Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[mrhender]

I made no such claim. So not at all did I misunderstood. Maybe you did?

 

[macbindle]

Wtf are you talking about?? I haven't said you've claimed anything.

 

[mrhender]

Since this case broke, Froome was playing right into the brit nationality feeling with his #asthmauk tweet. If you think bans is all that matters you have a narrow angle imo. Public perception and legacy is determing the future for the protagonist.
I can mention several examples but you should know them already.

 

[mrhender]

What was that post supposed to mean then?

You said I misunderstood.
Then said public opinion wasn't going to impact the final outcome.
That is pretty much implying that what I said was exactly that.

Edit: double wording

 

[macbindle]

Re:

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.

Read the bolded.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Since this case broke, Froome was playing right into the brit nationality feeling with his #asthmauk tweet. If you think bans is all that matters you have a narrow angle imo. Public perception and legacy is determing the future for the protagonist.
I can mention several examples but you should know them already.

I sense the longer it goes the more the fanbase believe Froome has been the victim of injustice. Initially there was genuine shock at the positive. Seeing as the rules allow him to ride on it adds to the sense that some how he is innocent. If he was provisionally suspended then he’d be going the way of most dopers. Time will tell how history will judge him but if manages a short of season ban then it will be forgotten under the Simon Yates provision.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Riders have always paid close attention to detail. Ask Sean Kelly. Ask Coppi.

We seem to have gone from doctors to witch-doctors. Coppi had a blind soigneur. Kelly had Willy Voet. These people lived by a mix of hand-me-down old wives' tales and trial and error. (Sometimes the trial was very erroneous, just ask Kelly about Voet and synacthen.) Doctors helped to kick out a lot of that.

Did it take the medicalisation of the sport to bring in EPO? Anecdotal evidence suggests many experimented with EPO without medical advice. So I think we can say that no, the medicalisation of sport did not cause Gen EPO. Aided it, yes. Caused it, no.

That's a specious argument. First, you need to back your claim that riders were experimenting with Eli without medical assistance at the time it was introduced to the cycling world. Then you need to show that this experimenting didn't happen as a result of wider medicalisation. I don't know if the era of doctors caused or was caused by EPO. Or merely a coincidence.

John Swanson

Maybe you could lead by example in future SIC and back up all your claims with a fully footnoted argument.

As for not knowing if the era of doctors was caused by EPO. The era of doctors began in the 1950s. Look at Italian teams of the 1960s in particular. If you don't know it's not because it's not knowable, it's because you choose not to know.

Weak. Super weak. You make the claims, you get to defend them. Nice deflection. Too bad it was horrible.

John Swanson

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

C'mon guys, WTF is going on? Some weeks ago you were able to produce a few hundreds posts per day?

 

[thehog]

Re:

C'mon guys, WTF is going on? Some weeks ago you were able to produce a few hundreds posts per day?

Dude, you do know there’s a World Cup going on, yes?

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

Re: Re:

C'mon guys, WTF is going on? Some weeks ago you were able to produce a few hundreds posts per day?

Dude, you do know there’s a World Cup going on, yes?

Yes, but you know, Polish team was most disguisting..

 

[pastronef]

Re:

C'mon guys, WTF is going on? Some weeks ago you were able to produce a few hundreds posts per day?

dont worry, let´s wait for the team presentation and the medical checks of the week before the Tour start

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

C'mon guys, WTF is going on? Some weeks ago you were able to produce a few hundreds posts per day?

Dude, you do know there’s a World Cup going on, yes?

Yes, but you know, Polish team was most disguisting..

Well you did have a team there.

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

Re: Re:

C'mon guys, WTF is going on? Some weeks ago you were able to produce a few hundreds posts per day?

Dude, you do know there’s a World Cup going on, yes?

Yes, but you know, Polish team was most disguisting..

Well you did have a team there.

BTW, what is going on with United States of America team??

 

[Huapango]

Re: Re:

BTW, what is going on with United States of America team??

The Americans are still trying to learn how to play football with their feet instead of with their hands. Besides, every year the Americans have a world champion "football" team, whereas the rest of the world has to wait every four years.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

C'mon guys, WTF is going on? Some weeks ago you were able to produce a few hundreds posts per day?

Dude, you do know there’s a World Cup going on, yes?

Yes, but you know, Polish team was most disguisting..

Well you did have a team there.

BTW, what is going on with United States of America team??

We aren't very good at futbol/soccer and unlike the rest of the planet it's not one of the most popular sports over here. Our top athletes have lots of options on what sport they want to pursue.

 

[Merckx index]

This interview is almost a month old, but I hadn't heard about it before. Froome discusses plastics, then later talks about his riding. After noting that 16 puffs are allowed in a day, he says “I didn’t take anywhere near 16 inhalations.” Wish the interviewer had been savvy enough to point out that only eight are allowed in a 12 hour period, then asked him if he took that many. Still, the implication is that he wasn’t close to the limit. He also said that “all the facts haven’t been established yet”, which seems a strange thing to say after all this time. The interviewer said that according to UCI, there was a 50% chance the case would be settled before the Tour. But that was right after the Giro.

https://news.sky.com/video/chris-froome-full-interview-11391568

 

[Robert5091]

This interview is almost a month old, but I hadn't heard about it before. Froome discusses plastics, then later talks about his riding. After noting that 16 puffs are allowed in a day, he says “I didn’t take anywhere near 16 inhalations.” Wish the interviewer had been savvy enough to point out that only eight are allowed in a 12 hour period, then asked him if he took that many. Still, the implication is that he wasn’t close to the limit. He also said that “all the facts haven’t been established yet”, which seems a strange thing to say after all this time. The interviewer said that according to UCI, there was a 50% chance the case would be settled before the Tour. But that was right after the Giro.

https://news.sky.com/video/chris-froome-full-interview-11391568

“all the facts haven’t been established yet” - means the lawyers are questioning everything from sample colllection to methodology to the parentage of the man who made the plastic cup Froome peed into etc etc.

 

[samhocking]

This interview is almost a month old, but I hadn't heard about it before. Froome discusses plastics, then later talks about his riding. After noting that 16 puffs are allowed in a day, he says “I didn’t take anywhere near 16 inhalations.” Wish the interviewer had been savvy enough to point out that only eight are allowed in a 12 hour period, then asked him if he took that many. Still, the implication is that he wasn’t close to the limit. He also said that “all the facts haven’t been established yet”, which seems a strange thing to say after all this time. The interviewer said that according to UCI, there was a 50% chance the case would be settled before the Tour. But that was right after the Giro.

https://news.sky.com/video/chris-froome-full-interview-11391568

Everything in the media you've really got to take with a huge pinch of salt these days. The only statements I would actually take note of would be Brailsford, Froome and Lappartients. Latest interview with Brailsford was also very telling. Clearly there are aspects of the case, nobody knows anything about yet, especially the media.

 

[rick james]

This interview is almost a month old, but I hadn't heard about it before. Froome discusses plastics, then later talks about his riding. After noting that 16 puffs are allowed in a day, he says “I didn’t take anywhere near 16 inhalations.” Wish the interviewer had been savvy enough to point out that only eight are allowed in a 12 hour period, then asked him if he took that many. Still, the implication is that he wasn’t close to the limit. He also said that “all the facts haven’t been established yet”, which seems a strange thing to say after all this time. The interviewer said that according to UCI, there was a 50% chance the case would be settled before the Tour. But that was right after the Giro.

https://news.sky.com/video/chris-froome-full-interview-11391568

Wow....this case really is keeping you awake at night

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Wow....this case really is keeping you awake night

Early bird catches the worm.
Watch out.

 

[wirral]

This interview is almost a month old, but I hadn't heard about it before. Froome discusses plastics, then later talks about his riding. After noting that 16 puffs are allowed in a day, he says “I didn’t take anywhere near 16 inhalations.” Wish the interviewer had been savvy enough to point out that only eight are allowed in a 12 hour period, then asked him if he took that many. Still, the implication is that he wasn’t close to the limit. He also said that “all the facts haven’t been established yet”, which seems a strange thing to say after all this time. The interviewer said that according to UCI, there was a 50% chance the case would be settled before the Tour. But that was right after the Giro.

https://news.sky.com/video/chris-froome-full-interview-11391568

“all the facts haven’t been established yet” - means the lawyers are questioning everything from sample colllection to methodology to the parentage of the man who made the plastic cup Froome peed into etc etc.

This

 

[JosephK]

This interview is almost a month old, but I hadn't heard about it before. Froome discusses plastics, then later talks about his riding. After noting that 16 puffs are allowed in a day, he says “I didn’t take anywhere near 16 inhalations.” Wish the interviewer had been savvy enough to point out that only eight are allowed in a 12 hour period, then asked him if he took that many. Still, the implication is that he wasn’t close to the limit. He also said that “all the facts haven’t been established yet”, which seems a strange thing to say after all this time. The interviewer said that according to UCI, there was a 50% chance the case would be settled before the Tour. But that was right after the Giro.

https://news.sky.com/video/chris-froome-full-interview-11391568

“all the facts haven’t been established yet” - means the lawyers are questioning everything from sample colllection to methodology to the parentage of the man who made the plastic cup Froome peed into etc etc.

This

Sport proceedings should be simpler than this -- not a court of law. Why can't UCI say, "You have an AAF. You have X number of days to explain the finding. If you fail to explain the result within this time, the finding becomes an official doping positive, and here is your penalty." ?

 

[samhocking]

This interview is almost a month old, but I hadn't heard about it before. Froome discusses plastics, then later talks about his riding. After noting that 16 puffs are allowed in a day, he says “I didn’t take anywhere near 16 inhalations.” Wish the interviewer had been savvy enough to point out that only eight are allowed in a 12 hour period, then asked him if he took that many. Still, the implication is that he wasn’t close to the limit. He also said that “all the facts haven’t been established yet”, which seems a strange thing to say after all this time. The interviewer said that according to UCI, there was a 50% chance the case would be settled before the Tour. But that was right after the Giro.

https://news.sky.com/video/chris-froome-full-interview-11391568

“all the facts haven’t been established yet” - means the lawyers are questioning everything from sample colllection to methodology to the parentage of the man who made the plastic cup Froome peed into etc etc.

This

Sport proceedings should be simpler than this -- not a court of law. Why can't UCI say, "You have an AAF. You have X number of days to explain the finding. If you fail to explain the result within this time, the finding becomes an official doping positive, and here is your penalty." ?

They do effectively do this once the case amounts to the potential ADRV. Under WADA rules the AAF isn't really the ADRV for Salbutomol unlike say traditional PEDS where AAF always equals the potential ADRV legally.
End of the day UCI have to be confident legally that Froome inhaled more than the specified amount to protect themselves financially. Delays are just as likely to be from LADS referring to Lévy-Kaufmann-Kohler as from Froome referring to Morgan Sports Law.

 

[MartinGT]

This interview is almost a month old, but I hadn't heard about it before. Froome discusses plastics, then later talks about his riding. After noting that 16 puffs are allowed in a day, he says “I didn’t take anywhere near 16 inhalations.” Wish the interviewer had been savvy enough to point out that only eight are allowed in a 12 hour period, then asked him if he took that many. Still, the implication is that he wasn’t close to the limit. He also said that “all the facts haven’t been established yet”, which seems a strange thing to say after all this time. The interviewer said that according to UCI, there was a 50% chance the case would be settled before the Tour. But that was right after the Giro.

https://news.sky.com/video/chris-froome-full-interview-11391568

“all the facts haven’t been established yet” - means the lawyers are questioning everything from sample colllection to methodology to the parentage of the man who made the plastic cup Froome peed into etc etc.

This

Sport proceedings should be simpler than this -- not a court of law. Why can't UCI say, "You have an AAF. You have X number of days to explain the finding. If you fail to explain the result within this time, the finding becomes an official doping positive, and here is your penalty." ?

Because the human body isnt that simple. Has much as we dislike him, he is allowed a fair hearing. Let's be honest. We don't really know what is going on the background. We can guess and make assumptions.

The whole dragging on process is making a farce of the sport, but the Dawg and Sky aren't bothered about the history of cycling.

 

[Blanco]

This interview is almost a month old, but I hadn't heard about it before. Froome discusses plastics, then later talks about his riding. After noting that 16 puffs are allowed in a day, he says “I didn’t take anywhere near 16 inhalations.” Wish the interviewer had been savvy enough to point out that only eight are allowed in a 12 hour period, then asked him if he took that many. Still, the implication is that he wasn’t close to the limit. He also said that “all the facts haven’t been established yet”, which seems a strange thing to say after all this time. The interviewer said that according to UCI, there was a 50% chance the case would be settled before the Tour. But that was right after the Giro.

https://news.sky.com/video/chris-froome-full-interview-11391568

“all the facts haven’t been established yet” - means the lawyers are questioning everything from sample colllection to methodology to the parentage of the man who made the plastic cup Froome peed into etc etc.

This

Sport proceedings should be simpler than this -- not a court of law. Why can't UCI say, "You have an AAF. You have X number of days to explain the finding. If you fail to explain the result within this time, the finding becomes an official doping positive, and here is your penalty." ?

They do effectively do this once the case amounts to the potential ADRV. Under WADA rules the AAF isn't really the ADRV for Salbutomol unlike say traditional PEDS where AAF always equals the potential ADRV legally.
End of the day UCI have to be confident legally that Froome inhaled more than the specified amount to protect themselves financially. Delays are just as likely to be from LADS referring to Lévy-Kaufmann-Kohler as from Froome referring to Morgan Sports Law.

No they don't! It doesn't matter if it is an ADRV or AAF, their cases drags for a long time anyway. Look at Contador's case, or more recently Samu Sanchez, he was caught before Froome and his case is not resolved yet. It's a pattern for UCI, to drag cases like that. They are afraid to loose cases later and pay penalties, it seems..., that's why all this dragging. They need to be sure 100%.