when there was no contention about the facts have just been resolved - We've heard nothing about the Cardoso or Samuel Sanchez cases from July - The Froome case is more complicated than the aforementioned cases so it will take a few months longer - You must also consider that the 'legal people' who hear these cases have other work, so aren't available at the drop of a hat.
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Latest brainstorm from Rai's Beppe Conte:
The Giro's lawyer should send a legal letter to Team Sky
passing on responsibility to them in the
case if CF wins the Giro then gets banned.
Team Sky would have to pick up the tab for any
legal challenge by any sponsors for any damage to their image.
Froome wouldn't start if Sky refused that indemnity clause.


Sounds just to me.
So why don't each of the race organisers in which Froome participates in 2018 do the same ?

Beppe's suggestion has no legs.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Latest brainstorm from Rai's Beppe Conte:
The Giro's lawyer should send a legal letter to Team Sky
passing on responsibility to them in the
case if CF wins the Giro then gets banned.
Team Sky would have to pick up the tab for any
legal challenge by any sponsors for any damage to their image.
Froome wouldn't start if Sky refused that indemnity clause.


Sounds just to me.
So why don't each of the race organisers in which Froome participates in 2018 do the same ?

Beppe's suggestion has no legs.
Ruta del Sol owner welcomed him and is happy to have Froome in his race.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
53*11 said:
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.

i disagree , its about a team sanctimoniously proclaiming their innocence while being caught out numerous times doing the opposite, its about due process; they have had an AAF, after 5 months they cant explain it and are trying to string out the process until the giro/tour. shame on them and shame on uci if they allow sky another 3 months; no other team would be given such latitude in constructing their defence.
For someone new you've made an inauspicious start - Anti-Doping matters take months to be resolved and that's even for straightforward positive tests - The two positives from the Giro when there was no contention about the facts have just been resolved - We've heard nothing about the Cardoso or Samuel Sanchez cases from July - The Froome case is more complicated than the aforementioned cases so it will take a few months longer - You must also consider that the 'legal people' who hear these cases have other work, so aren't available at the drop of a hat.
i defer to your greater time on this forum!; for all that though i believe Froomes legal counsel was able to attend to his clients predicament quickly, as one would expect for a high profile champion.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY