thehog
BANNED
Re:
Good to see Sam working it on the Twitter responses as well. Hard working bot
Benotti69 said:
Good to see Sam working it on the Twitter responses as well. Hard working bot
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
great piece by Kimmage
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-cyclings-dirty-washing-can-no-longer-be-rinsed-clean-by-myth-and-memory-powder-37091854.html
The French no longer believe in the winners of Le Tour for at least a decade.
Who can blame them.
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-cyclings-dirty-washing-can-no-longer-be-rinsed-clean-by-myth-and-memory-powder-37091854.html
The French no longer believe in the winners of Le Tour for at least a decade.
Who can blame them.
Re: Re:
He didn't answer. I think he's more nuts than i've ever heard him.
thehog said:Benotti69 said:
Good to see Sam working it on the Twitter responses as well. Hard working bot
He didn't answer. I think he's more nuts than i've ever heard him.
Re: Re:
Walsh has been nuts for ages.
samhocking said:thehog said:Benotti69 said:
Good to see Sam working it on the Twitter responses as well. Hard working bot
He didn't answer. I think he's more nuts than i've ever heard him.
Walsh has been nuts for ages.
Re:
Yeah i mean only some of the top sports people in the world respect the guy.
But a concrete guy knows better. The concrete guy who is trying to defend a team of liars and their star rider who they were trying to offload on the eve of La Vuelta 2011 because he was so bad. Then BOOM, 2nd in a GT, which he should've won and since then consistently the best GT rider in the world and a bunch lies about how he did it.
I'll take Kimmage's anger every day of the week. I mean he only competed in the sport. He only wrote a book hoping that it would change the sport.
But concrete guy knows better.
samhocking said:
Yeah i mean only some of the top sports people in the world respect the guy.
But a concrete guy knows better. The concrete guy who is trying to defend a team of liars and their star rider who they were trying to offload on the eve of La Vuelta 2011 because he was so bad. Then BOOM, 2nd in a GT, which he should've won and since then consistently the best GT rider in the world and a bunch lies about how he did it.
I'll take Kimmage's anger every day of the week. I mean he only competed in the sport. He only wrote a book hoping that it would change the sport.
But concrete guy knows better.
Coming from North America, I've always been curious about how Europeans view the sport.
I once had the privilege of attending the final of Roubaix and struck up a conversation with a hard-core fan from Belgium. He was wearing a huge hat adorned with photos of Boonen and the Belgian flag.
When Thor Hushovd overcooked a turn near the end of the race and ended up in a barrier, my Belgian friend literally broke into tears knowing Boonen would win solo.
He turned to me and said, "Too much dopage!" He was referring to Thor, obviously.
So when I read the statements of Touzet, I wonder if he is speaking for the general population.
Maybe he's just speaking to himself.
I once had the privilege of attending the final of Roubaix and struck up a conversation with a hard-core fan from Belgium. He was wearing a huge hat adorned with photos of Boonen and the Belgian flag.
When Thor Hushovd overcooked a turn near the end of the race and ended up in a barrier, my Belgian friend literally broke into tears knowing Boonen would win solo.
He turned to me and said, "Too much dopage!" He was referring to Thor, obviously.
So when I read the statements of Touzet, I wonder if he is speaking for the general population.
Maybe he's just speaking to himself.
Re: Re:
making fun of froome for years, going into hysterics, threatening to quit with watching this circus after dawg gets away with it also is not what makes people good and pious.MartinGT said:
https://www.hln.be/sport/wielrennen/koers-kort-wout-van-aert-dient-contract-uit-ploegmaat-froome-heeft-geen-astma-maar-gebruikt-wel-salbutamol~a20b3f5d/
So van baarle uses salbutamol without having astma., :lol:
Apparently standard practice in team sky. The pathetic froome defense force on here tried to make us believe sal doesnt help
Go hocking write another one of your bs essays nobody reads. I hope you get paid for all that hard sky pr work.
So van baarle uses salbutamol without having astma., :lol:
Apparently standard practice in team sky. The pathetic froome defense force on here tried to make us believe sal doesnt help
Go hocking write another one of your bs essays nobody reads. I hope you get paid for all that hard sky pr work.
Lo squalo di messina said:https://www.hln.be/sport/wielrennen/koers-kort-wout-van-aert-dient-contract-uit-ploegmaat-froome-heeft-geen-astma-maar-gebruikt-wel-salbutamol~a20b3f5d/
So van baarle uses salbutamol without having astma., :lol:
Apparently standard practice in team sky. The pathetic froome defense force on here tried to make us believe sal doesnt help
Go hocking write another one of your bs essays nobody reads. I hope you get paid for all that hard sky pr work.
Thank GoogleTranslate:
Do not have asthma, still use salbutamol.
That is what Dutch cyclist Dylan van Baarle does. Van Baarle is a teammate of Chris Froome at Sky. The Dutchman did not make the selection for the Tour. But he does subscribe to the rules of Sky, where the use of salbutamol is apparently the most common thing in the world. Even if you do not suffer from asthma. Van Baarle told the Dutch radio NPO about his salbutamol use and saw no bones in it. "We are cyclists, our lungs are destroyed by all efforts. Then we use a puffer to breathe. "Salbutamol is a medicine. It is the active ingredient of the puffer Ventolin. At the start of this week, Chris Froome was acquitted of the use of excessive amounts of salbutamol after he had exceeded the limit values in last year's Vuelta. "I do not feel like I'm suddenly going to race much faster," Van Baarle said. But you certainly never do it for sure. (MG)
Re:
But even if they don't "believe" in the winners, every village in France wants the tour to pass through, and tens of millions line the road to watch the peloton ride by, even for 5 seconds. So that's the paradox -- we say "it's all fake" but still can't look away.
Benotti69 said:
But even if they don't "believe" in the winners, every village in France wants the tour to pass through, and tens of millions line the road to watch the peloton ride by, even for 5 seconds. So that's the paradox -- we say "it's all fake" but still can't look away.
Re: Re:
And your qualification is?
Benotti69 said:samhocking said:
Yeah i mean only some of the top sports people in the world respect the guy.
But a concrete guy knows better. The concrete guy who is trying to defend a team of liars and their star rider who they were trying to offload on the eve of La Vuelta 2011 because he was so bad. Then BOOM, 2nd in a GT, which he should've won and since then consistently the best GT rider in the world and a bunch lies about how he did it.
I'll take Kimmage's anger every day of the week. I mean he only competed in the sport. He only wrote a book hoping that it would change the sport.
But concrete guy knows better.
And your qualification is?
Re: Re:
I'm not sure qualifications are required to understand that the key plank of the reason to drop the AAF against Froome was based on Froome's self-reported doses, someone who had a good few million reasons to report the 'correct answer'
mmm...that wouldn't pass peer review
samhocking said:Benotti69 said:samhocking said:
Yeah i mean only some of the top sports people in the world respect the guy.
But a concrete guy knows better. The concrete guy who is trying to defend a team of liars and their star rider who they were trying to offload on the eve of La Vuelta 2011 because he was so bad. Then BOOM, 2nd in a GT, which he should've won and since then consistently the best GT rider in the world and a bunch lies about how he did it.
I'll take Kimmage's anger every day of the week. I mean he only competed in the sport. He only wrote a book hoping that it would change the sport.
But concrete guy knows better.
And your qualification is?
I'm not sure qualifications are required to understand that the key plank of the reason to drop the AAF against Froome was based on Froome's self-reported doses, someone who had a good few million reasons to report the 'correct answer'
mmm...that wouldn't pass peer review
His AAF didn't get to the pharmo test though. They didn't even need to prove his dose from what WADA have admitted is wrong with the rules.
Seem like the people that need to be transparent are UCI & WADA. Froome saying what his inhalation record was, clearly wouldn't change their decision would it, if their rules are broken.
Seem like the people that need to be transparent are UCI & WADA. Froome saying what his inhalation record was, clearly wouldn't change their decision would it, if their rules are broken.
Re:
eh...not sure you've been following the same case as me...that's exactly what happened
and if that wasn't bad enough...they then changed the rules
samhocking said:
eh...not sure you've been following the same case as me...that's exactly what happened
and if that wasn't bad enough...they then changed the rules
Re:
to help you further.....
"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."
who confirmed those low doses...indeed who confirmed the significantly increased dose? the person under investigation?......oh :lol:
as you see it was because of THIS that no study was required..............
or when I say no study was required, they in effect said that the existing data was the study...."assessed from existing data"...that would be the data that was self reported
keep up
samhocking said:
to help you further.....
"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."
who confirmed those low doses...indeed who confirmed the significantly increased dose? the person under investigation?......oh :lol:
as you see it was because of THIS that no study was required..............
or when I say no study was required, they in effect said that the existing data was the study...."assessed from existing data"...that would be the data that was self reported
keep up
As I said, ask WADA. Nothing Sky can do to show you why WADA reached the decision at explanation stage. WADA Results Management clearly shows rider Explanation is the first part and if that explanation isn't believed, only then the AAF amounts claimed caused the AAF, are either confirmed or not by the CPKS urine.
If anyone is not pleased with WADA's decision-making and existing results management flow, you need to put pressure ion WADA to explain it. If what they have explained so far, is not enough to believe them, clearly they need to explain more don't they.
If anyone is not pleased with WADA's decision-making and existing results management flow, you need to put pressure ion WADA to explain it. If what they have explained so far, is not enough to believe them, clearly they need to explain more don't they.
Re:
so you are pleased with the element of self-reporting in this process?
you would trust a study where one of the main inputs was self-reported data by a person who had millions of pounds at stake?
or let's ignore Froome and treat it as 'study' (as WADA did)...do you think that during peer review such a study might come under considerable scrutiny?
that's three yes/no questions
samhocking said:
so you are pleased with the element of self-reporting in this process?
you would trust a study where one of the main inputs was self-reported data by a person who had millions of pounds at stake?
or let's ignore Froome and treat it as 'study' (as WADA did)...do you think that during peer review such a study might come under considerable scrutiny?
that's three yes/no questions
What has self-reporting got to do with WADA's decision making?
WADA/UCI have a 36 page report explaining their decision, which one assumes include a conclusion? That should be enough regardless of anything Sky can add. If that's not enough as the anti-doping authority governing Froome's AAF decision, then why is that not enough?
WADA/UCI have a 36 page report explaining their decision, which one assumes include a conclusion? That should be enough regardless of anything Sky can add. If that's not enough as the anti-doping authority governing Froome's AAF decision, then why is that not enough?
Re:
Can't you read, from the decision summary above??? Because the variation from the high reading at the Vuelta was explained away using the data from his other Vuelta test results - the input of these (the number of puffs) is self reported
my three questions stand.....
samhocking said:
Can't you read, from the decision summary above??? Because the variation from the high reading at the Vuelta was explained away using the data from his other Vuelta test results - the input of these (the number of puffs) is self reported
my three questions stand.....
I'm not the one confused, you are, you need to get WADA to explain it more.
As far as the rules explain it to me and what both UCI and WADA have explained so far matches their rules.
As far as the rules explain it to me and what both UCI and WADA have explained so far matches their rules.
Re:
WADA have explained...that's the problem
so, no answers...I'll assume you're happy with principle of unverifiable data in studies?
further, you're happy with unverifiable data in studies where the data comes from a subject with millions of pounds at stake....first class
Why bother with the palaver of testing at all...just ask the top 3 riders did you dope today?
samhocking said:
WADA have explained...that's the problem
so, no answers...I'll assume you're happy with principle of unverifiable data in studies?
further, you're happy with unverifiable data in studies where the data comes from a subject with millions of pounds at stake....first class
Why bother with the palaver of testing at all...just ask the top 3 riders did you dope today?
What previous anti-doping cases out of the previous several thousand that have concluded under UCI & WADA over the last couple of decades would you also like to see the unverifiable data for? Would you also be demanding to see the unverifiable data had Froome's AAF been confirmed and an ADRV decision?
You're missing the point that the management of an AAF result doesn't require the CPKS. That is only required, if WADA don't believe your initial explanation. It would seem Froomes team have proved WADA's rules are flawed, the inventer of the rules say they are flawed since 2007 and submitted his support of Froome. One of the best Pharmo doctors at GSK proved the WADA rules allow false positives using Froomes urine and WADA accepted it was a false positive.
The only thing missing for you, is you don't believe WADA considered Froomes explanation and those experts being truthful, therefore YOU require WADA to explain why they were to reach their decision.
You're missing the point that the management of an AAF result doesn't require the CPKS. That is only required, if WADA don't believe your initial explanation. It would seem Froomes team have proved WADA's rules are flawed, the inventer of the rules say they are flawed since 2007 and submitted his support of Froome. One of the best Pharmo doctors at GSK proved the WADA rules allow false positives using Froomes urine and WADA accepted it was a false positive.
The only thing missing for you, is you don't believe WADA considered Froomes explanation and those experts being truthful, therefore YOU require WADA to explain why they were to reach their decision.
Re:
eh...there isn't any...they use verifiable data...otherwise there is a problem...they've re-written their rules for Froome
Yes, of course...if their conclusions were based on it...it is of significant interest.
the more info out there the better.....but of course...it's of limited use if its unverifiable...the only point of interest is knowing its unverifiable and so should not be relied on......well....unless you're WADA :lol: :lol:
samhocking said:
eh...there isn't any...they use verifiable data...otherwise there is a problem...they've re-written their rules for Froome
Yes, of course...if their conclusions were based on it...it is of significant interest.
the more info out there the better.....but of course...it's of limited use if its unverifiable...the only point of interest is knowing its unverifiable and so should not be relied on......well....unless you're WADA :lol: :lol:
Re:
They did a de facto test using the existing self-reported data...based on that they were able to conclude that, in combo with the issues with the test, dehydration, illness, dodgy kidneys etc etc there was a chance that he might have hit 2000 whilst keeping the puffs under the limit.........it would not have been possible to reach that conclusion without the data from the de facto test....they explain this
keep up
those with enquiring minds might wonder why you wouldn't want verifiable data
WADA bent over backwards to clear him
samhocking said:
They did a de facto test using the existing self-reported data...based on that they were able to conclude that, in combo with the issues with the test, dehydration, illness, dodgy kidneys etc etc there was a chance that he might have hit 2000 whilst keeping the puffs under the limit.........it would not have been possible to reach that conclusion without the data from the de facto test....they explain this
keep up
those with enquiring minds might wonder why you wouldn't want verifiable data
WADA bent over backwards to clear him
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championships 2024: Men's Road Race (September 29)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Il Lombardia 2024, one day monument, October 12, farewell to Domenico Pozzovivo- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 880
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 22K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
Latest posts
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread
- Latest: Eddy Evenepoel
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram