Craig Reedie and Murdochrick 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?
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.Benotti69 said:This is worse than Lance.TheSpud said:There is no 'reasoned decision' to be published, this isn't Lance.chuuurles said:This DATA DROP right after Froome's case being dropped is a nice distraction from the reasoned decision not being released eh
But if you discuss based on an assumption that Salbutamol is certainly not the only product Froome and Sky are abusing, then the case, the result and Sky's domination in recent years is pretty bad. Moreover, the general lack of positives from others than 'not important' riders in recent years.Singer01 said: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.Benotti69 said:This is worse than Lance.TheSpud said:There is no 'reasoned decision' to be published, this isn't Lance.chuuurles said:This DATA DROP right after Froome's case being dropped is a nice distraction from the reasoned decision not being released eh
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'm glad you can see through this, now ask yourself what else is BS in what they are trying to tell me?samhocking said:That Ross Tucker ScienceofSport read my wife's mind the fu**er!
That was mine (hers) idea!
Of course it's worse, the man is right. Lance targeted only one race on the calendar, yet this clown wants doubles, multiple GT's, he wants to be in company with Merckx and HinaultSinger01 said: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.Benotti69 said:This is worse than Lance.TheSpud said:There is no 'reasoned decision' to be published, this isn't Lance.chuuurles said:This DATA DROP right after Froome's case being dropped is a nice distraction from the reasoned decision not being released eh
I wouldn't be surprised if he decides to sweep all the Monuments later in his career...
I think I explained it well enough, it's just an advertorial for SIS. Depending on your view of Froome and Sky it will be seen to be different things. In the clinic it will be seen as a fake/weak transparency attempt and not an advertorial, to Sunday's Mamil Joe Bloggs sat in his office ordering energy gels from Wiggle after listening to Bespoke Podcast, transparency will not have even entered his mind, he will see it as a reason to buy SIS Rocket Fuel or a Go Gel because that's what Froome won the Giro taking. To Porte it is fake news, because clearly he is doing exactly the same as Froome nutritionally anyway.Winterfold said:I'm glad you can see through this, now ask yourself what else is BS in what they are trying to tell me?samhocking said:That Ross Tucker ScienceofSport read my wife's mind the fu**er!
That was mine (hers) idea!
Lance was bad enough coming a year after Sestina, but Sky have taken USPostal and made it UKPostal and with a guy who looks at home on a bike as an Aardvark or a Sloth. And it is so obvious at this stage, oh so obvious.Singer01 said: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.Benotti69 said:This is worse than Lance.TheSpud said:There is no 'reasoned decision' to be published, this isn't Lance.chuuurles said:This DATA DROP right after Froome's case being dropped is a nice distraction from the reasoned decision not being released eh
This.armchairclimber said:
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.TourOfSardinia said:a somewhat depressing readTim Booth said:
"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."TourOfSardinia said:a somewhat depressing readTim Booth said:
MartinGT said:
Exactly. Sounds like they are taking Froome's word for it about the "consistent low doses".gillan1969 said:"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."TourOfSardinia said:a somewhat depressing readTim Booth said:
I do hope they have proof of the number of puffs he took
if it's self-reported....then.....eh.......................
Thx.Tim Booth said:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram