Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[brownbobby]

Exactly. MI posted the other day a list of recent doping cases and the time they had taken to resolve. Froome's case is not yet even close to reaching the average time taken. Far from Froome and his team dragging it out, it seems that all that's happening is the high profile nature of the case and the rider involved is shining a spotlight on just how long these things do and always have always taken to resolve.

Of course it creates great clickbait headlines to keep writing stories about how the case is being dragged out, with the often wilful inference that this is down to Froome's expensive legal team playing for time. Most of the stories fail to mention the fact that this is par for the course; In the interests of balance perhaps they should, but i wont hold my breath....

 

[gillan1969]

@ sam

"End of the day UCI have to be confident legally that Froome inhaled more than the specified amount to protect themselves financially."

that''s just plain wrong....Froome needs to do that (of course for him 'less than').....the UCI have the scientific evidence that, if it was inhalation, then he inhaled spectacularly more than allowed..

of course the Froome/Sky approach has been to move the subject away from how you would be more likely to ingest the levels he recorded...which of course are banned...funny that.....its all about the puffs

 

[macbindle]

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.

Yeah. Doping started with Froome and Team Sky

We just imagined the whole EPO era, Festina, Rasmussen, Schleck, The 'Cobra', Pantani's positive, feck it ALL the positives, Contador's steak, Hamilton's Chimeric twin, The Fairness for Floyd fund, seven years of TdF annuled, Basso's attempted doping, in fact pretty much anybody who podiumed in a GT in the first decade of this century subsequently mired in scandal.

Cycling was in a really good place until Team Sky appeared and ruined it.

 

[gillan1969]

^^

if in doubt, the armstrong defence

 

[MartinGT]

You know I didn't mean it like that.

 

[samhocking]

@ sam

"End of the day UCI have to be confident legally that Froome inhaled more than the specified amount to protect themselves financially."

that''s just plain wrong....Froome needs to do that (of course for him 'less than').....the UCI have the scientific evidence that, if it was inhalation, then he inhaled spectacularly more than allowed..

of course the Froome/Sky approach has been to move the subject away from how you would be more likely to ingest the levels he recorded...which of course are banned...funny that.....its all about the puffs

The only escape is to prove you didn't inhale more than the specified amount. That's not moving the subject, that is the subject and only the subject because that is the factor that decides if the AAF is legal or not according to the rules.

 

[macbindle]

^^

if in doubt, the armstrong defence

Sorry, when was this hallowed clean era of the sport that Team Sky have made a mockery of ?

September 2010 to august 2011?

Seems to me that Team Sky fit right into the world of cycling just perfectly.

 

[brownbobby]

^^

if in doubt, the armstrong defence

Sorry, when was this hallowed clean era of the sport that Team Sky have made a mockery of ?

September 2010 to august 2011?

Seems to me that Team Sky fit right into the world of cycling just perfectly.

But they promised us all that this time it was going to be different.... they were going to be different

 

[dacooley]

and they got different. in 2011 referring to wiggins brailsford claimed that in modern cycling it was pretty much in possible to put in repeated attacks uphill and win mtfs by minutes. what was impossible for wiggins appears to be normal for froome.

 

[macbindle]

^^

if in doubt, the armstrong defence

Sorry, when was this hallowed clean era of the sport that Team Sky have made a mockery of ?

September 2010 to august 2011?

Seems to me that Team Sky fit right into the world of cycling just perfectly.

But they promised us all that this time it was going to be different.... they were going to be different

No cyclist or team in the entire history of the sport has ever said they are going to be anything other than clean.

Despite the revisionist BS history some people spout on here.

So Sky promised to be clean. They lie, just as easily as those who have gone before them.

Big deal. So what.If you are offended by Sky lying to you it might be an idea to have a think about whether your naievity is real or false.

 

[brownbobby]

^^

if in doubt, the armstrong defence

Sorry, when was this hallowed clean era of the sport that Team Sky have made a mockery of ?

September 2010 to august 2011?

Seems to me that Team Sky fit right into the world of cycling just perfectly.

But they promised us all that this time it was going to be different.... they were going to be different

No cyclist or team in the entire history of the sport has ever said they are going to be anything other than clean.

Despite the revisionist BS history some people spout on here.

So Sky promised to be clean. They lie, just as easily as those who have gone before them.

Big deal. So what.If you are offended by Sky lying to you it might be an idea to have a think about whether your naievity is real or false.

You obviously haven't read many of my previous posts (its ok, im not offended ) if you think my comment was anything other than with tongue firmly in cheek

Thanks for the patronising advice though, i'll have a good long think about it as you suggest...

 

[macbindle]

No I realised you were being tongue in cheek. My post wasn't aimed at you.

https://youtu.be/YPIsTKpAoE4

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

No I realised you were being tongue in cheek. My post wasn't aimed at you.

Phew. So you do read my posts? :lol:

 

[rick james]

^^

if in doubt, the armstrong defence

Sorry, when was this hallowed clean era of the sport that Team Sky have made a mockery of ?

September 2010 to august 2011?

Seems to me that Team Sky fit right into the world of cycling just perfectly.

But they promised us all that this time it was going to be different.... they were going to be different

the are.....its f*cking asthma treatment, not EPO and blood bags

 

[gillan1969]

^^

if in doubt, the armstrong defence

Sorry, when was this hallowed clean era of the sport that Team Sky have made a mockery of ?

September 2010 to august 2011?

Seems to me that Team Sky fit right into the world of cycling just perfectly.

But they promised us all that this time it was going to be different.... they were going to be different

the are.....its f*cking asthma treatment, not EPO and blood bags

its not asthma treatment we're talking about...bl**dy hell...surely we are past that

For whatever reason and for whatever program...Froome had access to salbutamol in the quantities that are far more than can be inhaled......if he purposefully took it that day it wasn't for asthma (or at least not the margin that pushed him to 2000) and if he didn't he has it 'lying around' which would suggest he was taking it for something....as it's associated with weight loss and he's.....er.....emaciated...I think we can put two and two together...

In terms of the bigger picture, its like capone going down for tax evasion...who cares...watching the fraud go down for whatever will be fun.....

 

[gillan1969]

@ sam

"End of the day UCI have to be confident legally that Froome inhaled more than the specified amount to protect themselves financially."

that''s just plain wrong....Froome needs to do that (of course for him 'less than').....the UCI have the scientific evidence that, if it was inhalation, then he inhaled spectacularly more than allowed..

of course the Froome/Sky approach has been to move the subject away from how you would be more likely to ingest the levels he recorded...which of course are banned...funny that.....its all about the puffs

The only escape is to prove you didn't inhale more than the specified amount. That's not moving the subject, that is the subject and only the subject because that is the factor that decides if the AAF is legal or not according to the rules.

again...that is totally incorrect...you cannot prove that unless you have a camera that has been on you for 24 hours a day...and that is not what's asked...what's asked is you perform a test to replicate what you did do that day. Froome has to show that, after taking the legal number of puffs, his body could produce a reading of 2000. - that's the only escape...

well that and some dodgy kidneys

 

[macbindle]

Whoppee doo. He lost some weight with asthma medication. Big deal.

 

[gillan1969]

^^

if in doubt, the armstrong defence

Sorry, when was this hallowed clean era of the sport that Team Sky have made a mockery of ?

September 2010 to august 2011?

Seems to me that Team Sky fit right into the world of cycling just perfectly.

who said they were making a mockery of cycling? they are making a mockery of anyone that thinks they are clean...and of course Froome offends many a sensibility every time he turns a pedal

 

[rick james]

Re:

Whopper too. He lost some weight with asthma medication. Big deal.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Whopper too. He lost some weight with asthma medication. Big deal.

again...there are some 'clever' academics no less talking about asthma...if you enjoy the dynamics of human behaviour then they (Sky) and Froome's positive are very interesting and certainly worthy of comment...that people still consider this to be only about asthma is one such point of interest...so perhaps not big deal...but deal

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Whopper too. He lost some weight with asthma medication. Big deal.

why even inhabit the clinic if its simply a 'big deal' to any doping violation...what's to talk about?

 

[macbindle]

^^

if in doubt, the armstrong defence

Sorry, when was this hallowed clean era of the sport that Team Sky have made a mockery of ?

September 2010 to august 2011?

Seems to me that Team Sky fit right into the world of cycling just perfectly.

who said they were making a mockery of cycling? they are making a mockery of anyone that thinks they are clean...and of course Froome offends many a sensibility every time he turns a pedal

MartinGT

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

Whopper too. He lost some weight with asthma medication. Big deal.

why even inhabit the clinic if its simply a 'big deal' to any doping violation...what's to talk about?

Strawman

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Whopper too. He lost some weight with asthma medication. Big deal.

why even inhabit the clinic if its simply a 'big deal' to any doping violation...what's to talk about?

Strawman

using salbutamol to effect weight loss is associated with using it in doses and methods which are banned

you say "big deal"

I've presumed you apply that laissez-faire attitude to doping equally

you appear to be saying that is not the case? some doping is more equal than others?

 

[macbindle]

Yep. Don't you?