Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1132 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Could you point to the message where you've explained in part? I don't remember it and I don't want to be ignorant. How about the rest and not just part?

The Valverde document is more than 20 pages. I would like to understand the full context, which you've yourself said to be very important in many occasions. No english?
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Explained in part! Please explain in full with quotes to the rules and a complete explanation as to why the authors got it wrong. We will wait patiently.
 
Re:

bambino said:
Could you point to the message where you've explained in part? I don't remember it and I don't want to be ignorant. How about the rest and not just part?
Ha ha. Remember saying this?
And I won't link my message to you. Go and find it. I don't like helping people that starts the spiral of insults.
I think that's called ironic.
bambino said:
The Valverde document is more than 20 pages. I would like to understand the full context, which you've yourself said to be very important in many occasions. No english?
Did you actually read my post?
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
Could you point to the message where you've explained in part? I don't remember it and I don't want to be ignorant. How about the rest and not just part?
Ha ha. Remember saying this?
And I won't link my message to you. Go and find it. I don't like helping people that starts the spiral of insults.
I think that's called ironic.
bambino said:
The Valverde document is more than 20 pages. I would like to understand the full context, which you've yourself said to be very important in many occasions. No english?
Did you actually read my post?
Yes I do remember saying that. It is not ironic. You knew exactly the message I was talking about. I have no clue about the message you are talking about. Pretty different.

Yes I did. Have you found the english version in the mean time? I hope you appreciate I would like to read it myself and not just trust your 3 bullets. If there is no english version available, then too bad. I can't make a judgement of that accordingly then.
 
Re:

spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.
Now you are twisting the discussion. We are not talking about which rules Froome has broken. That is entirely different debate. We are talking about the rule of organizer right to ban rider from their competition. That is a rule as well.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.
Now you are twisting the discussion. We are not talking about which rules Froome has broken. That entirely different debate. We are talking about the rule of organizer right to ban rider from their competition. That is a rule as well.
We appear to be talking about both Bambino. And you appear to understand neither of them.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.
The UCI has not been negligent, never said they have been. RCS has every right to exclude Froome as per the rules. Again, please show me why I am wrong with quotes to the rules and not your circular semantic BS.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.
Now you are twisting the discussion. We are not talking about which rules Froome has broken. That entirely different debate. We are talking about the rule of organizer right to ban rider from their competition. That is a rule as well.
We appear to be talking about both Bambino. And you appear to understand neither of them.
I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong if you would explain where I go wrong in my understanding of that rule.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.
Now you are twisting the discussion. We are not talking about which rules Froome has broken. That entirely different debate. We are talking about the rule of organizer right to ban rider from their competition. That is a rule as well.
We appear to be talking about both Bambino. And you appear to understand neither of them.
I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong if you would explain where I go wrong in my understanding of that rule.
He can't.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re:

bambino said:
Whatever. I'm done with this debate. No need to feed ............ anymore.
I'm with you on that. Snowed a bunch here last night and they groomed the skate tracks today. Gonna go get some k's in before dark.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk, you have explained nothing in part. The link you provided bambino explains your position in full. It appears to be based first on your belief that Froome has done nothing wrong so the rules, you agree with, they just don't apply to him. Got it. If I am interpreting your position incorrectly, I apologise. Just let me know where I went wrong.
Pay attention Spetsa. You are applying a response to something entirely separate.

As for where you're going wrong: knowledge of the rules. Tell me what rule Froome has broken and why the UCI have been negligent in not banning him already. Tell me why the rules for what Froome has done need to be ignored here and new rules imagined.
Now you are twisting the discussion. We are not talking about which rules Froome has broken. That entirely different debate. We are talking about the rule of organizer right to ban rider from their competition. That is a rule as well.
We appear to be talking about both Bambino. And you appear to understand neither of them.
I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong if you would explain where I go wrong in my understanding of that rule.
You go wrong in not understanding the rules both for the AAF and disrepute, in ignoring what legal experts have said about disrepute, in dismissing the Valverde case on the grounds you don't understand it and in inexplicably citing the IOC's recent actions which clearly have no relevance here.
 
samhocking said:
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
Really, Sam? Here’s what I heard:

When Moore asked Froome how he knew that other riders had gone through a similar situation and been exonerated, Froome said “quite a few riders” and other athletes had contacted him personally about this. But this is the same Froome who said the peloton was tremendously supportive of his riding the RdS, when other riders told a very different story. I repeat that the stats actually available at WADA don’t particularly support this claim. One thing we can be pretty sure of is that if another athlete tested at 2000 ng/ml and got off, this surely would have been discovered (because if all these athletes were willing to talk to Froome about this, they surely would have talked to others) and referred to by one of the preceding riders who exceeded the DL and didn't get off.

Froome concedes that “it is a much more complicated process than I initially thought”. That would not be the case if there were a reasonable explanation for the positive (or a precedent, such as another athlete with 2000 ng/ml who got off). He also repeats his confidence “that we are going to get to the bottom of this”. He said basically the same thing after the leak in December, so again, it does not appear from Froome’s own words that he has an explanation after all this time. I don’t know how to make this any clearer than I already have, but if he doesn’t have an explanation after all this time, he’s reduced to fantastical theories and technicalities. His insistence that no rules have been broken, as I explained quite a while ago, is essential in his all-or-nothing strategy.

He says that during the last week of the Vuelta “a lot of people” were asking him if he was sick, and that “people could recognize that I was having difficulty breathing”. Really? I don’t remember anyone reporting this at the time. And again, we know from his comments prior to the RdS that Froome has a history of saying vaguely that a lot of people support some point of his, when in fact digging a little deeper that does not seem to be the case. Not that it matters, since his condition at this point isn't relevant to his case, unless he were to argue he accidentally inhaled too much, which of course he has steadfastly denied, or that he took some other drug for his condition.

When asked about whether the case is going to the Tribunal, Froome says there has been “a lot of misinformation in the media” and that he isn’t going to try to address every story. But when the story about the deal being made for a short suspension broke, he immediately denied it, so the fact that he doesn’t deny that the case is going to the Tribunal is telling. This is particularly so given that, in his own words, the case still hasn’t “been sorted out” after five months. If he hasn't been able to convince LADS to this point, most likely it would go to CADF.
 
Merckx index said:
samhocking said:
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
Really, Sam? Here’s what I heard:

When Moore asked Froome how he knew that other riders had gone through a similar situation and been exonerated, Froome said “quite a few riders” and other athletes had contacted him personally about this. But this is the same Froome who said the peloton was tremendously supportive of his riding the RdS, when other riders told a very different story. I repeat that the stats actually available at WADA don’t particularly support this claim. One thing we can be pretty sure of is that if another athlete tested at 2000 ng/ml and got off, this surely would have been discovered (because if all these athletes were willing to talk to Froome about this, they surely would have talked to others) and referred to by one of the preceding riders who exceeded the DL and didn't get off.

Froome concedes that “it is a much more complicated process than I initially thought”. That would not be the case if there were a reasonable explanation for the positive (or a precedent, such as another athlete with 2000 ng/ml who got off). He also repeats his confidence “that we are going to get to the bottom of this”. He said basically the same thing after the leak in December, so again, it does not appear from Froome’s own words that he has an explanation after all this time. I don’t know how to make this any clearer than I already have, but if he doesn’t have an explanation after all this time, he’s reduced to fantastical theories and technicalities. His insistence that no rules have been broken, as I explained quite a while ago, is essential in his all-or-nothing strategy.

He says that during the last week of the Vuelta “a lot of people” were asking him if he was sick, and that “people could recognize that I was having difficulty breathing”. Really? I don’t remember anyone reporting this at the time. And again, we know from his comments prior to the RdS that Froome has a history of saying vaguely that a lot of people support some point of his, when in fact digging a little deeper that does not seem to be the case. Not that it matters, since his condition at this point isn't relevant to his case, unless he were to argue he accidentally inhaled too much, which of course he has steadfastly denied, or that he took some other drug for his condition.

When asked about whether the case is going to the Tribunal, Froome says there has been “a lot of misinformation in the media” and that he isn’t going to try to address every story. But when the story about the deal being made for a short suspension broke, he immediately denied it, so the fact that he doesn’t deny that the case is going to the Tribunal is telling. This is particularly so given that, in his own words, the case still hasn’t “been sorted out” after five months. If he hasn't been able to convince LADS to this point, most likely it would go to CADF.
With all due respect (seriously), MI ... Cat's Cradle II.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
bambino said:
fmk_RoI said:
I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong if you would explain where I go wrong in my understanding of that rule.
He can't.
1. Froome in midst of AAF for Specified Substance probe.
2. At this point, he is free to ride ... and is riding.
3. Before the Giro, he may well be sanctioned at not allowed to ride Giro, etc, etc. (I'd be totally cool with that.)
4. At the start of the Giro, his case may be yet unadjudicated
5. If there are no sanctions on him at that time, there are no WADA/UCI rules to prevent him from riding the Giro
6. Giro organizers/owners "may" try to prevent him from riding the Giro, using the recently pummelled "Disrepute" clause.
7. There are some on here who belive that the Disrepute Card will be played and easily played by Giro organizers, preventing Froome from riding the aforesaid race.
8. Some of the those, mentioned in #7, above, have a bona fide, unbiased opinion ... that Froome's appearance would ( measurably) bring the race into disrepute.
9. Some others ... of the those, mentioned in #7, above, ( I think it's safe to say) found Froome to bring professional cycling into disrepute ... well before his AAF ... because he was an extraterrestrial, was a member of Team Sky, had a wife named Michelle, had only 1 testicle, lacked panache, was MFkin gangly, etc.
10. Some of us on here, some of us "accused trolls" ... some of us with no allegiances to Froome or Sky ( but what would it matter?) ... believe that the Disrepute Card will be very hard for Giro organizers to play ... and for very good reasons.
 
Merckx index said:
samhocking said:
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
...
He says that during the last week of the Vuelta “a lot of people” were asking him if he was sick, and that “people could recognize that I was having difficulty breathing”. Really? I don’t remember anyone reporting this at the time. And again, we know from his comments prior to the RdS that Froome has a history of saying vaguely that a lot of people support some point of his, when in fact digging a little deeper that does not seem to be the case. Not that it matters, since his condition at this point isn't relevant to his case, unless he were to argue he accidentally inhaled too much, which of course he has steadfastly denied, or that he took some other drug for his condition.
....
LOL.
Nobody get's sick after 3 weeks and rides everyone off his wheel on the Angliru!!
 
Re: Re:

QUOTING Alpe73:

[/quote] 1. Froome in midst of AAF for Specified Substance probe.
2. At this point, he is free to ride ... and is riding.
3. Before the Giro, he may well be sanctioned at not allowed to ride Giro, etc, etc. (I'd be totally cool with that.)
4. At the start of the Giro, his case may be yet unadjudicated
5. If there are no sanctions on him at that time, there are no WADA/UCI rules to prevent him from riding the Giro
6. Giro organizers/owners "may" try to prevent him from riding the Giro, using the recently pummelled "Disrepute" clause.
7. There are some on here who belive that the Disrepute Card will be played and easily played by Giro organizers, preventing Froome from riding the aforesaid race.
8. Some of the those, mentioned in #7, above, have a bona fide, unbiased opinion ... that Froome's appearance would ( measurably) bring the race into disrepute.
9. Some others ... of the those, mentioned in #7, above, ( I think it's safe to say) found Froome to bring professional cycling into disrepute ... well before his AAF ... because he was an extraterrestrial, was a member of Team Sky, had a wife named Michelle, had only 1 testicle, lacked panache, was MFkin gangly, etc.
10. Some of us on here, some of us "accused trolls" ... some of us with no allegiances to Froome or Sky ( but what would it matter?) ... believe that the Disrepute Card will be very hard for Giro organizers to play ... and for very good reasons.[/quote]

No-one asked you opinion, but had to respond? You had a change of sift with your buddy?

Anyway - although I said this debate is done for me, I decided to respond to this. I also decided to report this post and seek for mods opinion whether this message accounts for potential false accusation of other forum members, because you are using lies wihtin your message to boost your own (biased or not, who cares) point and make others look stupid. It is also pretty easy to identify who you talk about, although you cleverly point it to no-one spesific. Let me explain:

1. I agree, never said anything otherwise. I haven't seen anyone else saying otherwise either.

2. I agree. The rules allows him to ride until someone takes other actions against him based on rules

3. I agree. I would be totally cool if he gets cleared out as well.

4. I agree. Though multiple poster including me has said this would be very bad for the sport and they should speed up the process.

5. I don't agree. There is a rule that allows organizers to decline him racing. I've asked time and time again someone to explain why that rule does not allow organizers to potentially decline him from racing. It is a rule like any other rule.

6. You yourself contradict from your #5. First you said there is no rule. Now you refer to the rule. It is as powerful rule as any other in the rulebook.

7. And now the lying starts to add things that boost your stance and makes others look stupid. I have never said it would be easy for the organizer to invoke the disrepute rule clause. I don't recall anyone else saying it would be easy. This is balant lie. We have only argued there is a rule that gives them the right to act. No-one has been able to prove that there is not rule.

8. Another lie. I don't recall anyone saying they have bona fide, unbiaset opinion that Froome riding would harm the reputation of race. You are saying they are bona fide and unbiaset and you categorize the writes here by saying that without knowing factually. I don't think anyone has either said the pure appearance of Froome would disrepute the race. What I'm saying is that the possible stripping of his results afterwards, due to known AAF investigation, would harm the reputation of the race and sport. I.e. known Sky fan Parker admitted this would be harmful to the reputation. You could add sub-bullet #8.5 which says that we shouldn't know about the investigation. Which I agree based on rules. That doesn't change the fact that we know it and it is public.

9. This point has nothing to do with the debate we are having. You are using forum members dislike of a rider as vehicle to point out the writer debating about the rules are stupid, wrong and biased. I've never said anywhere that Froome is bringing the sport into dis-repute by his mere excistence. So actually you are lying to point this opinion into this debate.

10. See the response to #7. Why would you need to power your message with this statement and "accused troll" into picture while you had already #5 where you could've explained the easy/hard part? I repeat, I've never said, and I haven't seen nobody else saying, that banning Froome from i.e. would be easy. Never. That is in your head and is a balant lie. I just argue there is a rule that makes it possible.

See this is how you work. Lot of good and agreeable material, but then twisting the thruth here and there to make others look stupid. And using fancy laid back language to show that you mean no harm. ***.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
1. Froome in midst of AAF for Specified Substance probe.
2. At this point, he is free to ride ... and is riding.
3. Before the Giro, he may well be sanctioned at not allowed to ride Giro, etc, etc. (I'd be totally cool with that.)
4. At the start of the Giro, his case may be yet unadjudicated
5. If there are no sanctions on him at that time, there are no WADA/UCI rules to prevent him from riding the Giro
6. Giro organizers/owners "may" try to prevent him from riding the Giro, using the recently pummelled "Disrepute" clause.
7. There are some on here who belive that the Disrepute Card will be played and easily played by Giro organizers, preventing Froome from riding the aforesaid race.
8. Some of the those, mentioned in #7, above, have a bona fide, unbiased opinion ... that Froome's appearance would ( measurably) bring the race into disrepute.
9. Some others ... of the those, mentioned in #7, above, ( I think it's safe to say) found Froome to bring professional cycling into disrepute ... well before his AAF ... because he was an extraterrestrial, was a member of Team Sky, had a wife named Michelle, had only 1 testicle, lacked panache, was MFkin gangly, etc.
10. Some of us on here, some of us "accused trolls" ... some of us with no allegiances to Froome or Sky ( but what would it matter?) ... believe that the Disrepute Card will be very hard for Giro organizers to play ... and for very good reasons.
Clear to me...
 
brownbobby said:
53*11 said:
samhocking said:
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
give that man a prize, thats the most daft, laughable, inane comment of the day for me (and there was stiff competition!) thanks sam :razz:
Why is it daft, laughable or indeed inane for Sam to think that in a ĺittle over 2 months time the case will be over and Froome will be cleared. :confused:

Of course he's just guessing and voicing an opinion, I'm guessing it's a different opinion to yours, but one shared by many others.

BTW.....being cleared doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent. That's entirely different.
Well Moore, if we didn't know already, confirmed his place in the long line of sycophantic writers (I would not use the term journalist - after all here is man who did his last Froome interview at exactly the same time as real journalists were breaking the AAF story) with his "he just lost the fat" Esquire piece, aided and abetted (willingly or otherwise) by Swart. So...what could they be up to this time? I don't think its a coincidence that SDB is talking about puffs (i.e. an input that is impossible to verify) rather than the verifiable output which is all to verifiable i.e. 2000. Its the 2000 that is the issue here...its very very very difficult to explain away with 'puffs'...unless you 'believe'..........So here we have a test result which shows a substance used at PED level and a contributor believing in the athlete's protestations of innocence.........I wonder if you'd like to hazard a guess at the proportion of athletes who put their hands up when caught and say...'it's a fair cop guv'.....so is using Moore and protestations of innocence from cyclist (remembering the 2000 result) laughable? eh....yes....indeed so laughable that it should be said in the manner of Jesus (not that one) from the Big Lebowski ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY