Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1140 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
red_flanders said:
rick james said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Gazzetta reports Froome is in the start list for T-A
http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/28-02-2018/tirreno-adriatico-2018-lista-iscritti-froome-nibali-dumoulin-aru-sagan-250600109941.shtml

Tirreno-Adriatico 2018: Froome, Nibali and Dumoulin at the start
A list of the big name members that of the 53rd edition of the race which kicks off on 7 March.
:eek:
why is this in the clinic?
Apparently Chris Froome has had some sort of doping violation: https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

And apparently some people think he should not be riding.
This is one of the better analytics written on this case ... until it delves into dramatic sleuthing on Froome's purported Asthma ... where he relies upon "why wouldn't" rhetorical questions, rather than science, to diagnose Froome as a non asthmatic. Anyway ... all seen and discussed before.

True ... some people think he should not be riding. Equally true, apparently/obviously ... that there are more people who feel that he should be riding. You'll see that, RF, when you tune in to watch. ;)
I think that is the most spot-on and best write-ups I've seen on the topic, on a forum or article. Nails the asthma nonsense and links to another article that does the same. I guess deductive reasoning isn't science, but it's a useful tool in figuring out who is full of it. In cycling, life, or even on a forum.

I wish he weren't riding but I don't think anyone has grounds to stop him. Fairly straightforward I think. Hardly the first doper to ride while waiting for the process to play out.
 
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
rick james said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Gazzetta reports Froome is in the start list for T-A
http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/28-02-2018/tirreno-adriatico-2018-lista-iscritti-froome-nibali-dumoulin-aru-sagan-250600109941.shtml

Tirreno-Adriatico 2018: Froome, Nibali and Dumoulin at the start
A list of the big name members that of the 53rd edition of the race which kicks off on 7 March.
:eek:
why is this in the clinic?
Why the question? I thought it was obvious!
It adds nothing to the thread
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
rick james said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Gazzetta reports Froome is in the start list for T-A
http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/28-02-2018/tirreno-adriatico-2018-lista-iscritti-froome-nibali-dumoulin-aru-sagan-250600109941.shtml

Tirreno-Adriatico 2018: Froome, Nibali and Dumoulin at the start
A list of the big name members that of the 53rd edition of the race which kicks off on 7 March.
:eek:
why is this in the clinic?
Apparently Chris Froome has had some sort of doping violation: https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

And apparently some people think he should not be riding.
An abnormal finding that should have been kept private
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Alpe73 said:
red_flanders said:
rick james said:
why is this in the clinic?
Apparently Chris Froome has had some sort of doping violation: https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

And apparently some people think he should not be riding.
This is one of the better analytics written on this case ... until it delves into dramatic sleuthing on Froome's purported Asthma ... where he relies upon "why wouldn't" rhetorical questions, rather than science, to diagnose Froome as a non asthmatic. Anyway ... all seen and discussed before.

True ... some people think he should not be riding. Equally true, apparently/obviously ... that there are more people who feel that he should be riding. You'll see that, RF, when you tune in to watch. ;)
I think that is the most spot-on and best write-ups I've seen on the topic, on a forum or article. Nails the asthma nonsense and links to another article that does the same. I guess deductive reasoning isn't science, but it's a useful tool in figuring out who is full of it. In cycling, life, or even on a forum.

I wish he weren't riding but I don't think anyone has grounds to stop him. Fairly straightforward I think. Hardly the first doper to ride while waiting for the process to play out.
Pure stuff is spot on ... if you can afford it.

Knock-off jobbies ..... meh .... ya get what ya pay for.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
red_flanders said:
rick james said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Gazzetta reports Froome is in the start list for T-A
http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/28-02-2018/tirreno-adriatico-2018-lista-iscritti-froome-nibali-dumoulin-aru-sagan-250600109941.shtml

Tirreno-Adriatico 2018: Froome, Nibali and Dumoulin at the start
A list of the big name members that of the 53rd edition of the race which kicks off on 7 March.
:eek:
why is this in the clinic?
Apparently Chris Froome has had some sort of doping violation: https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

And apparently some people think he should not be riding.
An abnormal finding that should have been kept private
And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids......... ;)
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Tirreno-Adriatico 2018: Froome, Nibali and Dumoulin at the start
A list of the big name members that of the 53rd edition of the race which kicks off on 7 March.
:eek:[/quote]

why is this in the clinic?[/quote]

Apparently Chris Froome has had some sort of doping violation: https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

And apparently some people think he should not be riding.[/quote]

An abnormal finding that should have been kept private[/quote]


hmmm a VERY abnormal finding really wouldnt you say?, and still no rational explanation after over 5 months.... and yet DB claims its is all easily proven; if so why have they not proven their innocence and moved on, after 5 months? DB's claim that you can produce more salbutamol (or any other PED) in your urine than you actually ingested; how exactly does that work btw? im really interested to see how that can be proven....
 
53*11 try not to mangle the quotes so badly.
I'm happy if CF is only doing a training ride at T-A and not interfering with the GC.
If he has a bot-train and thus affects the dynamic of the race
and then gets banned
that IMO would be deliberate wrong-doing.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
red_flanders said:
rick james said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Gazzetta reports Froome is in the start list for T-A
http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/28-02-2018/tirreno-adriatico-2018-lista-iscritti-froome-nibali-dumoulin-aru-sagan-250600109941.shtml

Tirreno-Adriatico 2018: Froome, Nibali and Dumoulin at the start
A list of the big name members that of the 53rd edition of the race which kicks off on 7 March.
:eek:
why is this in the clinic?
Apparently Chris Froome has had some sort of doping violation: https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/the-truth-behind-chris-froomes-doping/

And apparently some people think he should not be riding.
An abnormal finding that should have been kept private
It wasn't. He was at twice the limit, and obviously doping. So we're discussing it.
 
I wonder if this had been kept quiet still, what the reaction would have been of a ban. (I still think they will wriggle out of something)

Some people seem more livid that it's out than the situation that Froome / Sky find themselves in. Yes, trial by media etc, but I dont get the madness tbh.
 
MartinGT said:
I wonder if this had been kept quiet still, what the reaction would have been of a ban. (I still think they will wriggle out of something)

Some people seem more livid that it's out than the situation that Froome / Sky find themselves in. Yes, trial by media etc, but I dont get the madness tbh.
quite

it's a scientific issue and science will either get him off or it won't...the public knowing doesn't alter the science.....

damn transparency
 
Well, I suppose it might be that people are annoyed because (almost) every other athlete with an adverse analytical finding has been afforded confidentiality, as per regulations. But Froome hasn't.

If you view everything through the filter of utter visceral hate of Froome then, yeah, you wouldn't get that.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Well, I suppose it might be that people are annoyed because (almost) every other athlete with an adverse analytical finding has been afforded confidentiality, as per regulations. But Froome hasn't.

If you view everything through the filter of utter visceral hate of Froome then, yeah, you wouldn't get that.
Froome was 'afforded' confidentiality by the system, however there was a leak. You can't legislate for that...

leakers by definition tend not afford anyone anything...and of course may have had an as yet unknown reason for leaking in the first place...you could also call them a whisltleblower ...perhaps, of course the way the AAF is being managed changed after the leak/whistleblow.....
 
MartinGT said:
I wonder if this had been kept quiet still, what the reaction would have been of a ban. (I still think they will wriggle out of something)

Some people seem more livid that it's out than the situation that Froome / Sky find themselves in. Yes, trial by media etc, but I dont get the madness tbh.
If it had been kept quiet, nobody would have found out about it, ever. That's why it wasn't kept quiet.
 
How many adverse results have happened that we don't know about have been kept quiet? I'm guessing > 0 from the way Froome and Sky conducted themselves before the leak, and from UCI history. And common sense.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. The leak happened. We're not going to ignore what we know now because some folks don't want it discussed.
 
MartinGT said:
Some people seem more livid that it's out than the situation that Froome / Sky find themselves in. Yes, trial by media etc, but I dont get the madness tbh.
Any such feelings that people may have expressed seem to have been almost exclusively in reaction to those livid that he is not suspended at present. If this had not been made public then there would have been any madness about him riding.
 
Parker said:
MartinGT said:
Some people seem more livid that it's out than the situation that Froome / Sky find themselves in. Yes, trial by media etc, but I dont get the madness tbh.
Any such feelings that people may have expressed seem to have been almost exclusively in reaction to those livid that he is not suspended at present. If this had not been made public then there would have been any madness about him riding.
no...the 'madness' may then have been post-sanction about him riding when he knew that the reading was 2000 (not 1201 with a potential chance of physiological chance of explaining it away) and so its swings and roundabouts...at least with the leak there is a chance to have the debate when its not just academic. If we could only discuss this after the event then there would be no chance for any self/team suspension...

on balance probably better we know now (that's based on the 2000 reading, not the AAF per se)
 
macbindle said:
Well, I suppose it might be that people are annoyed because (almost) every other athlete with an adverse analytical finding has been afforded confidentiality, as per regulations. But Froome hasn't.
How many of those alleged athletes not only publicly committed to riding the Giro, but accepted a big payout for their presence? When people break the rules of common decency, let alone common sense, all bets that they will be treated fairly in return are off.

If you view everything through the filter of utter visceral hate of Froome then, yeah, you wouldn't get that.
If you view everything through the filter of Froome has done nothing wrong then, yeah, you wouldn’t get that.

there are many possible motives for leaking, and some of them aren't righteous.
How about if the motive was to avoid Vegni’s being blind-sided at the last moment?

Parker said:
If this had not been made public then there would have [not] been any madness about him riding.
Unless he had suddenly been pulled out of the Giro. The uproar then would have made whatever’s happening now look like child’s play.

A prime characteristic of dopers is denial. A classic example of this was provided by LA, when he famously said it isn’t cheating if everyone else is doing it. Froome has not yet been proven to be a doper, but he sure has the denial part down. Why did he commit to the Giro while sitting on an AAF, which he couldn’t be possibly certain wouldn’t make him ineligible to ride then, when he could have just as easily postponed the announcement? Denial. Why did he ride the Ruta, not being able to guarantee that if he won a stage or the race and was later suspended, the standings would not have to be rearranged later? Denial. Why has he expressed confidence he will be exonerated, even as it appears after nearly six months that he has no explanation for the positive? Denial.

Throughout this process, Froome hasn’t shown the slightest regard for cycling, for the effects his actions may have on others. He had a right to have the AAF not announced publicly, but it does not follow that he has a right to act as though it’s a foregone conclusion that he will be cleared.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
macbindle said:
Well, I suppose it might be that people are annoyed because (almost) every other athlete with an adverse analytical finding has been afforded confidentiality, as per regulations. But Froome hasn't.
How many of those alleged athletes not only publicly committed to riding the Giro, but accepted a big payout for their presence? When people break the rules of common decency, let alone common sense, all bets that they will be treated fairly in return are off.

If you view everything through the filter of utter visceral hate of Froome then, yeah, you wouldn't get that.
If you view everything through the filter of Froome has done nothing wrong then, yeah, you wouldn’t get that.

there are many possible motives for leaking, and some of them aren't righteous.
How about if the motive was to avoid Vegni’s being blind-sided at the last moment?

Parker said:
If this had not been made public then there would have [not] been any madness about him riding.
Unless he had suddenly been pulled out of the Giro. The uproar then would have made whatever’s happening now look like child’s play.

A prime characteristic of dopers is denial. A classic example of this was provided by LA, when he famously said it isn’t cheating if everyone else is doing it. Froome has not yet been proven to be a doper, but he sure has the denial part down. Why did he commit to the Giro while sitting on an AAF, which he couldn’t be possibly certain wouldn’t make him ineligible to ride then, when he could have just as easily postponed the announcement? Denial. Why did he ride the Ruta, not being able to guarantee that if he won a stage or the race and was later suspended, the standings would not have to be rearranged later? Denial. Why has he expressed confidence he will be exonerated, even as it appears after nearly six months that he has no explanation for the positive? Denial.

Throughout this process, Froome hasn’t shown the slightest regard for cycling, for the effects his actions may have on others. He had a right to have the AAF not announced publicly, but it does not follow that he has a right to act as though it’s a foregone conclusion that he will cleared.
(Take I): Took a glance at Strade Bianche today ... well ... one eye open, the other shut. And ... only intermittently ... furtively. Turned it off (quickly ... wife home from the shops) before it was over. Flipped over to 'Debbie Does Dallas.' (wife forgot the pork pies). Feckin Classic. Now ... I don't have to tell you lads what it's ALL about, do I?

(Take II): ........
 
If I was a cyclist with maybe just one or two years of career left, and an AAF that may be beatable would I not enter any races at all that year, and in so doing effectively end my position in cycling?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules of Common Decency that somebody on an internet forum just made up, rather than the actual....errr...you know....rules. :rolleyes:
 
Re:

macbindle said:
If I was a cyclist with maybe just one or two years of career left, and an AAF that may be beatable would I not enter any races at all that year, and in so doing effectively end my position in cycling?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules of Common Decency that somebody on an internet forum just made up, rather than the actual....errr...you know....rules. :rolleyes:
If I were a cyclist, and I had seven months before I had to commit to riding a GT that I couldn't be sure I would be eligible to ride, would I immediately announce my commitment, rather than wait and see what the decision on my status was--which I had the power to ensure was made within six months?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules That Say This is the Only Possible Way of Keeping Your Options Open that somebody on an internet forum just made up rather than the actual...errr...you know...other possibilities available to someone with common sense.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY