Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1156 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
It's easy to state you were doping in the 1940's and 1950's when authorities turned a blind eye, or there were limited sanctions or that sporting authorities didn't consider doping an issue until the 1960's - Coppi was far from brave and heroic in this regard.
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
fmk_RoI said:
You need to ditch the rose-tinted Oakleys ClassicomanoLuigi, they're making you imagine a past there never was. There has always been an ethical, a moral dimension to the use of pharmacology. It's there in the 1890s, it's there in the 1950s, it's there today. The riders who doped openly ... they're few and far between, a pigment of your rosey imagination.
The whole post is awesome, made me laugh, but that pun is especially good, have never heard that one before. Thanks FMK
Never? Sounds like something I nicked from Douglas Adams. But recycling is good...
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
You also need to consider public attitudes: fans didn't care, not in any grest numbers. Riders could afford to be somewhat open. That changed over time. Look at the blowback the likes of Simpson and Elliott suffered from the peloton for being 'open' less than a decade after that too oft quoted crap from Coppi.
Professional cyclist has always been a terrible job, in terms of compensation versus effort and risk. And many neopros today will meet a miserable end, and some will regret having taken up such an impractical occupation, when they could have been studying in school, etc. For most of them now, though, they have more to fall back upon than hardscrabble predecessors in early cycling - because making it to the quasi-professional level these days usually implies affluence. More access to more-sophisticated doping methods, and with less excuse. So I respect them less
Not sure I get where you're going there. It doesn't change your over idealised portrait of the past.
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
They are socialized into being liars by a double-standard, which rewards physical performance but punishes honesty about how it is achieved, in the case of methods which break the rules. Lance would have gotten nowhere in his cycling career if he had talked about doping during his triathlete days in the early 1990s.
The socialized line needs to be followed through to its logical conclusion, which leads to a Chestertonian world in which 'deviance' is 'normality' and healthy is not.
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
But no way do I think Froome and Coppi are ethically equivalent through moral relativism. Coppi was asked a direct question about his doping, and answered truthfully, he wasn't an outright liar about his methods
Comparing the two is wrong (on so many levels), especially so when Coppi was breaking no rules in 1952.
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Jump forward to 2018 and there's good reason riders don't want to talk about pharmacology, legal or illegal: the new puritans - too many of whom have set up a permanent encampment here
I have needled Robbie Ventura twice about his relations with Lance and Floyd, both times his reaction was like: since he was a domestic crit racer, he knew nothing about US Postal squad in Europe. Many years after the fact, and with not much to lose at this point, he still has total amnesia about that side of the team
Again, you lost me.
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
If you want honesty from the riders, start with making the hypocritical fans more honest. Start with the new puritans.
I don't know what to do about that, honestly, just a regular guy and don't have a plan about how to fix the contradiction. Doping is interesting to me as puzzle-solving of a mystery story (or perhaps a comedy drama), but foremost because of the science itself, given my background. Pharmacology in itself is amoral, a set of facts and possibilities. Whether or not those possibilities ought to be used toward certain ends is the starting-point of an ethics
That's part of the solution, the moral detachment of seeing doping as just as "interesting to me as puzzle-solving of a mystery story". Doping should matter because of what it tells us, not because it makes the new puritans feel morally superior to the deviants they seek to shame at every turn.
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
yaco said:
Craigee said:
I don't go along with the last couple of posts.

If everyone said flat No to Doping, it is not acceptable in any way, we wouldn't have today's Doping culture and I include the UCI and Wada. They let it happen. There should be no TUE's. If you're crook you're crook and you definitely shouldn't be capable of winning any bike race even with medication if you're really crook. I've been crook and taken medication and never made a miraculous recovery good enough to win any athletic event. It still takes time to heal or recover, if you're actually sick.

Also all doctor's records related to an athlete's athletic abilities should be open to the public. Not hidden away under a stupid privacy policy.

Do they want to clear up doping or not? Well of course not which is why they have the TUE system and the secret so called privacy medical records policies.

It's crooked from top to bottom.
There is no way a person's medical records should be made available to the public in any endeavour of life - This is one of the more bizarre posts in The Clinic.
Why? You're a public figure. Who cares?
just because they are in the public eye doesn't mean we should know everything private about them..
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
aphronesis said:
yaco said:
Craigee said:
I don't go along with the last couple of posts.

If everyone said flat No to Doping, it is not acceptable in any way, we wouldn't have today's Doping culture and I include the UCI and Wada. They let it happen. There should be no TUE's. If you're crook you're crook and you definitely shouldn't be capable of winning any bike race even with medication if you're really crook. I've been crook and taken medication and never made a miraculous recovery good enough to win any athletic event. It still takes time to heal or recover, if you're actually sick.

Also all doctor's records related to an athlete's athletic abilities should be open to the public. Not hidden away under a stupid privacy policy.

Do they want to clear up doping or not? Well of course not which is why they have the TUE system and the secret so called privacy medical records policies.

It's crooked from top to bottom.
There is no way a person's medical records should be made available to the public in any endeavour of life - This is one of the more bizarre posts in The Clinic.
Why? You're a public figure. Who cares?
just because they are in the public eye doesn't mean we should know everything private about them..

who said everything? medical records are institutional; i.e. not private. you get that yes?
 
Re: Re:

Elagabalus said:
aphronesis said:
...What lofty battles are a decent percentage of those anti-Armstrong warriors out there waging now? I'll guess few to none...
Resting on our laurels after having been bestowed the highest accolade that the internet can give:

TOTAL. INTERNET. WIN! (2013)

It still sends a chill down my spine ...

viewtopic.php?p=1114872#p1114872
Oh right. Always good to see you.
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
yaco said:
Craigee said:
I don't go along with the last couple of posts.

If everyone said flat No to Doping, it is not acceptable in any way, we wouldn't have today's Doping culture and I include the UCI and Wada. They let it happen. There should be no TUE's. If you're crook you're crook and you definitely shouldn't be capable of winning any bike race even with medication if you're really crook. I've been crook and taken medication and never made a miraculous recovery good enough to win any athletic event. It still takes time to heal or recover, if you're actually sick.

Also all doctor's records related to an athlete's athletic abilities should be open to the public. Not hidden away under a stupid privacy policy.

Do they want to clear up doping or not? Well of course not which is why they have the TUE system and the secret so called privacy medical records policies.

It's crooked from top to bottom.
There is no way a person's medical records should be made available to the public in any endeavour of life - This is one of the more bizarre posts in The Clinic.
Why? You're a public figure. Who cares?
And the silliness of The Clinic has no bounds.
 
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
aphronesis said:
rick james said:
Medical records should remain private
Why?
I thought it was a basic human right, to a private life and privacy or words to that effect.
Does anyone really expect privacy these days? Besides privacy in general (legal contracts dictate otherwise in specific circumstances) is not a right, it's merely considerate.
 
Re: Re:

GraftPunk said:
bigcog said:
aphronesis said:
rick james said:
Medical records should remain private
Why?
I thought it was a basic human right, to a private life and privacy or words to that effect.
Does anyone really expect privacy these days? Besides privacy in general (legal contracts dictate otherwise in specific circumstances) is not a right, it's merely considerate.
These athletes exist solely for our entertainment. Any rights they might have are subordinated to our gratification!

Union now! F*ck the pigs!
 
This is provocative:

“il caso e molto piu complicato di uno normale”

Really? Perche, signore? Are they laying out a theory of blocked excretion of salbutamol?

Not clear to me whether the case is before the Tribunal or not. At one point he seems to say the case is at LADS, but he also answers yes to the question of whether the Tribunal is involved. My interpretation of this is that the Tribunal did convene in February, as reported, and a judge was appointed, but there hasn't been a hearing yet. I think they're still at the stage of sending documents to the judge. Normally this phase would be over by now, but if Froome's lawyers ask for more time to respond, no doubt they will get it. And if Lappartient is to be believed, the complications of this case make this process longer.

So it sounds as though Froome may be trying to delay the case past the Giro, banking that any ban will be proactive. And if there hasn't been a hearing yet, I guess Froome and LADS could still try to work out a deal. In that case, I start to take more seriously my theory that Froome might try to get a ban of a certain length on the condition that it’s proactive and begins after the Giro.

Edit: Lappartient's interview, which is in English, can be found here:

http://video.gazzetta.it/lappartient-caso-froome-chiuso-prima-giro-non-credo/b301403a-2c29-11e8-b57c-23ad2a0c8951?vclk=ciclismo_AperturaStandard|lappartient-caso-froome-chiuso-prima-giro-non-credo

Just two minutes long. Still can't tell from what he says whether there is a judge and they're getting ready for a hearing. Again, he says it's at LADS, but again, he also says the Tribunal is involved.
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
With no resolution before the Giro in sight ... anyone still hoping against hope for the Disrepute card to be played? Anyone? Don't be shy...
If it were played, I wonder if the judge would speak out, assuring everyone that any potential ban would be proactive, beginning after the Giro. I doubt that could be done without compromising the rules, but it would certainly be tempting to provide that kind of guarantee that any results would stand. Given the stakes, i could see Vegni, for example, who has already been trying to get assurances of some kind or another, asking the judge to promise that any ban would not be backdated. As the Giro approaches, pressure is going to mount.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
fmk_RoI said:
With no resolution before the Giro in sight ... anyone still hoping against hope for the Disrepute card to be played? Anyone? Don't be shy...
If it were played, I wonder if the judge would speak out, assuring everyone that any potential ban would be proactive, beginning after the Giro. I doubt that could be done without compromising the rules, but it would certainly be tempting to provide that kind of guarantee that any results would stand. Given the stakes, i could see Vegni, for example, who has already been trying to get assurances of some kind or another, asking the judge to promise that any ban would not be backdated. As the Giro approaches, pressure is going to mount.
Oh we've been through all the reasons why it won't work (it didn't work for Astana, for Boonen, for Valverde). I just want to know if there's anyone out there still hoping against hope that RCS will throw money down the drain on legal fees just for the PR value...
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
fmk_RoI said:
With no resolution before the Giro in sight ... anyone still hoping against hope for the Disrepute card to be played? Anyone? Don't be shy...
If it were played, I wonder if the judge would speak out, assuring everyone that any potential ban would be proactive, beginning after the Giro. I doubt that could be done without compromising the rules, but it would certainly be tempting to provide that kind of guarantee that any results would stand. Given the stakes, i could see Vegni, for example, who has already been trying to get assurances of some kind or another, asking the judge to promise that any ban would not be backdated. As the Giro approaches, pressure is going to mount.
If it was going to occur, it would be done at the eleventh hour whereby it would be inconsequential if it was by the rules or not. Reference Sagan’s dismal from the Tour. It’s not like Froome could partition for an injunction for the race to not be run to account for his inclusion.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Merckx index said:
This is provocative:

“il caso e molto piu complicato di uno normale”

Really? Perche, signore? Are they laying out a theory of blocked excretion of salbutamol?

Not clear to me whether the case is before the Tribunal or not. At one point he seems to say the case is at LADS, but he also answers yes to the question of whether the Tribunal is involved. My interpretation of this is that the Tribunal did convene in February, as reported, and a judge was appointed, but there hasn't been a hearing yet. I think they're still at the stage of sending documents to the judge. Normally this phase would be over by now, but if Froome's lawyers ask for more time to respond, no doubt they will get it. And if Lappartient is to be believed, the complications of this case make this process longer.

So it sounds as though Froome may be trying to delay the case past the Giro, banking that any ban will be proactive. And if there hasn't been a hearing yet, I guess Froome and LADS could still try to work out a deal. In that case, I start to take more seriously my theory that Froome might try to get a ban of a certain length on the condition that it’s proactive and begins after the Giro.

Edit: Lappartient's interview, which is in English, can be found here:

http://video.gazzetta.it/lappartient-caso-froome-chiuso-prima-giro-non-credo/b301403a-2c29-11e8-b57c-23ad2a0c8951?vclk=ciclismo_AperturaStandard|lappartient-caso-froome-chiuso-prima-giro-non-credo

Just two minutes long. Still can't tell from what he says whether there is a judge and they're getting ready for a hearing. Again, he says it's at LADS, but again, he also says the Tribunal is involved.
From CN's report on Lappartient' s comments - case still at LADS:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-chris-froomes-case-unlikely-to-be-resolved-before-giro-ditalia/

' “The procedure is long, questions have to be answered, documents have to be studied. Both sides have powerful lawyers and the case is far more complicated than usual,” Lappartient said. “I’m not authorised to say that much out of respect for the WADA code. The case is at the LADS (Legal Anti-Doping Services) and our lawyers and the rider’s lawyers are in discussion.”

However Lappartient confirmed that the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal had been consulted but only on procedural matters. “Before passing to the next phase, we’ve got to be sure to have responded to every question. Nobody wants to risk going forward without having closed every detail. For that reason, LADS has asked some questions to the Anti-Doping Tribunal, to be sure to have followed the correct procedure,” Lappartient said.'
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY