Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1141 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

53*11 said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Wiggo's Package said:
rick james said:
Wiggo's Package said:
lol are they for real? its nothing to do with them, sticking their oar for some free press when the team and rider has nothing to do with them and why the hell should sky do what this joke of an outfit say?

MPCC are a force for evil in cycling
Kool Aid and the Gang logic

Ethical = Evil
Already time for an update to the Kool Aid and the Gang logic:

Ethical = Evil

Complying with Rules = Mug's Game


As a defence of how Team Sky has ended up in the here and now it's revealingly circular. If you think cheating is OK then cheating is of course OK. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world

Quite how to square this off with Brailsfraud's stated aims for Team Sky when he set it up in 2010 is the puzzle of the day. Time for the Gang to get their logical mobius strips out again

Meanwhile the sneering against those who suggest ethics or rules should matter in sport is instructive. Have we reached the point yet where the only fanboys left are morally bankrupt? Team Sky's legacy
its a compulsion it seems. even now, there are plenty of LA fanboys on the net
But is it entirely necessary to be morally bankrupt in order to enjoy sports played out by those with questionable morals...can one still not enjoy the show without caring too much how the show was made.

For me...yes. For others, I guess not. Vive la difference :D
 
Carstenbf said:
Look, it’s been said a thousand times..

It ain’t gaming the rules when you use the products in question for their performance enhancing capabilities, as opposed to their medicinal purpose. It’s breaking the rules, full stop.

So enough with that talking point, please ..
Bingo. Well said. I would only add that it's clear that Sky's activity was in now way limited to "gaming the rules" as the apologists like to frame it. Testosterone patches, jiffy bags, and double-the-limit doping are in no way "gaming". They're running a program, fairly obviously.

No hope that the talking points will stop however...
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
noddy69 said:
Can't disagree that the TUE system is a grey area when used correctly. Its actual (mis)use by athletes across all sports is fairly black and white though when you dig a little.
I guess where Froome fits, where Wiggins fits, on this is in gaming the TUE system. The point about calling it gaming is that just about all rules get gamed. A general point Pielke makes is that there are some things that can never be 'fixed', there are some problems ('wicked problems', he refers to them as) that you are always going to be in a constant struggle with. So, the TUE system, we'll firm it up (or tear it down and replace it with something else and get back to more or less the same starting point in due course), someone will come along and game the revised rules. I think a lot of us posting in the Clinic would argue that WADA hasn't made much of an effort to stop the TUE system being gamed, that really all it's done is try to make TUE's less of a public embarrassment, by removing the need for them for things like inhalers etc.
Agree, without Fancy Bears it wouldn't be on anyones agenda, including WADA et al who were sitting on the info all along.
 
Carstenbf said:
So enough with that talking point, please ..
Do you actually believe in 'talking points' or is it just one of those things said when you really really really want to disagree but don't know whsat to say? How do these 'talking points' come, is there a WhatsApp group, or are they transmitted through the ether right into brains?
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Meanwhile the sneering against those who suggest ethics or rules should matter in sport is instructive. Have we reached the point yet where the only fanboys left are morally bankrupt? Team Sky's legacy
Personally I think ethics matter. Which is why I think you need to cop on to your own deficiencies and inconsistencies in that department and not just point the finger at others.
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
fmk_RoI said:
noddy69 said:
Can't disagree that the TUE system is a grey area when used correctly. Its actual (mis)use by athletes across all sports is fairly black and white though when you dig a little.
I guess where Froome fits, where Wiggins fits, on this is in gaming the TUE system. The point about calling it gaming is that just about all rules get gamed. A general point Pielke makes is that there are some things that can never be 'fixed', there are some problems ('wicked problems', he refers to them as) that you are always going to be in a constant struggle with. So, the TUE system, we'll firm it up (or tear it down and replace it with something else and get back to more or less the same starting point in due course), someone will come along and game the revised rules. I think a lot of us posting in the Clinic would argue that WADA hasn't made much of an effort to stop the TUE system being gamed, that really all it's done is try to make TUE's less of a public embarrassment, by removing the need for them for things like inhalers etc.
Agree, without Fancy Bears it wouldn't be on anyones agenda, including WADA et al who were sitting on the info all along.
And sadly the real problem gets lost in all the shouting about how much of a cheat tis rider is or how that team's cheating was obvious from day one. Beat the *** out of tge symptoms, ignore the actuall illness.
 
red_flanders said:
Carstenbf said:
Look, it’s been said a thousand times..

It ain’t gaming the rules when you use the products in question for their performance enhancing capabilities, as opposed to their medicinal purpose. It’s breaking the rules, full stop.

So enough with that talking point, please ..
Bingo. Well said. I would only add that it's clear that Sky's activity was in now way limited to "gaming the rules" as the apologists like to frame it. Testosterone patches, jiffy bags, and double-the-limit doping are in no way "gaming". They're running a program, fairly obviously.

No hope that the talking points will stop however...
A fairly schitt programme, I'd say. Testosterone, Cortisone and Salbutamol??

Come on. As far as doping goes that really is marginal gains :D

And here's the thing. All three substances are relatively easily detectable too. It's not exactly cutting edge. Besides, call me a cynic but I just do not believe those three substances can account for Froome, I really don't.

Not with you on the rules thing though, bud. Totally unethical, devisive, dishonest, hypocritical yes. But if a TUE is granted for somebody that doesnt need the meds then it's the rules that are at fault and not the people playing them. That is the nature of pro sport.
 
macbindle said:
red_flanders said:
Carstenbf said:
Look, it’s been said a thousand times..

It ain’t gaming the rules when you use the products in question for their performance enhancing capabilities, as opposed to their medicinal purpose. It’s breaking the rules, full stop.

So enough with that talking point, please ..
Bingo. Well said. I would only add that it's clear that Sky's activity was in now way limited to "gaming the rules" as the apologists like to frame it. Testosterone patches, jiffy bags, and double-the-limit doping are in no way "gaming". They're running a program, fairly obviously.

No hope that the talking points will stop however...
A fairly schitt programme, I'd say. Testosterone, Cortisone and Salbutamol??

Come on. As far as doping goes that really is marginal gains :D

And here's the thing. All three substances are relatively easily detectable too. It's not exactly cutting edge. Besides, call me a cynic but I just do not believe those three substances can account for Froome, I really don't.

Not with you on the rules thing though, bud. Totally unethical, devisive, dishonest, hypocritical yes. But if a TUE is granted then it's the rules that are at fault and not the people playing them. That is the nature of pro sport.
I don't think those things account for Froome either.

Obviously whatever they're doing works. What I listed is what we know. I find it wildly unlikely that we know everything. As such, I find it a bit silly to criticize their program as detectable or marginal. Nothing is detectable in the right amounts at the right time, which is obviously why so few people get caught.

*shrug*
 
I see the BBC got the 'talking points' memo
The Morality of Competition
Moral Maze

Cycling is again in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. A damning report by MPs argues that Sir Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky "crossed an ethical line." They claim that the Tour de France champion used an asthma drug - which is allowed under the anti-doping rules for medical need - to enhance his performance. The accusation is strenuously denied, but where exactly is the "ethical line"? Isn't it expected that competitors will do anything and everything within the rules to gain an edge? Even the model sportsman Roger Bannister sharpened his running spikes and rubbed graphite on them before breaking the four-minute-mile barrier. It certainly gained him an edge, but not unfairly. In sharp contrast, there are those who believe this latest case is another example of how sport has lost its soul. They say the ideals of 'sportsmanship' and respecting the spirit of the rules have given way to making money, winning at all costs and cheating if you can get away with it. In sport (and in competition generally) there will always be a grey area between what is moral and what is forbidden. Should we aim to narrow that gap, tighten the rules and enforce harsher sanctions? Or can ethical grey areas be a good thing? It could be argued they are essential in order for sportsmanship to shine. In business, they can be seen as necessary for innovation. In our personal lives, they give us moral agency to make important decisions and they provide a means by which we judge others. Surely a regime in which everything is either illegal or acceptable is the black and white landscape of tyranny? And yet - if the line is not simply between winning and losing, where should it be drawn?
Audio, 40-odd minutes

If you really believe ethics matter, this is worth the time.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
But Froome's Salbutamol was detected!
He has been caught!
7 years of domination and we have some dodgy TUE's, a shipment of testosterone, a horse dose of pred, and a giant dose of Salbutamol.

Given that they're likely doping for all their A races, I'd say they're doing pretty well. Better than most.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Meanwhile the sneering against those who suggest ethics or rules should matter in sport is instructive. Have we reached the point yet where the only fanboys left are morally bankrupt? Team Sky's legacy
Personally I think ethics matter. Which is why I think you need to cop on to your own deficiencies and inconsistencies in that department and not just point the finger at others.
Hey shoot the messenger if you want (the last resort of the fanboy scoundrel)

But I didn't put the ethics issue on the table Brailsfraud did back when he set the team up

If he hadn't been so sanctimonious then we wouldn't be having this conversation now
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
But Froome's Salbutamol was detected!
He has been caught!
7 years of domination and we have some dodgy TUE's, a shipment of testosterone, a horse dose of pred, and a giant dose of Salbutamol.

Given that they're likely doping for all their A races, I'd say they're doing pretty well. Better than most.
If it is just the cheap and easily available stuff like blue asthma puffer, testosterone and Cortisone, which lets face it is available to all, that is powering their wins then I'm starting to think that perhaps they do deserve their victories after all ;)
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
But Froome's Salbutamol was detected!
He has been caught!
7 years of domination and we have some dodgy TUE's, a shipment of testosterone, a horse dose of pred, and a giant dose of Salbutamol.

Given that they're likely doping for all their A races, I'd say they're doing pretty well. Better than most.
If it is just the cheap and easily available stuff like blue asthma puffer, testosterone and Cortisone, which lets face it is available to all, that is powering their wins then I'm starting to think that perhaps they do deserve their victories after all ;)
You believed that from the start, you were just pretending.. ;)
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
macbindle said:
red_flanders said:
macbindle said:
But Froome's Salbutamol was detected!
He has been caught!
7 years of domination and we have some dodgy TUE's, a shipment of testosterone, a horse dose of pred, and a giant dose of Salbutamol.

Given that they're likely doping for all their A races, I'd say they're doing pretty well. Better than most.
If it is just the cheap and easily available stuff like blue asthma puffer, testosterone and Cortisone, which lets face it is available to all, that is powering their wins then I'm starting to think that perhaps they do deserve their victories after all ;)
You believed that from the start, you were just pretending.. ;)
What?
 
Carstenbf said:
...It ain’t gaming the rules when you use the products in question for their performance enhancing capabilities, as opposed to their medicinal purpose....
It's a difference without a distinction.

A doctor is free to prescribe legitimate pharmaceuticals as they see fit for "off-label" uses, which amounts to a tacit approval from the medical community that legitimate use is not limited to the stated targeted conditions. The rest is at doctor's discretion. There are millions of men who are on physician-prescribed hormone replacement therapy, not to treat any pathological condition but simply because the higher testosterone level makes them feel more energetic, younger. They take it, in effect, and with medical community endorsement, purely for performance enhancement.

Legendary NASCAR driver and team owner Junior Johnson is famous for saying that what the rules allowed weren't as important as what they didn't prohibit. Or as Adrian Newey has said, the rules have no "spirit," they have only letters. There is no grey area. What is not black by default is white.
 
fmk_RoI said:
Carstenbf said:
So enough with that talking point, please ..
Do you actually believe in 'talking points' or is it just one of those things said when you really really really want to disagree but don't know whsat to say? How do these 'talking points' come, is there a WhatsApp group, or are they transmitted through the ether right into brains?
Bad choice of words I suppose. Wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Just come across the argument very frequently.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Wiggo's Package said:
yaco said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Froome signed with Team Sky for three years last summer

https://www.teamsky.com/article/chris-froome-confirms-new-contract-with-team-sky

I had been told his contract would be up at the end of 2018 but nothing could be further from the truth. Very basic fact that I was misinformed and wrong about. So, it's not an option for Team Sky to just not renew a Froome contract... to sack him would require dissolving the existing contract based on the "zero tolerance" clause, or whatever method.
Presumably if the whole team folds, Froome doesn't get paid for not riding for a defunct team
It's not unusual for riders to switch teams while under contract - My guess is Froome will change teams if he receives a sanction for Salbutamol.
Why would a team sign a rider and take on their contract if that rider's just been banned for 2 years?
It's wishful thinking to think Froome will get two years.
Yes, 10 years in jail sounds more appropriate.

Doping cheats need to be tried as the big time frauds they are. If you steal millions of dollars from a company you will also face big jail time. This is not any different. Rules need to change.

TUE's also need to be disappear. Stay at home if you're sick.
 
StyrbjornSterki said:
Carstenbf said:
...It ain’t gaming the rules when you use the products in question for their performance enhancing capabilities, as opposed to their medicinal purpose....
It's a difference without a distinction.
Not according to WADA rules, no.
In practice, sure. But that's because it's next to impossible to prove it. Unless ofc someone runs their mouth, as is the case in this instance. (if you give the source any credence that is)
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
yaco said:
Wiggo's Package said:
yaco said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Froome signed with Team Sky for three years last summer

https://www.teamsky.com/article/chris-froome-confirms-new-contract-with-team-sky

I had been told his contract would be up at the end of 2018 but nothing could be further from the truth. Very basic fact that I was misinformed and wrong about. So, it's not an option for Team Sky to just not renew a Froome contract... to sack him would require dissolving the existing contract based on the "zero tolerance" clause, or whatever method.
Presumably if the whole team folds, Froome doesn't get paid for not riding for a defunct team
It's not unusual for riders to switch teams while under contract - My guess is Froome will change teams if he receives a sanction for Salbutamol.
Why would a team sign a rider and take on their contract if that rider's just been banned for 2 years?
It's wishful thinking to think Froome will get two years.
Yes, 10 years in jail sounds more appropriate.

Doping cheats need to be tried as the big time frauds they are. If you steal millions of dollars from a company you will also face big jail time. This is not any different. Rules need to change.

TUE's also need to be disappear. Stay at home if you're sick.
did you have that view when Bertie got popped?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY