Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[red_flanders]

Yes, past behaviour. There have been changes since and this past is where the sins of McQuaid and Verbruggen belong, not Cookson.

Anyone who goes into the role as president will more than likely come from a cycling federation and have their backing.

No problem in discussing this but I do when it's said that because of riders being protected in the past, it's now definitely happening with Froome and Sky. That's not discussing it, in fact it's a statement made to try and portray it as evidence on this topic. Evidence that isn't even known in relation to Froome. DirtyWorks is the king of this.

Report the post if you think it's off topic and stop clogging threads with this BS.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

On another note, here is armchairclimber's contribution to the Crime and Justice forums:
"Every person in prison committed a crime. Therefore every person who ever committed a crime ended up in prison."

That indeed is a major blunder (almost "wonderlance"-like) ...
OTOH, who hadn´t.

 

[gooner]

It saddens me that someone has to say the following out loud, but I guess that's how far the level of discourse has dropped lately.

"If the UCI protected top, income-generating riders before, and there's a lot of evidence that they did, they are probably protecting top, income-generating riders now, which would certainly include Froome."

But anything to avoid discussing the obvious, right?

If you have an issue with my posts being off-topic, please report them instead of clogging the thread with such nonsense. Generally that's what I do, though obviously not always.

It does get tiresome pointing out the blatantly obvious. I thought people were smarter.

Report the post if you think it's off topic and stop clogging threads with this BS.

Oh give over.

You can bring it up you wish, it's up to me if I think it's baseless or fact. In relation to Froome, we have nothing on this and all I see with you is guess work at best as can be seen with the bolded above. This is the essence of the bolded point, because McQuaid/Hein did this, Cookson probably is too. That is not discussing the details of your point.

You and DirtyWorks have thrown out this UCI protection with Froome. This is a forum and I can query you on it. Now substantiate it in relation to him and not just a make a statement. The onus is on you.

If you don't like it, you know where the ignore button is.

 

[DirtyWorks]

That is so far feteched... It simply makes no sense. If the UCI protected riders other than LA and AC, why the hell not Landis?
A positive TdF winner is a lose-lose-lose scenario. Lose for ASO (another TdF fiasco), lose for UCI (another nail into the doping ridden cycling world, something that had to be prevented at all costs after the Puerto affair), and lose for Landis.

I agree it makes no sense. There is practically no reasoning it out based on the few facts we have. But most Wt sanctions are like that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Oh give over.

You can bring it up you wish, it's up to me if I think it's baseless or fact. In relation to Froome, we have nothing on this and all I see with you is guess work at best as can be seen with the bolded above. This is the essence of the bolded point, because McQuaid/Hein did this, Cookson probably is too. That is not discussing the details of your point.

You and DirtyWorks have thrown out this UCI protection with Froome. This is a forum and I can query you on it. Now substantiate it in relation to him and not just a make a statement. The onus is on you.

If you don't like it, you know where the ignore button is.

You remember Zorzoli was called when a team at altitude had dodgy ABP paramters, yes? And he handled it for them, yes?

Just because Cookson is in does not mean all of a sudden the entire UCI organisation has his mind set or values. There are far more people involved at all levels where test results and what not can be handled.

There is more than enough precedent to support this argument.

 

[the sceptic]

Oh give over.

You can bring it up you wish, it's up to me if I think it's baseless or fact. In relation to Froome, we have nothing on this and all I see with you is guess work at best as can be seen with the bolded above. This is the essence of the bolded point, because McQuaid/Hein did this, Cookson probably is too. That is not discussing the details of your point.

You and DirtyWorks have thrown out this UCI protection with Froome. This is a forum and I can query you on it. Now substantiate it in relation to him and not just a make a statement. The onus is on you.

If you don't like it, you know where the ignore button is.

Can I query your query?

If the UCI cant bust the most blatantly obvious doper of the last 20 years, what does that say about them? He has been doing it for almost 3 years now.

Considering the history, UCI protection is a very logical explanation as to how he is getting away with it.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Can I query your query?

If the UCI cant bust the most blatantly obvious doper of the last 20 years, what does that say about them? He has been doing it for almost 3 years now.

Considering the history, UCI protection is a very logical explanation as to how he is getting away with it.

Look, they need positives (like they had on Landis, DiLuca, Ricco, etc.; all bigger names than usual scapegoats), or the BP has to be out of limits... both don´t apply to Horner (even tough the numbers are juuust inside the limits). They must be patient, they will get him.

 

[RichieTheBest]

Considering the history, UCI protection is a very logical explanation as to how he is getting away with it.

your rider is a child of the same protection, but you forgive him for that. hm..very strange point of view.

 

[armchairclimber]

"umm major iq fail or what.

When the UCI protection does work, you never hear about it.

When it doesn't you do.

So you list the riders for which it hasn't work, since you have their names, and then proudly declare that 100% of riders who get UCI protection ended up busted.

lol"

Er, Hitch...I see you are still just making things up. Nowhere did I proudly declare anything of the sort.
Do not go back down the road of ascribing views to me that I don't hold, thanks.

 

[SundayRider]

Look, they need positives (like they had on Landis, DiLuca, Ricco, etc.; all bigger names than usual scapegoats), or the BP has to be out of limits... both don´t apply to Horner (even tough the numbers are juuust inside the limits). They must be patient, they will get him.

You really think they will catch Froome? I can't see it somehow.

 

[SundayRider]

That is so far feteched... It simply makes no sense. If the UCI protected riders other than LA and AC, why the hell not Landis?
A positive TdF winner is a lose-lose-lose scenario. Lose for ASO (another TdF fiasco), lose for UCI (another nail into the doping ridden cycling world, something that had to be prevented at all costs after the Puerto affair), and lose for Landis.

I agree, no way Armstrong would want one of his ex team mates to get busted in such a high profile way so soon after his own retirement.

 

[hrotha]

That is so far feteched... It simply makes no sense. If the UCI protected riders other than LA and AC, why the hell not Landis?
A positive TdF winner is a lose-lose-lose scenario. Lose for ASO (another TdF fiasco), lose for UCI (another nail into the doping ridden cycling world, something that had to be prevented at all costs after the Puerto affair), and lose for Landis.

UCI and ASO have often been at odds. At that particular time, they were. Perhaps more importantly, Armstrong and his croonies were looking into basically buying the Tour, so a devaluation would have been good for them.

I don't necessarily buy this theory (I think there's not enough evidence), but it is plausible.

 

[martinvickers]

I don't see how cases in 2014 are going to change the fact that Lance's career survived an EPO positive for 11 years.

And I don't entirely disagree with you. As I already said, there is ample evidence that Arsmtrong was indeed protected, especially by Hein and his puppet. Indeed, there's very little you could accuse Hein of, up to and including illegal congress with farm animals, that I wouldn't consider entirely plausible.

There is also some evidence, looking at the Contador case, that they tried to 'manage' a controversial positive. And much as I think he's guilty as sin, the tiny amount of the drug was controversial, even at the time.

My point, only, is two fold.

One, if protection is being offered to the top tier - it's pretty sh!te. The big GC hitters of the last couple of generations have been decimated with positives - more, probably, than in any other generation in the history of cycling. Armstrong's long Odyssey doesn't change that - in that sense, he's the exception, not the rule. See point two.

Two. Armstrong had a unique place in the fundiment. He was the perceived antidote to Festina, and UCI (and many others) bought in hook line and sinker to the 'miracle'. Having bought in, they were on the hook. They rose and fell with the Texan. Which suited Hein, and Hein's wallet, of course.

But I think it's a bit of a leap from that to a standing policy of 'picking winners'. In facts its a beamonesque vault of a leap.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You really think they will catch Froome? I can't see it somehow.

Of course! If Spilak can catch him, I think AC and other GT contenders can. I explained that more than once. If you can´t see that, just watch the races of this spring again. Especially those won by AC....
OTOH, I just wonder why you post that question related too a Horner-doping post of mine.

 

[stutue]

I agree, no way Armstrong would want one of his ex team mates to get busted in such a high profile way so soon after his own retirement.

Its hard to know what Armstrong would think about Floyd's bust. On the one hand it draws attention to his own wins, but on the other hand it strengthens the claim that testing works (in the public arena, I mean. Informed people understood that Armstrong had the UCI in his pocket)

I suppose what is significant is that Armstrong's comeback was in the context of Floyd's bust, so we have to assume he wasn't overly bothered by it.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

UCI and ASO have often been at odds. At that particular time, they were. Perhaps more importantly, Armstrong and his croonies were looking into basically buying the Tour, so a devaluation would have been good for them.

I don't necessarily buy this theory (I think there's not enough evidence), but it is plausible.

It´s a good point, but that would have needed a major set up. I mean many things came out of the LA mess, so there would be something heard of by now.... It´s a good theory, but only a theory.

 

[Benotti69]

Why does it follow? Hasn't there been a change at the top. The chattering classes on here will throw mud at Cookson being British, and Froome being 'British', and Cookson's son or something doing something or other at Sky ...

But, just because something happened before, doesn't mean it's going to happen again. Does it? Or does that spoil the narrative.

I seem to remember some Clinicians telling us that Sky are going to be winning everything, Sky train, UKPS, yada yada yada. Froome wins one race, and everybody's jumping up and down again.

*yawn*

In order to spoil the narrative, Cookson would have to have change the way UCI conducts its business and policing of the sport...............and oh look Cookson has set up a panel to look into the past.......and who still polices the doping, oh the UCI.......except when it is a Sky rider, then Sky can police their own rider.

Yawn yada yada etc etc

 

[Benotti69]

Whose suspicion is that? Anybody whose opinion affords respect?

Personally, I think that is a ridiculous notion for a whole host of reasons, but I'd be interested to hear what the rationale is behind it.

oops did you throw the Armstrong credibility line down.....oh dear!

Landis is adamant he didn't take Testosterone that he tested positive for and Hein has told people he can make people positive, which would no doubt have passed on to Puppet McQuaid..........

But ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous that the UCI ran the sport in a manner befitting the mafia........and that would be ridiculous..

 

[Beech Mtn]

<snipped>

So thick that he didn't even understand why his ridiculous antics made everyone else look bad.... which of course is why they all hated him, not because he doped.

This was originally in the Ricco thread, referring to him. Seems fitting here too.

 

[stutue]

oops did you throw the Armstrong credibility line down.....oh dear!

No idea what you are saying here, but looks like an attempt to fit my point into some kind of platitudinal paradigm.

Landis is adamant he didn't take Testosterone that he tested positive for and Hein has told people he can make people positive, which would no doubt have passed on to Puppet McQuaid..........

But ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous that the UCI ran the sport in a manner befitting the mafia........and that would be ridiculous..

And Armstrong is adamant that he was clean for his comeback. So, they are both liars. So what?

I want to know what your rationale is for thinking that Armstrong got the UCI to poz Floyd, what would be the advantage to the UCI or Armstrong.

If I paraphrase you, you are saying " they did it because they are corrupt"....which is either anodyne or assinine, but probably both.

 

[Netserk]

no idea what you are saying here, but looks like an attempt to fit my point into some kind of platitudinal paradigm.



And armstrong is adamant that he was clean for his comeback. So, they are both liars. So what?

i want to know what your rationale is for thinking that armstrong got the uci to poz floyd, what would be the advantage to the uci or armstrong.

if i paraphrase you, you are saying " they did it because they are corrupt"....which is either anodyne or assinine, but probably both.

. .

uci and aso have often been at odds. At that particular time, they were. Perhaps more importantly, armstrong and his croonies were looking into basically buying the tour, so a devaluation would have been good for them.

I don't necessarily buy this theory (i think there's not enough evidence), but it is plausible.

 

[gooner]

Why is Froome protected and not JTL? Why specifically Froome with his big leap and not Thomas going on to be a GT winner so?

Why wasn't Santambrogio protected? Does this logic only apply to Sky?

The Italian authorities contacted the UCI about him and they then target tested him for the first week of the Giro. That happened on McQuaid's watch.

You can't just say because of what happened with Contador and Armstrong that every rider is protected similarly. In the case of Contador, the attempt of protection was useless anyway.

Lets actually deal with what we have, than the tabloid speculation in respect of Froome being protected. To even do this now, you would have to at least have some back up to say Cookson is of similar ilk to McQuaid and Verbruggen. That can't be said at this time.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Is Gooner ignoring me? I already explained there are lots and lots more people than Cookson working at the UCI, including one Mario Zorzoli who managed to handle anomalous BP readings back in the day for a team training at altitude.

It's not just Cookson.

 

[Netserk]

I don't think anyone says every rider is protected...

Froome could be protected because he is the captain of Sky and British. New market etc.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't think anyone says every rider is protected...

Froome could be protected because he is the captain of Sky and British. New market etc.

British when it suits David Brailsford and UK-registered Team Sky.
South African when it suits UCI and their globalisation program.

Very handy.