Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

This is where Hinault is wrong imo btw, why does he put the burden of policing the sport on the riders instead of UCI and race organisers? With the pull he supposedly has, why doesn't he attack the ASO instead of making meaningless appeals for insurrection to the peloton?

Attack ASO for what? ASO can do *** all. The UCI? There was the possibility they had a rule which might have allowed them to ban Froome, but any normal thinking person would bet that CAS would argue the opposite, saying that a Salbutamol AAF doesn't warrant a provisional suspension.

Given there is *** all the authorities can do, Hinault's call to the riders to man the barricades makes perfect sense. Of course we all know it's not going to happen, you only have to look at the manner in which the Dutch riders have just walked away from the CPA to see there is no unity within the peloton, just the occasional bit of commonality in self interest. But it's still a good call. Reminds the riders that they need to look out for themselves.

 

[macbindle]

Hinault....the man who led a strike against anti-doping control now calling for a strike because a rider failed an anti-doping control.


Quel but de cloche.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Wanting reasonably clean winners, but forgiving dirty riders if they looked good on a bike? Perhaps Anti-doping sanctions could have a style-ometer element to the tribunal. Everyone votes for rider style and each vote counts for 1 month less to a ban lol!

Well done Sam
you've nailed it
close the thread
I just can't stand the way CF looks on the bike
(my prejudice - finally I've seen the light)

Was red_flanders that said it not me.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Because of what Froome did in the Giro, I've never cared less about the Tour or have been less likely to watch it since the boring latter years of Indurain's domination.

What kills the sport for me? Not busting and sanctioning dopers when it's so blatantly obvious to anyone watching. Catching them does not kill the sport for me. I guess this is at the core of why I don't trust the UCI. They clearly are more concerned about the appearance of doping than doping.

Horrifically difficult to watch rider, obviously cheating. At least Vandenbroucke gave you some style for his obvious doping. Would be nice to get someone with both style and a reasonable level of cleanliness again.

Yes, Red ... I know where you’re coming from. Those 3 consecutive 40+ homerun seasons for Jay Buhner. With that wide open batting stance (yech!) ... crotch and knob facing the pitcher ... I almost stopped watching baseball for good! :lol:

 

[Bolder]

All this talk about team doctors...in any professional sport, the role of the doctor is to ensure that the athletes are on the playing field and performing their best, which in practice means playing down/covering up/lying about injuries, administering sketchy doses of painkillers and looking the other way at PED use and off-the-radar "therapies." They serve at the pleasure of the team owner, whose goals boil down to "Just win."

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

Attack ASO for what? ASO can do *** all. The UCI? There was the possibility they had a rule which might have allowed them to ban Froome, but any normal thinking person would bet that CAS would argue the opposite, saying that a Salbutamol AAF doesn't warrant a provisional suspension.

I'm not sure the ASO can legally stop froome/sky from participating, but if they make it publicly clear froome isn't welcome would he come? Maybe yes, maybe no.

At least hinault would have the megaphone to demand it and lobby for it. And maybe he would even get an answer and start a discussion.

But expecting the riders (and who among the peloton would really have the authority to organise a strike like that even if they wanted to?) to sacrifice their own interests is a gesture that is so unrealistic that it's completely pointless for anything other than fueling hinault's own ego.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Attack ASO for what? ASO can do *** all. The UCI? There was the possibility they had a rule which might have allowed them to ban Froome, but any normal thinking person would bet that CAS would argue the opposite, saying that a Salbutamol AAF doesn't warrant a provisional suspension.

I'm not sure the ASO can legally stop froome/sky from participating, but if they make it publicly clear froome isn't welcome would he come? Maybe yes, maybe no.

At least hinault would have the megaphone to demand it and lobby for it. And maybe he would even get an answer and start a discussion.

But expecting the riders (and who among the peloton would really have the authority to organise a strike like that even if they wanted to?) to sacrifice their own interests is a gesture that is so unrealistic that it's completely pointless for anything other than fueling hinault's own ego.

You may not be sure but I think at this stage that just about everyone else is: ASO cannot legally stop Froome/Sky from participating. Make it publicly clear that Froome isn't welcome? I think they've been doing that, a lot, over the last few months. Prudhomme is no shrinking violet when it comes to making his views on the matter clear. Will that encourage Sky to leave Froome at home, encourage Froome to stay at home? Why should it? Neither feels like they have anything to merit staying at home for. A point they have made abundantly clear.

Maybe Hinault cold start a discussion? Yes, cause ain't nobody been talking about this in the six months and more since the story broke.

Expecting the riders to sacrifice their own interests - who's asking for a sacrifice? Do you have any idea of what strikes at the Tour look like? There's a long history of them, some of which involves Hinault. Nobody has sacrificed nothing.

Hinault's ego - well at least he has something to be egotistical about, justifying making his ill-informed opinions public.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Hinault....the man who led a strike against anti-doping control now calling for a strike because a rider failed an anti-doping control.


Quel but de cloche.

In many ways, what Hinault is calling for is totally in line with his response in Callac in 1982. Back then, he was protesting the imposition, without advance notice, of anti-doping controls at critériums, where most riders rode 'hot'. Given that the norm at the time was for there to be no controls at critériums and for riders to generally know which races would be tested and which could be ridden 'hot', what Hinault and the other riders did was perfectly understandable. There was in effect an unwritten rule about were testing would occur and the riders were calling for that to be respected.

You could also argue that there is within the sport an unwritten rule that all riders under investigation should go sit on the naughty step and that that is what Hinault is saying should be respected.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

Attack ASO for what? ASO can do *** all. The UCI? There was the possibility they had a rule which might have allowed them to ban Froome, but any normal thinking person would bet that CAS would argue the opposite, saying that a Salbutamol AAF doesn't warrant a provisional suspension.

I'm not sure the ASO can legally stop froome/sky from participating, but if they make it publicly clear froome isn't welcome would he come? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Thats what it comes down to in the end for me - doping is a legal matter, black and white (insofar as it can be established that rider x is doping....)

That's why discussions over whether its appropriate to take this or that grey area substance (tramadol springs to mind) are largely pointless. If its on the list, its banned, if its not, its OK.

In this case, if the riders don't like it, then they should strike against the rules rather than the rider. But I don't think they will because each one knows that it could easily be them in Froome's situation and most of them would probably do exactly the same.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

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

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

This is pure ignorance of the history of the sport. Read about comments from riders in the early 90s decrying how “medical” the sport was becoming and questioning why teams needed their own doctors on staff. It was done for a hundred years without it and EPO and team wide doping ore what changed it. Period.

Don't let your ignorance of science cloud your shyte, brutha.

What on earth are you talking about.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

That's why discussions over whether its appropriate to take this or that grey area substance (tramadol springs to mind) are largely pointless. If its on the list, its banned, if its not, its OK.

Discussions over grey area substances are far from pointless. They are the only way to clarify what is black and white. The discussion surrounding glucocorticoids and tramadol has resulted in them being managed by the UCI from the perspective of the rider's health. It is hard to imagine the UCI moving on this without the discussion having taken place.

 

[spalco]

@fmk_rol (i'm on my mobile phone and quoting is a ***):

The aso could run the tdf seperate from the uci/world tour If they really wanted, they have done it before.

And of course riders would be gambling with a strike. Firstly for a strike you would need unity, and why would sky play fair here? Or some of the voekler-ish riders who just want to break away, get some tv time and maybe a stage win. Or sprinter-teams concerned about losing a stage win opportunity, or really anybody who has specific tactics planned for that stage. Plus the publicity would be unpredictable at best, even clean riders probably don't want to draw attention to persistant doping problems in the sport, paticularly on teams with shaky sponsorship.

It's nothing but blabla from hinault.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

We aren't talking about "paying attention to detail".
We are talking about knowledge, expertise and the resources to provide it.

I’m talking about teams of doctors doping riders. Conflating that with health like some are doing in response to my comments is obfuscation. It changed I. The 90s. That they also served the health needs of the riders is both obvious and irrelevant.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The aso could run the tdf seperate from the uci/world tour If they really wanted, they have done it before.

Do you really think that Froome is worth re-opening that old wound over? Really? Do you have any understanding of the commercial reasons ASO caved and settled the last time?

And of course riders would be gambling with a strike. Firstly for a strike you would need unity, and why would sky play fair here? Or some of the voekler-ish riders who just want to break away, get some tv time and maybe a stage win. Or sprinter-teams concerned about losing a stage win opportunity, or really anybody who has specific tactics planned for that stage. Plus the publicity would be unpredictable at best, even clean riders probably don't want to draw attention to persistant doping problems in the sport, paticularly on teams with shaky sponsorship.

Again, some understanding of the reality of such strikes and the Tour would benefit you here. Look at, say, the strike in the 2007 Tour. None of what you suggested happens when these protests are staged. None.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

We aren't talking about "paying attention to detail".
We are talking about knowledge, expertise and the resources to provide it.

I’m talking about teams of doctors doping riders. Conflating that with health like some are doing in response to my comments is obfuscation. It changed I. The 90s. That they also served the health needs of the riders is both obvious and irrelevant.

What are you suggesting, that before the 1990s team doctors weren't involved in doping? Do you know any of the history of the sport before the 1990s?

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

That's why discussions over whether its appropriate to take this or that grey area substance (tramadol springs to mind) are largely pointless. If its on the list, its banned, if its not, its OK.

Discussions over grey area substances are far from pointless. They are the only way to clarify what is black and white. The discussion surrounding glucocorticoids and tramadol has resulted in them being managed by the UCI from the perspective of the rider's health. It is hard to imagine the UCI moving on this without the discussion having taken place.

Apologies, I was probably a bit lax with the QC on my last post. Discussions over the "grey area substances" wrt whether a rider is cheating or not at this moment in time are pointless since as far as the rules are concerned there is no such thing. Absolutely, times change and grey becomes black or white as knowledge of the substance is gained.

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

We aren't talking about "paying attention to detail".
We are talking about knowledge, expertise and the resources to provide it.

I’m talking about teams of doctors doping riders. Conflating that with health like some are doing in response to my comments is obfuscation. It changed I. The 90s. That they also served the health needs of the riders is both obvious and irrelevant.

Obfuscation? Not at all. Benotti was arguing that doctors on teams were unnecessary as local GPS could be consulted during races. You then stepped in with your remark.

So if you were talking about doctors doping riders why didn't you say so, given the previous few posts? I think the area of difficulty lies with a lack of clarity in your post in the context of the thread in its recent form, rather than on difficulties in comprehension on my part.

So, doctors have been used to dope riders...wow, thanks for the revelation...but 'medicalisation' doesn't solely revolve around doping. 'Medicalisation' is just one facet of the professionalisation of cycling in recent decades. It is not necessarily a bad thing, regardless of your attempt to portray it as such.

Would Tom Simpson have died if he'd had a team doctor on hand? An interesting question.

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

Again, some understanding of the reality of such strikes and the Tour would benefit you here. Look at, say, the strike in the 2007 Tour. None of what you suggested happens when these protests are staged. None.

What, so 10 minutes of waiting, everyone looking around awkwardly and then the race goes on as before anyway, is that the idea? What the *** does a "strike" like that accomplish?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Again, some understanding of the reality of such strikes and the Tour would benefit you here. Look at, say, the strike in the 2007 Tour. None of what you suggested happens when these protests are staged. None.

What, so 10 minutes of waiting, everyone looking around awkwardly and then the race goes on as before anyway, is that the idea? What the **** does a "strike" like that accomplish?

You're in no position to complain about empty gestures, not given your suggestion that ASO should withdraw from the World Tour over this...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Again, some understanding of the reality of such strikes and the Tour would benefit you here. Look at, say, the strike in the 2007 Tour. None of what you suggested happens when these protests are staged. None.

What, so 10 minutes of waiting, everyone looking around awkwardly and then the race goes on as before anyway, is that the idea? What the **** does a "strike" like that accomplish?

Riders should strike in the TTT, that would show Sky!

 

[mrhender]

Pretty much think Froome is happy with developments so far.
They managed to muddy the waters so much, that many casual fans have just grown tired and don't want to hear anymore about it.

Legally they have made a straight case into the moon landing so that can drag on until Froome reaches Horner maturity.

In 3-10 years everyone will look back in this farce and see it for what it was. Money wins!

 

[macbindle]

It doesn't matter what the fans think. Whatever decision is reached is open to legal challenge.

Yes, Team Sky have large resources, but correct me if I'm wrong, I seem to remember when this first blew up some talk about Froome having to fund his own defence, linked in with Froome's lack of support for SDB when the whole Jiffybag thing was going on.

 

[mrhender]

I was expecting that kind of response.

Ask yourself, how much did it matter to Contador to keep to the steak story?

 

[mrhender]

As for your edit. Sure that was speculated at the time. Probably we wont know who ends up paying before the case is over. (See, I can play safe too)

 

[macbindle]

You've misunderstood, I'm commenting on whether the attitude of fans matters to the outcome of the case. It doesnt. With regards to your point, if Froome gets a ban I'd say he's toast. The attitude of fans will be irrelevant.