Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1299 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

hoolaparara said:
Well I'm done with cycling, I've just torched all the recording rules in my DVR.

But I think the real victims of this will be the poor conti and pro-conti guys who will get hammered by the UCI for rest of the season to prove their not weak on doping.
Probably, but that will just push the entire farce thing even more. Also think at this point BMC WILL be a casualty as how could any new sponsor even want to touch this sport? Whoever they may be in talks with is likely to say forget it now.
 
May 20, 2017
330
20
2,330
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
wrinklyvet said:
I cannot believe that after all the publicity there are some people who don't accept the verdict in these terms as declared by the UCI and reported on VeloNews - "“The UCI has considered all the relevant evidence in detail (in consultation with its own experts and experts from WADA). On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF.”

If according to the UCI it didn't constitute an AAF armchairclimber is not wrong.
For MANY anti-Froome posters on this thread ... it has NEVER been about doping. That's just a convenient smoke screen by which to vent "hateful sports banter gone bad." Dig politically-incorrect deep enough and you'll find the real reasons for their loathing.


Masquerade with see-thru masks. :rolleyes:
what a bunch of crap; people are anti froome cause they have eyes and know what is going on; we wernt born yesterday unlike sky fanboys; a donkey turned Eddie Merckx with marginal gains :lol: it has always been about doping, always

Kind of funny this was resolved the moment after he was thrown out of tour; no coincidence what so ever
 
Apr 16, 2017
212
3
2,035
OK, just to look at this a different way, presumably there was a doping control that yielded a result with a salbutamol reading that exceeded acceptable parameters? Is anyone disputing this? If not, then what has been announced is that that reading can be produced by a rider who did not violate doping rules, correct? Thus, we have WADA saying there was no violation? Which is all well and good, but couldn't such a reading also be arrived as a consequence of someone exceeding the permissible amount of salbutamol? On what basis was a determination made that for Froome it was a result of one and not the other? I understand that the possibility may have been introduced and accepted, but why was that possibility given more weight in making a decision than the alternative? Did Froome and/or his representation provide any evidence to document his usage of salbutamol on the day of the control in question, or for any other day?

These may be fruitless questions at this point, but I am unclear as to the basis upon which this decision has been reached.
 
Re:

Summoned said:
OK, just to look at this a different way, presumably there was a doping control that yielded a result with a salbutamol reading that exceeded acceptable parameters? Is anyone disputing this? If not, then what has been announced is that that reading can be produced by a rider who did not violate doping rules, correct? Thus, we have WADA saying there was no violation? Which is all well and good, but couldn't such a reading also be arrived as a consequence of someone exceeding the permissible amount of salbutamol? On what basis was a determination made that for Froome it was a result of one and not the other? I understand that the possibility may have been introduced and accepted, but why was that possibility given more weight in making a decision than the alternative? Did Froome and/or his representation provide any evidence to document his usage of salbutamol on the day of the control in question, or for any other day?

These may be fruitless questions at this point, but I am unclear as to the basis upon which this decision has been reached.

To me the answer is nothing more than a nice large payout.
 
LOL, the Spanish speaking fans on their pages are worse than English speaking fans are about this. Although they are also funnier with how they're doing it. Of course I'm also not seeing anyone actually defending Froome there either.
 
Re:

Koronin said:
LOL, the Spanish speaking fans on their pages are worse than English speaking fans are about this. Although they are also funnier with how they're doing it. Of course I'm also not seeing anyone actually defending Froome there either.
Defended from what? He doesn't need defended, he’s been cleared
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Koronin said:
LOL, the Spanish speaking fans on their pages are worse than English speaking fans are about this. Although they are also funnier with how they're doing it. Of course I'm also not seeing anyone actually defending Froome there either.
Defended from what? He doesn't need defended, he’s been cleared
Fans over there are tearing into this decision and there are no fans defending him at all. He's guilty, doesn't matter what WADA or the UCI say and that's the end of it. Difference between there and here is no one will defend him. Here people defend him. You may think he's cleared, but as far as many are concerned he's guilty and will remain guilty no matter what. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Technically he wasn't cleared, the cased was stopped. So he is still guilty, just not punished.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
rick james said:
Koronin said:
LOL, the Spanish speaking fans on their pages are worse than English speaking fans are about this. Although they are also funnier with how they're doing it. Of course I'm also not seeing anyone actually defending Froome there either.
Defended from what? He doesn't need defended, he’s been cleared
Fans over there are tearing into this decision and there are no fans defending him at all. He's guilty, doesn't matter what WADA or the UCI say and that's the end of it. Difference between there and here is no one will defend him. Here people defend him. You may think he's cleared, but as far as many are concerned he's guilty and will remain guilty no matter what. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Technically he wasn't cleared, the cased was stopped. So he is still guilty, just not punished.
One more try, though I know from all your posts both here and under the CN articles that you are unmoved by any logic - "WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF"

In laymen's terms and more simple language that means the sample did not prove an offence (or offense if you like).

In the free world, if someone finds themselves in proceedings in a court or tribunal and the case against them cannot be supported by the evidence and thus collapses, they walk away innocent, not on the basis of "guilty, just not punished."

I am sure you would like that to be so if it happened to you in any way at all.

(edited only for typos)
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
Koronin said:
rick james said:
Koronin said:
LOL, the Spanish speaking fans on their pages are worse than English speaking fans are about this. Although they are also funnier with how they're doing it. Of course I'm also not seeing anyone actually defending Froome there either.
Defended from what? He doesn't need defended, he’s been cleared
Fans over there are tearing into this decision and there are no fans defending him at all. He's guilty, doesn't matter what WADA or the UCI say and that's the end of it. Difference between there and here is no one will defend him. Here people defend him. You may think he's cleared, but as far as many are concerned he's guilty and will remain guilty no matter what. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Technically he wasn't cleared, the cased was stopped. So he is still guilty, just not punished.
One more try, though I know from all your posts both here and under the CN articles that you are unmoved by any logic - "WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF"

In laymen's terms and more simple language that means the sample did not prove an offence (or offense if you like).

In the free world, if someone finds themselves in proceedings in a court or tribunal and the case against them cannot be supported by the evidence and thus collapses, they walk away innocent, not on the basis of "guilty, just not punished."

I am sure you would like that to be so if it happened to you in any way at all.

(edited only for typos)

Except we have precedent that was ignored. Thus Ulissi and Petacchi are owed public apologies along with results back AND monetary compensation for income lost. If that doesn't happen, the sorry, but Froome is still guilty if these two cases are not reversed.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
wrinklyvet said:
Koronin said:
rick james said:
Koronin said:
LOL, the Spanish speaking fans on their pages are worse than English speaking fans are about this. Although they are also funnier with how they're doing it. Of course I'm also not seeing anyone actually defending Froome there either.
Defended from what? He doesn't need defended, he’s been cleared
Fans over there are tearing into this decision and there are no fans defending him at all. He's guilty, doesn't matter what WADA or the UCI say and that's the end of it. Difference between there and here is no one will defend him. Here people defend him. You may think he's cleared, but as far as many are concerned he's guilty and will remain guilty no matter what. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Technically he wasn't cleared, the cased was stopped. So he is still guilty, just not punished.
One more try, though I know from all your posts both here and under the CN articles that you are unmoved by any logic - "WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF"

In laymen's terms and more simple language that means the sample did not prove an offence (or offense if you like).

In the free world, if someone finds themselves in proceedings in a court or tribunal and the case against them cannot be supported by the evidence and thus collapses, they walk away innocent, not on the basis of "guilty, just not punished."

I am sure you would like that to be so if it happened to you in any way at all.

(edited only for typos)

Except we have precedent that was ignored. Thus Ulissi and Petacchi are owed public apologies along with results back AND monetary compensation for income lost. If that doesn't happen, the sorry, but Froome is still guilty if these two cases are not reversed.
I recognise that you are concerned about their cases. You have to grasp that their cases were not binding precedents in the present one whereby Mr Froome was necessarily guilty and his would fall to be decided on its merits. If the present one has any bearing on theirs it is that the Salbutamol regime at WADA was defective and they may indeed, as you are hoping, be able to reopen and have reviewd their own situations. Please just accept that your sense of injustice in those cases does not lead to your conclusion of "guilty, just not punished." For those two other riders it is so much more persuasive that he was found to be not guilty.

(I just edited typos - made note - always look at the preview!)
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
Koronin said:
Koronin said:
rick james said:
Koronin said:
LOL, the Spanish speaking fans on their pages are worse than English speaking fans are about this. Although they are also funnier with how they're doing it. Of course I'm also not seeing anyone actually defending Froome there either.
Defended from what? He doesn't need defended, he’s been cleared
Fans over there are tearing into this decision and there are no fans defending him at all. He's guilty, doesn't matter what WADA or the UCI say and that's the end of it. Difference between there and here is no one will defend him. Here people defend him. You may think he's cleared, but as far as many are concerned he's guilty and will remain guilty no matter what. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Technically he wasn't cleared, the cased was stopped. So he is still guilty, just not punished.
One more try, though I know from all your posts both here and under the CN articles that you are unmoved by any logic - "WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF"

In laymen's terms and more simple language that means the sample did not prove an offence (or offense if you like).

In the free world, if someone finds themselves in proceedings in a court or tribunal and the case against them cannot be supported by the evidence and thus collapses, they walk away innocent, not on the basis of "guilty, just not punished."

I am sure you would like that to be so if it happened to you in any way at all.

(edited only for typos)

Except we have precedent that was ignored. Thus Ulissi and Petacchi are owed public apologies along with results back AND monetary compensation for income lost. If that doesn't happen, the sorry, but Froome is still guilty if these two cases are not reversed.
I recognise that you are concerned about their cases. You have to grasp that their cases were not binding precedents in the present one whereby Mr Froome was necessarily guilty and his would fall to be decided on it merits. If the present one has any bearing on theirs it is that the Salbutamole regime at WADA was defective and they may indeed, as you are hoping, be able to reopen and have reviewd their own situations. Please just accept that your sense of injustice in theose cases does not lead to your conclusion of "guilty, just not punished." For those two other riders it is so much more persuasive that he was found to be not guilty.[/quote]


Until they are given apologies and results back and compensation Froome is guilty. At this point with this decision to me it says anti doping is a farce. Make it all legal and let the riders use whatever the heck they want. The way this entire thing has been handled from the start through now is ridiculous and there is no credibility at all that left for either the UCI or the WADA.
 
Re: Re:

Well I give up Koronin - you see it but you don't accept it - you want an injustice for Mr X until the claimed injustices for Mr A and Mr B are reversed. Can't seem to shift you on that. It's a special kind of thinking that I am sure you will retain for ever.
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
Well I give up Koronin - you see it but you don't accept it - you want an injustice for Mr X until the claimed injustices for Mr A and Mr B are reversed. Can't seem to shift you on that. It's a special kind of thinking that I am sure you will retain for ever.
They should have been given a public apology at the same time. Otherwise there are some major problems with the way this looks and the way it came about. This has all the looks of a double standard.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
wrinklyvet said:
Well I give up Koronin - you see it but you don't accept it - you want an injustice for Mr X until the claimed injustices for Mr A and Mr B are reversed. Can't seem to shift you on that. It's a special kind of thinking that I am sure you will retain for ever.
They should have been given a public apology at the same time. Otherwise there are some major problems with the way this looks and the way it came about. This has all the looks of a double standard.
Perhaps, but do you not now see that if you persist with the view that Froome was guilty rather than accepting that the WADA regime was defective you don't help your other friends at all? All the work done to prove that was so is what led to the result, and if it hadn't your other riders would be able to show no injustice for them at all.

They can now base their grievance on having being punished under a defective regime. By securing his innocence Froome brought that regime down. The injustices you refer to don't have anything to do with Froome's present position and it's not a case of bargaining between the two.

It is really expecting too much that at the same time two matters that were not under consideration should have received attention. It took long enough to get where we are.
 
It makes me sick that the trolls on this website have got what they want. They can now go back from "They're all doing it" to "Our guy is innocent!" The UCI has become a Stalinist organization that says, "You will be protected, you won't." The "scientific" explanation is utter bollocks, corrupt nonsense. WADA has excluded innocent Russians from the Olympics just for being Russian. Now they are openly protecting the biggest cheater of the current decade. The corruption goes all the way to the top.
 
The details of the case are still in mist and might forever be to us as a cycling followers, thus I guess we will never know the real reasons that changed WADA's mind. I hope time (years) will give us some clarity. In the mean time we can only speculate on multiple rationales, one of which is that Froome didn't actually overdose and the test was a result of extreme physiological conditions. There are as, or more, plausible reason though such as loopholes in test procedure or defining the AAF etc. which Morgan definitely would use ruthlessly. I wouldn't be surprised if WADA indeed decided to bail purely because of the cost of legal procedures that would drag potentially still years while the opponent seem to have more money to spend.

But as far as I've seen, unless we get the real explanation to public, Froome will always have tarnished reputation in the eyes of majority of cycling followers. For most of us, he will be dobed monster that got away because of money and power. Regardless if he wins 10 more GT's in row, in the eyes of very wide public, there will always be an huge asterix of doping next to his achievements. Regardless whether it is bloody asthma medicine or something else. He will not be liked, he will not be recognized and will never raise to the same glory than even his peers at time (Berto, Nibs...). Unless they tell exactly why this decision was made and the decision does not have any political/loop hole based controversy in it.
 
Re:

Pantani_lives said:
It makes me sick that the trolls on this website have got what they want. They can now go back from "They're all doing it" to "Our guy is innocent!" The UCI has become a Stalinist organization that says, "You will be protected, you won't." The "scientific" explanation is utter bollocks, corrupt nonsense. WADA has excluded innocent Russians from the Olympics just for being Russian. Now they are openly protecting the biggest cheater of the current decade. The corruption goes all the way to the top.
On just one point of accuracy, I think you will find that was the International Olympic Committee, which did that.
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
Pantani_lives said:
It makes me sick that the trolls on this website have got what they want. They can now go back from "They're all doing it" to "Our guy is innocent!" The UCI has become a Stalinist organization that says, "You will be protected, you won't." The "scientific" explanation is utter bollocks, corrupt nonsense. WADA has excluded innocent Russians from the Olympics just for being Russian. Now they are openly protecting the biggest cheater of the current decade. The corruption goes all the way to the top.
On just one point of accuracy, I think you will find that was the International Olympic Committee, which did that.
On whose recommendation?
 
Re: Re:

Craigee said:
wrinklyvet said:
Pantani_lives said:
It makes me sick that the trolls on this website have got what they want. They can now go back from "They're all doing it" to "Our guy is innocent!" The UCI has become a Stalinist organization that says, "You will be protected, you won't." The "scientific" explanation is utter bollocks, corrupt nonsense. WADA has excluded innocent Russians from the Olympics just for being Russian. Now they are openly protecting the biggest cheater of the current decade. The corruption goes all the way to the top.
On just one point of accuracy, I think you will find that was the International Olympic Committee, which did that.
On whose recommendation?
I believe a WADA report came first and then an IOC investigation but the action was taken by IOC. It's probably off topic here. Not sure why I even commented.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY