Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[brownbobby]

Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

Congrats to Tony Martin for speaking out. As for Hinault I agree 100% and I really don't care whether he doped during his time or not - irrelevant to his point. Froome should withdraw on ethical grounds regardless if the rules say he can ride. Froome does not need the money and the Sport is bigger than Froome , Sky or British cycling. By withdrawing it also puts Froome and Sky on the same side as the rest of us - demand these AAF cases are sped up. Valverde (Peurto), Contador and now Froome. No, the other two were not AAFs but they did drag on for years. Rasmussen's team pulled him out of the Tour for less. The complexity excuse for the Froome delays is just BS. More lawyers making lots of money the longer the case drags on. I am glad the earth isn't threatened by an asteroid whilst we wait for lawyers to decide the complex ethical grounds for lunching a nuke to blow it out of the sky.

“Doesn’t need the money”

Wait...you think the main reason he wants to ride the Tour is for the money!?

 

[hfer07]

Re: Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

Congrats to Tony Martin for speaking out. As for Hinault I agree 100% and I really don't care whether he doped during his time or not - irrelevant to his point. Froome should withdraw on ethical grounds regardless if the rules say he can ride. Froome does not need the money and the Sport is bigger than Froome , Sky or British cycling. By withdrawing it also puts Froome and Sky on the same side as the rest of us - demand these AAF cases are sped up. Valverde (Peurto), Contador and now Froome. No, the other two were not AAFs but they did drag on for years. Rasmussen's team pulled him out of the Tour for less. The complexity excuse for the Froome delays is just BS. More lawyers making lots of money the longer the case drags on. I am glad the earth isn't threatened by an asteroid whilst we wait for lawyers to decide the complex ethical grounds for lunching a nuke to blow it out of the sky.

“Doesn’t need the money”

Wait...you think the main reason he wants to ride the Tour is for the money!?

oh, So do you think he's doing it for the "Fame & Glory? :lol: :lol:

If so, then why not stop riding in order to clarify this matter to the bottom, as opposed to go on defiance and win BIG MONEY IN ITALY while at it? see- He's paying the lawyers with that juicy "appearance fee" from the Israelis , and if he gets his way, Il Giro & Le Tour price wins combined will make up a huge payout for "producing an AFF during a GT"

 

[rick james]

Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

if you did, would you please post proof of motors...thanks in advance

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

if you did, would you please post proof of motors...thanks in advance

Good to see Sky's PED use is a given.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

His complaint is underpinned by his own, later acknowledged, lack of understanding of the system.

So that makes him an ignoramus and a hypocrite.

Yes, that argument makes some sense. Hypocrisy? No.

]On this thread, I'm one of a handful who have advocated (to the jeers of 'fanboi' and more) to reserve judgement until justice has run its course.

Do you really not get the difference between a personal judgement and wanting an official investigation to run its course? That one can believe or even be 100% sure that Froome is guilty and also want the system to play out and come what may?

Well ... since you've asked ...

I do have a hankering to find out where you'd stand once we hit the 'come what may' mark.

If I understand you correctly ... (a) You're currently 100% sure he's guilty; (b) You're 100% sure he's not an asthmatic; (c) You're 100% sure he's on some other PED program?

If he is exonerated on the AAF, if the appropriate doctor confirm he's an asthmatic, if no other proof exists of a doping program ... where do you stand, then?

You already know my stance ... I'm totally fine with any decision made by the authorities.

Thanks in advance, RF.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

His complaint is underpinned by his own, later acknowledged, lack of understanding of the system.

So that makes him an ignoramus and a hypocrite.

Yes, that argument makes some sense. Hypocrisy? No.

]On this thread, I'm one of a handful who have advocated (to the jeers of 'fanboi' and more) to reserve judgement until justice has run its course.

Do you really not get the difference between a personal judgement and wanting an official investigation to run its course? That one can believe or even be 100% sure that Froome is guilty and also want the system to play out and come what may?

Well ... since you've asked ...

I do have a hankering to find out where you'd stand once we hit the 'come what may' mark.

If I understand you correctly ... (a) You're currently 100% sure he's guilty; (b) You're 100% sure he's not an asthmatic; (c) You're 100% sure he's on some other PED program?

If he is exonerated on the AAF, if the appropriate doctor confirm he's an asthmatic, if no other proof exists of a doping program ... where do you stand, then?

You already know my stance ... I'm totally fine with any decision made by the authorities.

Thanks in advance, RF.

I'm 100% sure he's on a program. Who isn't. I'm interested to see what comes of the AAF (aka doping positive) but I have limited confidence in the system. I'd be shocked if he hasn't had multiple others swept under the rug before the leak. I strongly doubt he's asthmatic but I'd grant it's possible. If I had to bet I'd certainly bet against it. I do not believe him. The AAF has already happened. If he gets off on some technicality it matters nothing to my opinion of his doping, unless there is some remarkable explanation of how he's different than everyone else, which I do not foresee. That he might not get sanctioned for the doping is irrelevant to what we already know. If there was an explanation, we'd have heard it long ago. What we've heard so far is comical.

None of this matters. The point is that you seem to want to tell people to hold judgement until the "authorities" tell you what the answers are. I think that's ridiculous on several levels. We've known enough about Froome for years to know he's doping. We don't need to be told what to think about it. If you want to wait until he's proven to have doped, as if we don't already know that, that's your choice, but I find it very odd. It sounds like either someone who can't think for themselves or someone who is just looking for a way to make all the bad talk about a rider go away, or both. It certainly has nothing to do with him getting a fair hearing, we're just people on an internet board opining about some fairly obvious stuff. He'll get his hearing and what we say has no bearing. I don't need incontrovertible proof, sanctioned by the UCI, to have or to express an opinion.

Probably worth noting that even after saying, "Since you asked", you didn't answer my question. Asking me a list of questions is not an answer. My question, to be fair, was rhetorical.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

if you did, would you please post proof of motors...thanks in advance

You'll have a long wait ..

 

[SHAD0W93]

His case kinda reminds me of Kreuzigers without the suspension. If Froome can prove it was an issue with the test that as well as Kreuzigers case is a big blow.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

His complaint is underpinned by his own, later acknowledged, lack of understanding of the system.

So that makes him an ignoramus and a hypocrite.

Yes, that argument makes some sense. Hypocrisy? No.

]On this thread, I'm one of a handful who have advocated (to the jeers of 'fanboi' and more) to reserve judgement until justice has run its course.

Do you really not get the difference between a personal judgement and wanting an official investigation to run its course? That one can believe or even be 100% sure that Froome is guilty and also want the system to play out and come what may?

Well ... since you've asked ...

I do have a hankering to find out where you'd stand once we hit the 'come what may' mark.

If I understand you correctly ... (a) You're currently 100% sure he's guilty; (b) You're 100% sure he's not an asthmatic; (c) You're 100% sure he's on some other PED program?

If he is exonerated on the AAF, if the appropriate doctor confirm he's an asthmatic, if no other proof exists of a doping program ... where do you stand, then?

You already know my stance ... I'm totally fine with any decision made by the authorities.

Thanks in advance, RF.

I'm 100% sure he's on a program. Who isn't. I'm interested to see what comes of the AAF (aka doping positive) but I have limited confidence in the system. I'd be shocked if he hasn't had multiple others swept under the rug before the leak. I strongly doubt he's asthmatic but I'd grant it's possible. If I had to bet I'd certainly bet against it. I do not believe him. The AAF has already happened. If he gets off on some technicality it matters nothing to my opinion of his doping, unless there is some remarkable explanation of how he's different than everyone else, which I do not foresee. That he might not get sanctioned for the doping is irrelevant to what we already know. If there was an explanation, we'd have heard it long ago. What we've heard so far is comical.

None of this matters. The point is that you seem to want to tell people to hold judgement until the "authorities" tell you what the answers are.I think that's ridiculous on several levels. We've known enough about Froome for years to know he's doping. We don't need to be told what to think about it. If you want to wait until he's proven to have doped, as if we don't already know that, that's your choice, but I find it very odd. It sounds like either someone who can't think for themselves or someone who is just looking for a way to make all the bad talk about a rider go away, or both. It certainly has nothing to do with him getting a fair hearing, we're just people on an internet board opining about some fairly obvious stuff. He'll get his hearing and what we say has no bearing. I don't need incontrovertible proof, sanctioned by the UCI, to have or to express an opinion.

Probably worth noting that even after saying, "Since you asked", you didn't answer my question. Asking me a list of questions is not an answer. My question, to be fair, was rhetorical.

Thanks for answering my questions and clarifying your positions, RF. And a belated “yes” to your initial question, rhetorical or not.

“you seem to want to tell people to hold judgement until the "authorities" tell you what the answers are.”
Like you, RF, I’m opining on the internet. You opine that Froome’s a cheat, that Sky are a pack of liars, that Froome’s not an asthmatic. I opine that the authorities should pass judgement before Froome is prevented from racing for a host of exceedingly silly reasons that have been fully aired here. Only answers I’m looking for are ... will Froome be sanctioned ... Will he be on the start line of the next race. That he is besmirching pro cycling, bringing the sport into disrepute ... or as you say ... “making a mockery of the sport” ... LOL ... Could care less. But ... embrace it if it feels right for you.

I could care less about all of the bad talk .... After all it’s just banter, right. Just opining.

Worthwhile pointing out ... that what you find odd ... is just a statement about your perception of incoming information ... nothing more or less. Who knows how your ‘oddity’ filters are adjusted? You may find Froome’s power numbers ‘odd’ ... but you don’t understand power numbers. As you have suggested, you’re soft on science, you’re sceptical on accepted procedural processes .... so sure ... you may indeed find it odd ... that others may gravitate to those widely accepted methodologies. Again, whatever method you feel comfortable with, I guess. Just sayin.

BTW, just because someone is thinking for himself ... is no guarantee that he has a lot of right answers.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

if you did, would you please post proof of motors...thanks in advance

Good to see Sky's PED use is a given.

Asthma treatment......is the early 2000s EPO

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

I dont believe UCI are looking.

Too many things suggest motors are in use across the peloton. Apart from the visuals. The idea that femke was unique is laughable. The heart rates are a flag. That UCI are talking about motors and Parissotto mentioned them.

As has been said so many times, if a rider gets done for a motor that is it for cycling as a sport. Public perception of non cycling fans is that they all dope so add a motor to that and it no longer becomes as sport. Sponsors would disappear in an instant.

So waving a tablet at a bike is PR. Sticking a bike in a trailer with an x-ray machine and no truly independent verification is all PR.

The counter-argument would be to check enough bikes with enough detail to enforce a deterrent against using motors.
This is somewhat unrealistic in regards to normal bio-doping, because new substances and methods show up all the time, although I think things like the blood passport and delayed re-testing work to some (unknown) degree.

But I think it's absolutely possible with motor usage. Logistically it wouldn't even be impossible to test all bikes that were used after a race.

I also don't think Froome's transformation requires motors as an explanation. I think the answer is a mixture of things that Froome said himself and being a super-responder for some of the things used by Sky/BC. That Froome generally isn't very truthful doesn't mean he's lying about everything.
I think he probably is naturally talented with excellent regeneration, that he was held back (maybe even just mentally) by whatever aftereffects that Bilharzia thing had and then something just clicked with the drugs Sky gave him in combination with really having his back to the wall and needing to perform.

It's remarkable for sure, I mean a while ago I checked back what anyone was saying before the Vuelta 2011, and Froome was on literally nobody's radar but neither motors nor super-special-secret-drug nor UCI-protection is a convincing explanation to me for two reasons: 1) why would Froome get that access out of all people in 2011?, and 2) if Froome got it, why nobody else? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I dont believe UCI are looking.

Too many things suggest motors are in use across the peloton. Apart from the visuals. The idea that femke was unique is laughable. The heart rates are a flag. That UCI are talking about motors and Parissotto mentioned them.

As has been said so many times, if a rider gets done for a motor that is it for cycling as a sport. Public perception of non cycling fans is that they all dope so add a motor to that and it no longer becomes as sport. Sponsors would disappear in an instant.

So waving a tablet at a bike is PR. Sticking a bike in a trailer with an x-ray machine and no truly independent verification is all PR.

The counter-argument would be to check enough bikes with enough detail to enforce a deterrent against using motors.
This is somewhat unrealistic in regards to normal bio-doping, because new substances and methods show up all the time, although I think things like the blood passport and delayed re-testing work to some (unknown) degree.

But I think it's absolutely possible with motor usage. Logistically it wouldn't even be impossible to test all bikes that were used after a race.

I also don't think Froome's transformation requires motors as an explanation. I think the answer is a mixture of things that Froome said himself and being a super-responder for some of the things used by Sky/BC. That Froome generally isn't very truthful doesn't mean he's lying about everything.
I think he probably is naturally talented with excellent regeneration, that he was held back (maybe even just mentally) by whatever aftereffects that Bilharzia thing had and then something just clicked with the drugs Sky gave him in combination with really having his back to the wall and needing to perform.

It's remarkable for sure, I mean a while ago I checked back what anyone was saying before the Vuelta 2011, and Froome was on literally nobody's radar but neither motors nor super-special-secret-drug nor UCI-protection is a convincing explanation to me for two reasons: 1) why would Froome get that access out of all people in 2011?, and 2) if Froome got it, why nobody else? It doesn't make sense.

So you think UCi are trying to kill the sport by checking for motors?

I dont.

Plenty of evidence for motors. That they are checking is evidence. Femke and 2 amatuers is proof.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

if you did, would you please post proof of motors...thanks in advance

Good to see Sky's PED use is a given.

Asthma treatment......is the early 2000s EPO

Pity Froome isn't asthmatic plus all the other PEDs. Only 1 reason teams have doctors. Doping.

 

[macbindle]

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

if you did, would you please post proof of motors...thanks in advance

Good to see Sky's PED use is a given.

Asthma treatment......is the early 2000s EPO

Pity Froome isn't asthmatic plus all the other PEDs. Only 1 reason teams have doctors. Doping.

Patently that is not true. People get sick on 3 week races. There is also a TUE system that permits medication of otherwise banned substances. Whilst it may be abused by some it is also used legitimately by others.

It is known that 3 team Sky doctors objected to Freeman's abuse of TUEs, a d actively tried to put a stop to it. Do you think those 3 doctors were against abusing TUEs but totally cool with running a doping programme? Or on balance does it seem like they may have been ethical...

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I dont believe UCI are looking.

Too many things suggest motors are in use across the peloton. Apart from the visuals. The idea that femke was unique is laughable. The heart rates are a flag. That UCI are talking about motors and Parissotto mentioned them.

As has been said so many times, if a rider gets done for a motor that is it for cycling as a sport. Public perception of non cycling fans is that they all dope so add a motor to that and it no longer becomes as sport. Sponsors would disappear in an instant.

So waving a tablet at a bike is PR. Sticking a bike in a trailer with an x-ray machine and no truly independent verification is all PR.

The counter-argument would be to check enough bikes with enough detail to enforce a deterrent against using motors.
This is somewhat unrealistic in regards to normal bio-doping, because new substances and methods show up all the time, although I think things like the blood passport and delayed re-testing work to some (unknown) degree.

But I think it's absolutely possible with motor usage. Logistically it wouldn't even be impossible to test all bikes that were used after a race.

I also don't think Froome's transformation requires motors as an explanation. I think the answer is a mixture of things that Froome said himself and being a super-responder for some of the things used by Sky/BC. That Froome generally isn't very truthful doesn't mean he's lying about everything.
I think he probably is naturally talented with excellent regeneration, that he was held back (maybe even just mentally) by whatever aftereffects that Bilharzia thing had and then something just clicked with the drugs Sky gave him in combination with really having his back to the wall and needing to perform.

It's remarkable for sure, I mean a while ago I checked back what anyone was saying before the Vuelta 2011, and Froome was on literally nobody's radar but neither motors nor super-special-secret-drug nor UCI-protection is a convincing explanation to me for two reasons: 1) why would Froome get that access out of all people in 2011?, and 2) if Froome got it, why nobody else? It doesn't make sense.

So you think UCi are trying to kill the sport by checking for motors?

I dont.

Plenty of evidence for motors. That they are checking is evidence. Femke and 2 amatuers is proof.

Checking for something is not evidence....all it proves is how much noise just a few people with a conspiracy theory can make through the power of social media these days.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

if you did, would you please post proof of motors...thanks in advance

Good to see Sky's PED use is a given.

Asthma treatment......is the early 2000s EPO

Pity Froome isn't asthmatic plus all the other PEDs. Only 1 reason teams have doctors. Doping.

Utter nonsense. Obviously a sports team, for which their athletes are their primary asset, are going to take steps to protect the health of these assets to allow them to perform the job they are paid to do. This mean employing medical staff (assuming you can afford them).

That's the case regardless of how much doping you think is going on.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

if you did, would you please post proof of motors...thanks in advance

Good to see Sky's PED use is a given.

Asthma treatment......is the early 2000s EPO

Pity Froome isn't asthmatic plus all the other PEDs. Only 1 reason teams have doctors. Doping.

I know for a fact of at least one English Premier League football team who employ a ‘specialist’ to cut all of their players toe nails once a week. Ingrowing toe nails can be a ***!

That’s the length teams go to ensure their assets perform optimally...so it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a cycling team might employ doctors for purposes other than doping

 

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

[/quote]

Asthma treatment......is the early 2000s EPO[/quote]

Pity Froome isn't asthmatic plus all the other PEDs. Only 1 reason teams have doctors. Doping.[/quote]

A new low in Clinic comments ... rather nasty, to be honest. A decent forum member would retract that, Benotti.[/quote]

I don't know about lowest, but even for the clinic it seems particularly stupid.

 

[rick james]

Medical reasons to keep the star riders safe....nope screw that, they are only there to tell the dawg to Over dose the asthma treatment

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I don't know about lowest, but even for the clinic it seems particularly stupid.

Christophe Bassons said he never once visisted the team doctor. If he was ill he went to his GP.

That is what a professional does. But hey Bassons was obviously stupid.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Medical reasons to keep the star riders safe....nope screw that, they are only there to tell the dawg to Over dose the asthma treatment

Froome doesn't have asthma. Neither did Wiggins nor do most athletes.

If they did they would be able to produce the evidence from their youth. But they can't. :lol:

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I know for a fact of at least one English Premier League football team who employ a ‘specialist’ to cut all of their players toe nails once a week. Ingrowing toe nails can be a ***!

That’s the length teams go to ensure their assets perform optimally...so it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a cycling team might employ doctors for purposes other than doping

Professional football that bastion of clean athletes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

Checking for something is not evidence....all it proves is how much noise just a few people with a conspiracy theory can make through the power of social media these days.

Bike-motors aren't a conspiracy theory, they exist and they work, which is why it's necessary to check to make sure nobody is using them in pro racing.

The conspiracy theory is that the UCI tolerates the use of motors, and I don't believe in that.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I know for a fact of at least one English Premier League football team who employ a ‘specialist’ to cut all of their players toe nails once a week. Ingrowing toe nails can be a ***!

That’s the length teams go to ensure their assets perform optimally...so it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a cycling team might employ doctors for purposes other than doping

Professional football that bastion of clean athletes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Way to go in completely missing the point

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I don't know about lowest, but even for the clinic it seems particularly stupid.

Christophe Bassons said he never once visisted the team doctor. If he was ill he went to his GP.

That is what a professional does. But hey Bassons was obviously stupid.

Great...if you’re GP happens to be willing travel all over the world to be at every race with you