Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

And to all those saying this should have been confidential, bla blah, yeah, just imagine how many times he may have escaped in the same way and we know nothing about it. Good that it's been leaked. Now we all know for sure that he's a fraud.
God I'm so salty :lol:

I can imagine that is the very reason it was leaked. Someone saw how often he was skating by, with cycling fans being completely unaware, and decided to at least let it be known that all is not as pure and pristine as it appears.

And its been proved he's innocent...a great day for clean cycling

Nothing has been proved.

The case will not proceed. That is all we are told.

Froome has not proved he is a clean cyclist.

The case was dropped because he didn't have a case to answer. If that isn't proving yourself 'clean' in this context I don't know what is.

...and it took them that long to come to that conclusion? Doesn't that sound a bit odd to you?

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

And of course Sky, without having any knowledge of the 1500 page legal report back in November, in their infinite purity allowed Froome to race sub iudice. That's because they knew they had the money and clout to beat the system and exonerate their man. Surely a win for clean cycling.

One thing they and Froome could have known for certain back in November is his complete innocence.

Knowledge of that simple fact would be enough to inspire them to invest so heavily in providing the necessary proof, and continuing to race whilst doing soo. No?

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

And of course Sky, without having any knowledge of the 1500 page legal report back in November, in their infinite purity allowed Froome to race sub iudice. That's because they knew they had the money and clout to beat the system and exonerate their man. Surely a win for clean cycling.

One thing they and Froome could have known for certain back in November is his complete innocence.

Knowledge of that simple fact would be enough to inspire them to invest so heavily in providing the necessary proof. No?

Blessed are the simple. Blessed are the rich and powerful.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

And of course Sky, without having any knowledge of the 1500 page legal report back in November, in their infinite purity allowed Froome to race sub iudice. That's because they knew they had the money and clout to beat the system and exonerate their man. Surely a win for clean cycling.

One thing they and Froome could have known for certain back in November is his complete innocence.

Knowledge of that simple fact would be enough to inspire them to invest so heavily in providing the necessary proof. No?

Blessed are the simple. Blessed are the rich and powerful.

I agree on the rich and powerful bit....sometimes it does take power and influence to stay in the game long enough to get to the truth. But the truth is still the truth.

Life just aint fair sometimes, we're not all given equal opportunity to defend ourselves.

 

[armchairclimber]

Well this has been entertaining. The clinic gloating at the time of the leak seemed hypocritical and hubris-tic to me (especially those Contador and Valverde fans). I thought at the time that the gun was being jumped. I don't believe for a second that Froome is clean ... but then I doubt many at the top of the sport are... and I don't care any more. I dislike Froome (and Brailsford even more), but as this dragged on I saw so much posted that was indicative of hate for Froome rather than a hate for doping that I actually felt glad today. So he has had no AAF (because there can be no consistent direct correlation between salbutamol in urine and salbutamol inhaled). What's amazing is that it has taken this long to chuck the case out. Farcical.

 

[mrhender]

The truth being what?

You actually think this brings clarity?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

And of course Sky, without having any knowledge of the 1500 page legal report back in November, in their infinite purity allowed Froome to race sub iudice. That's because they knew they had the money and clout to beat the system and exonerate their man. Surely a win for clean cycling.

One thing they and Froome could have known for certain back in November is his complete innocence.

Knowledge of that simple fact would be enough to inspire them to invest so heavily in providing the necessary proof. No?

Blessed are the simple. Blessed are the rich and powerful.

I agree on the rich and powerful bit....sometimes it does take power and influence to stay in the game long enough to get to the truth. But the truth is still the truth.

Life just aint fair sometimes, we're not all given equal opportunity to defend ourselves.

Or maybe he is just a straight forward simple cheat like all those before him. Simple.

 

[mrhender]

Re:

Well this has been entertaining. The clinic gloating at the time of the leak seemed hypocritical and hubris-tic to me (especially those Contador and Valverde fans). I thought at the time that the gun was being jumped. I don't believe for a second that Froome is clean ... but then I doubt many at the top of the sport are... and I don't care any more. I dislike Froome (and Brailsford even more), but as this dragged on I saw so much posted that was indicative of hate for Froome rather than a hate for doping that I actually felt glad today. So he has had no AAF (because there can be no consistent direct correlation between salbutamol in urine and salbutamol inhaled). What's amazing is that it has taken this long to chuck the case out. Farcical.

Sure some emotional stuff. But wouldnt it be a boring forum if everyone just said: sit back and await official decision. It is a doping forum afterall?

 

[Koronin]

The UCI has no proven that it's anti doping is a 100% farce. They may as well just stop doping tests because they just proved it's useless. Also they have proved that the peloton today is just as dirty if not dirtier than it was when Lance was racing. That is the only this proves.
Reinstate Lance, and give all riders who have ever lost results their results back and give them all an apology. As of NOW Lance is again a 7 time Tour winner and Contador IS a 9 time GT winner.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

It's hard to accept that the UCI would accept a bribe,seeing they leaked Froome's test results , while the final result has caused them embarrassment.

Any source for that or just guessing ?

Who else would have access to Froome's test results

- Froome
- Team Sky
- Closest confidants
- British Cycling

Give me a reason why any of these groups would leak the results.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It's hard to accept that the UCI would accept a bribe,seeing they leaked Froome's test results , while the final result has caused them embarrassment.

Any source for that or just guessing ?

Who else would have access to Froome's test results

- Froome
- Team Sky
- Closest confidants
- British Cycling

Give me a reason why any of these groups would leak the results.

Cookson, the guy who lost the election.

 

[dacooley]

Re:

Well this has been entertaining. The clinic gloating at the time of the leak seemed hypocritical and hubris-tic to me (especially those Contador and Valverde fans). I thought at the time that the gun was being jumped. I don't believe for a second that Froome is clean ... but then I doubt many at the top of the sport are... and I don't care any more. I dislike Froome (and Brailsford even more), but as this dragged on I saw so much posted that was indicative of hate for Froome rather than a hate for doping that I actually felt glad today. So he has had no AAF (because there can be no consistent direct correlation between salbutamol in urine and salbutamol inhaled). What's amazing is that it has taken this long to chuck the case out. Farcical.

You should be well-aware about far-famed narrative. There are god gifted natural talents whose doping can be tolerated, while others - armstrongs and froomes - just go and steal what should belong to 1st category of riders.

 

[yaco]

Re:

This calls for an independent investigation into corruption at the UCI and WADA. The "scientific" explanation sounds like rubbish to me. He didn't even have to take a lab test. Basically they just decided to protect him. The UCI never minded about Sky doping, only about the leak. This is class justice. Forget those arguments about other sports. Only in cycling this level of corruption exists. Even bodybuilding is cleaner. Another giant triumph for the doping mafia. As soon as the UCI started postponing the case it was obvious they were going to protect him. The UCI has sunk lower now than in 2009 when they allowed Armstrong back in the Tour. Never before have they been so openly protecting a doping user.

So the UCI and WADA protected Froome by publically leaking his test results - I always wondered about the intelligence of the UCI and WADA.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

It's hard to accept that the UCI would accept a bribe,seeing they leaked Froome's test results , while the final result has caused them embarrassment.

Any source for that or just guessing ?

Who else would have access to Froome's test results

- Froome
- Team Sky
- Closest confidants
- British Cycling

Give me a reason why any of these groups would leak the results.

Cookson, the guy who lost the election.

I've read for years that Cookson is a close friend of Team Sky.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

And of course Sky, without having any knowledge of the 1500 page legal report back in November, in their infinite purity allowed Froome to race sub iudice. That's because they knew they had the money and clout to beat the system and exonerate their man. Surely a win for clean cycling.

One thing they and Froome could have known for certain back in November is his complete innocence.

Knowledge of that simple fact would be enough to inspire them to invest so heavily in providing the necessary proof. No?

Blessed are the simple. Blessed are the rich and powerful.

I agree on the rich and powerful bit....sometimes it does take power and influence to stay in the game long enough to get to the truth. But the truth is still the truth.

Life just aint fair sometimes, we're not all given equal opportunity to defend ourselves.

Or maybe he is just a straight forward simple cheat like all those before him. Simple.

Maybe he is....I'd even go as far as to say probably he is.

But as I said earlier, it just seemed completely illogical to me all along that he would take a high dose of salbutamol at the time he allegedly did, so I don't find it impossible to accept this decision.

Just because your a cheat, doesn't mean your necessarily guilty of every accusation thrown at you. Even cheats occasionally tell the truth

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

One thing they and Froome could have known for certain back in November is his complete innocence.

Knowledge of that simple fact would be enough to inspire them to invest so heavily in providing the necessary proof, and continuing to race whilst doing soo. No?

Froome has been insisting for months that he is innocent, and that when the facts of the case came out, everyone would understand. He claimed this:

Before (long before) the Heuberger paper that apparently is the key to his defense was published

After UCI proposed a sanction

After numerous salbutamol authorities expressed skepticism that Froome had not exceeded the allowed dose

After Rabin, commenting on the Heuberger paper, expressed confidence that it wouldn't exonerate Froome.

From this I conclude that either:

1) Froome was expressing false bravado, to keep up his spirits; or
2) Not only did Froome's team have information relevant to the case that UCI did not, but they withheld it until after a ban was proposed and the case moved to the Tribunal; or
3) Froome was assured by someone that his case would be taken care of in his favor

Because I resist the notion that UCI can be that blatantly corrupt, I tend to favor 1) slightly over 3). But it's really close, and there is no way I would take 2) before 3).

 

[mrhender]

MI once speculated the leak came from camp froome/Sky.

Looking back at developments it would have been a bold, but maybe crucially important move. Can be argued It was the publicity that made possible the enormous pressure to come to a decision before letour. Granted it is speculation, but acting like the leak only hurt Froomw camp is a narrow pov.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

I can imagine that is the very reason it was leaked. Someone saw how often he was skating by, with cycling fans being completely unaware, and decided to at least let it be known that all is not as pure and pristine as it appears.

And its been proved he's innocent...a great day for clean cycling

Nothing has been proved.

The case will not proceed. That is all we are told.

Froome has not proved he is a clean cyclist.

The case was dropped because he didn't have a case to answer. If that isn't proving yourself 'clean' in this context I don't know what is.

...and it took them that long to come to that conclusion? Doesn't that sound a bit odd to you?

Apparently a 1500 page document was submitted. If UCI/WADA had to go through that I can see it taking months. If you look at other similar cases (Ulissi and Petacchi) the length of time it took to come to decision is not dissimilar if my memory is correct.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Anyways, congrats Froome and Sky! Miracles do happen..

Btw think Reedie has been an absolute disaster. He is just the face though i guess.

Have to agree. WADA inserted themselves into this situation to save the day for Froome. The UCI had no chance.

"In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome."

 

[hazaran]

Re: Re:

...
1) Froome was expressing false bravado, to keep up his spirits; or
2) Not only did Froome's team have information relevant to the case that UCI did not, but they withheld it until after a ban was proposed and the case moved to the Tribunal; or
3) Froome was assured by someone that his case would be taken care of in his favor

Because I resist the notion that UCI can be that blatantly corrupt, I tend to favor 1) slightly over 3). But it's really close, and there is no way I would take 2) before 3).

It's all these fantasies or you know option 4), the Dawg knows he has done nothing wrong but is also a full-time athlete that would rather pay a lawyer thousands than spend his free time stressing over scientific papers and sports law.

Really, this is how it works. If you're Froome or the VW boss commentating on emissions fraud, you give plain statements, you delegate it all and you never look at the subject matter or comment on it because that can only serve to come back on you.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

One thing they and Froome could have known for certain back in November is his complete innocence.

Knowledge of that simple fact would be enough to inspire them to invest so heavily in providing the necessary proof, and continuing to race whilst doing soo. No?

Froome has been insisting for months that he is innocent, and that when the facts of the case came out, everyone would understand. He claimed this:

Before (long before) the Heuberger paper that apparently is the key to his defense was published

After UCI proposed a sanction

After numerous salbutamol authorities expressed skepticism that Froome had not exceeded the allowed dose

After Rabin, commenting on the Heuberger paper, expressed confidence that it wouldn't exonerate Froome.

From this I conclude that either:

1) Froome was expressing false bravado, to keep up his spirits; or
2) Not only did Froome's team have information relevant to the case that UCI did not, but they withheld it until after a ban was proposed and the case moved to the Tribunal; or
3) Froome was assured by someone that his case would be taken care of in his favor

Because I resist the notion that UCI can be that blatantly corrupt, I tend to favor 1) slightly over 3). But it's really close, and there is no way I would take 2) before 3).

Genuine question MI......do you really think or have any information that suggests the Heuberger report was key?

If so, that is something I would find very surprising given the flaws in the study previously discussed

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

Re: Re:

It's hard to accept that the UCI would accept a bribe,seeing they leaked Froome's test results , while the final result has caused them embarrassment.

Any source for that or just guessing ?

Who else would have access to Froome's test results

- Froome
- Team Sky
- Closest confidants
- British Cycling

Give me a reason why any of these groups would leak the results.

To show they still have the power despite the loss of Cookson. AAF against Froomey.
No matter he'll still pick up 2million in the Giro, win it and then Sir Craig will totally exonerate him so he can go
90s in the tdf and UCI will be toothless

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

The UCI has no proven that it's anti doping is a 100% farce. They may as well just stop doping tests because they just proved it's useless. Also they have proved that the peloton today is just as dirty if not dirtier than it was when Lance was racing. That is the only this proves.
Reinstate Lance, and give all riders who have ever lost results their results back and give them all an apology. As of NOW Lance is again a 7 time Tour winner and Contador IS a 9 time GT winner.

Well actually, all that has been proved is that their salbutamol regime was useless. No free pass for Lance, Contador or the likes of Valverde on those grounds ... no matter how much you might want there to be.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

It's hard to accept that the UCI would accept a bribe,seeing they leaked Froome's test results , while the final result has caused them embarrassment.

Any source for that or just guessing ?

Who else would have access to Froome's test results

- Froome
- Team Sky
- Closest confidants
- British Cycling

Give me a reason why any of these groups would leak the results.

Cookson, the guy who lost the election.

I’m sure if I search your posts I’ll find a post telling us that Cookson is paid by sky, that’s why his son got a job there and that’s why sky got to do whatever they want

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

The truth being what?

You actually think this brings clarity?

That he is not guilty of any wrongdoing in this specific case.

Who mentioned clarity? The truth is rarely immediately accompanied by clarity