rick james said:oops, someone is watching when they said they wouldn't :lol:MartinGT said:https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/1014939867111919618
Only 50kg heavier :lol:
Has the race started? Ooo no.
rick james said:oops, someone is watching when they said they wouldn't :lol:MartinGT said:https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/1014939867111919618
Only 50kg heavier :lol:
rick james said:Koronin said:Huapango said:Froome can drop Dumoulin anytime he wishes, whether is be on a flat road with cobbles, uphill, downhill, or any kind of terrain really, in any situation. What will really happen, however, is you'll see Froome fake being tired, or fake getting dropped and losing 5-10 seconds at the top of an HC climb. Then, Froome will magically have a great day and put the rest of the pretenders to shame. TDF #5 is in the bag.He is going to be dropped if he does that!![]()
Wouldn't shock me. He's basically been told he can do whatever he wants without punishment.
oh really? who told him he can basically do what ever he wants?
Benotti69 said:TheSpud said:chuuurles said:This DATA DROP right after Froome's case being dropped is a nice distraction from the reasoned decision not being released eh![]()
There is no 'reasoned decision' to be published, this isn't Lance.
This is worse than Lance.
Singer01 said:Benotti69 said:TheSpud said:chuuurles said:This DATA DROP right after Froome's case being dropped is a nice distraction from the reasoned decision not being released eh![]()
There is no 'reasoned decision' to be published, this isn't Lance.
This is worse than Lance.
if you honestly think that there you lose what little credibility you have. it isn't even in the same ball park as Lance, and deep down you know that. Its people like you that push those on the fence to defend sky.
Written by Froome, or written by the team's PR person. You decide...ontheroad said:https://www.teamsky.com/article/chris-froome-writes-in-le-monde
Another attempt to rewrite history from Froomie. He had the opportunity to air his thoughts under scrutiny at the opening press conference but his answers there were short, aprupt and unconvincing. His body language there simply screamed 'please move off this subject'. It is clear that he is worried about fan reaction on the roadside and his PR team has decided to release this statement for him aimed at soothing the hostile reception.
When you're explaining you're losing.
I think you're consuming to much of your own product Sam. I joked that no one would pay you to write like that, that's just your own weird way of doing things. You, on the other hand, are the one trying to write off Sky's PR attempts to rebuild Froome's - and the team's - tattered reputation as nothing more than an ad for one of the team's sponsors.samhocking said:I work in the concrete industry. You're thinking too much into it, my god! This place is off it's head, but so am I, so all good!
samhocking said:That Ross Tucker ScienceofSport read my wife's mind the fu**er!
That was mine (hers) idea!
![]()
Singer01 said:Benotti69 said:TheSpud said:chuuurles said:This DATA DROP right after Froome's case being dropped is a nice distraction from the reasoned decision not being released eh![]()
There is no 'reasoned decision' to be published, this isn't Lance.
This is worse than Lance.
if you honestly think that there you lose what little credibility you have. it isn't even in the same ball park as Lance, and deep down you know that. Its people like you that push those on the fence to defend sky.
Winterfold said:samhocking said:That Ross Tucker ScienceofSport read my wife's mind the fu**er!
That was mine (hers) idea!
![]()
I'm glad you can see through this, now ask yourself what else is BS in what they are trying to tell me?
Singer01 said:Benotti69 said:TheSpud said:chuuurles said:This DATA DROP right after Froome's case being dropped is a nice distraction from the reasoned decision not being released eh![]()
There is no 'reasoned decision' to be published, this isn't Lance.
This is worse than Lance.
if you honestly think that there you lose what little credibility you have. it isn't even in the same ball park as Lance, and deep down you know that. Its people like you that push those on the fence to defend sky.
This.armchairclimber said:This thread gets funnier and funnier .... I used to come in the clinic for enlightenment. Now I just come for the comedy. This is a brilliant example of people with an agenda interpreting figures to suit that agenda. Not a single hint of reflection or re-consideration. The net result of this kind of thing will be that data will be withheld. And we'll be the poorer for it. In some ways the sheet sniffers ... the cycling puritans... are worse than the dopers.
There's a big world out there ... scarcely anyone cares about cyclists and what they put in their systems. There are more important issues in life.
a somewhat depressing readTim Booth said:UCI statement
Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings involving Mr. Froome
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
TourOfSardinia said:a somewhat depressing readTim Booth said:UCI statement
Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings involving Mr. Froome
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
![]()
TourOfSardinia said:a somewhat depressing readTim Booth said:UCI statement
Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings involving Mr. Froome
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
![]()
MartinGT said:rick james said:oops, someone is watching when they said they wouldn't :lol:MartinGT said:https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/1014939867111919618
Only 50kg heavier :lol:
Has the race started? Ooo no.
Exactly. Sounds like they are taking Froome's word for it about the "consistent low doses".gillan1969 said:TourOfSardinia said:a somewhat depressing readTim Booth said:UCI statement
Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings involving Mr. Froome
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
![]()
"Having been tested 21 times during the Vuelta a España, Mr. Froome had access to the estimated concentration of salbutamol in his urine over three weeks. This allowed him to establish a significant variation in the way he excreted salbutamol, even at consistent, low, doses. Taking into account that he significantly increased his dose of salbutamol (to treat a chest infection) around the time of the test, it was accepted by WADA that this individual variation could explain the analytical results of his 7 September 2018 sample. Under these circumstances, a controlled pharmacokinetic study was unnecessary before closing the case, as Mr. Froome’s individual excretion could already be assessed from existing data."
I do hope they have proof of the number of puffs he took
if it's self-reported....then.....eh.......................
Thx.Tim Booth said:UCI statement
Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings involving Mr. Froome
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
TheSpud said:chuuurles said:This DATA DROP right after Froome's case being dropped is a nice distraction from the reasoned decision not being released eh![]()
There is no 'reasoned decision' to be published, this isn't Lance.
Bot. Sky_Bot said:Thx.Tim Booth said:UCI statement
Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings involving Mr. Froome
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
One more time pointed out the differences between Petacchi and Ulissi cases and the Froome's one.
thehog said:TourOfSardinia said:a somewhat depressing readTim Booth said:UCI statement
Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings involving Mr. Froome
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
![]()
It was. The UCI looked to WADA for guidance, didn’t get much back, then were told by WADA that a PK study wasn’t needed, lowered the reading, then blamed the UCI for delays and walked away from the case.
Clear that Sky we’re working the Reedie/WADA angle to make this one go away. Smart play by SDB and Froome.
Blanco said:thehog said:TourOfSardinia said:a somewhat depressing readTim Booth said:UCI statement
Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings involving Mr. Froome
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
![]()
It was. The UCI looked to WADA for guidance, didn’t get much back, then were told by WADA that a PK study wasn’t needed, lowered the reading, then blamed the UCI for delays and walked away from the case.
Clear that Sky we’re working the Reedie/WADA angle to make this one go away. Smart play by SDB and Froome.
They weren't the major players in this game, Murdoch junior pulled the strings...