Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[gillan1969]

Re:

Huh? The testers don't need to know that, but even if they did, the first missed test was long enough ago that it didn't count.

i think that is what I mean

i.e. they must assume that any missed test could be the third...or the first...or the second...i.i.e. (if such an abbreviation exists) there should be no room for subjectivity from the testers...

 

[neineinei]

No, the tester dosn't need to confirm his story. The testers should absolutely not engage in any public discussion about it. They report to whichever anti-doping authority sent them to do the testing, and no one else.

He didn't get the whereabouts failure removed from record, End of story.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

No, the tester dosn't need to confirm his story. The testers should absolutely not engage in any public discussion about it. They report to whichever anti-doping authority sent them to do the testing, and no one else.

He didn't get the whereabouts failure removed from record, End of story.

yes but any journo worth the profession would want to know the name of the hotel and then find the staff member(s) to discuss further

important if you can remember this...

"If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon."

 

[RedheadDane]

How many tests is it you have to have missed within a year to be in trouble? Three?
He's missed one (two within five years).
He isn't the first, he won't be the last.

As for shifting the blame; he stated that he regretted not telling hotel staff that a situation like this could arise, and that he fully take responsibility for what happened:

Quote from the article on CN:

"I did appeal it but at the end of the day, I do take responsibility for that case," Froome said. "I should have been more pro-active in letting the hotel know that there existed a possibility that I could be tested and I've certainly learned my lesson there. I've stayed in hotels all over the world and I've been tested all over the world without any issues at all, but unfortunately I just didn't see this one coming. It's opened my eyes and I'm definitely going to be more proactive in the future. It's always the athlete's responsibility to be sure he or she is available.”

Now of course the question remains why he didn't tell hotel staff that - as a professional athlete, and former winner of the Tour de France - there was a fairly big change he might get tested. No, I don't think he deliberately didn't tell so that hotel staff would keep testers from reaching him (or directly told hotel staff to keep testers from reaching him), instead it seems he simply assumed it wouldn't be an issue. After all; this can't be the first time an athlete has been visited by testers while vacationing at some hotel, yet we've never heard stories about other hotels where the staff refused to let testers in.
According to the article on CN it was a rather exclusive hotel he was staying at, could it be it's a hotel that's used to taking great pride in protecting the privacy of their clients? Cool if your clients are celebrities hiding from paparazzi, not so cool if your clients are professional athletes for whom a missing test could have some pretty bad implications for their continued careers.

 

[harryh]

Lol. They are allowed to miss two tests in a year. Why explain anything. Well, maybe something like "sh*t happens" or "we fu*ked like rabbits, and I didn't give a sh*t if someone wants to come to sniff my urine" would have been cool.

 

[pastronef]

Scene at the front desk:

"Good morning gentlemen, how may I assist you?
- We're here to dope test Dawg.
- We don't have any Mr. Dawg registered as a guest. It must be a mistake.
- I mean Froome, Chris Froome, a.k.a. Dawg, Froomey, Skeletor. We're here to bust the SOB.
- Sorry Sir, but our policy is to respect the privacy of our guests. May I take a message?
- Look Front Desk uptight guy: we've come a long way, already missed Piti and Nibbles, almost got kidnapped in Colombia, we won't leave empty handed. All we need to do is perform a quick test and bust the a$$hole.
- Again, I apologize, but it is against our policy.
-

haahahaha!

 

[Singer01]

Re:

No, the tester dosn't need to confirm his story. The testers should absolutely not engage in any public discussion about it. They report to whichever anti-doping authority sent them to do the testing, and no one else.

He didn't get the whereabouts failure removed from record, End of story.

for you maybe, i on the other hand would like to know if the testers confirm his side of the story. if so then he gets a pass from me, if he is talking absolute bullsh1t then i have serious concerns.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

No, the tester dosn't need to confirm his story. The testers should absolutely not engage in any public discussion about it. They report to whichever anti-doping authority sent them to do the testing, and no one else.

He didn't get the whereabouts failure removed from record, End of story.

for you maybe, i on the other hand would like to know if the testers confirm his side of the story. if so then he gets a pass from me, if he is talking absolute bullsh1t then i have serious concerns.

If Froome is talking BS! When did you start following Froome, last week??? Have a look at this guys history to date FFS! Serious concerns, he comes from nowhere to 2nd in LaVuelta ( he should've won if it wasn't for Wiggins). That was a huge red flag. Then the story of Bilharzia and how many times he had it how long it was in his system, how he treated it and the lies of that story, another huge red flag. Beating Armstrong's time on Madone, another huge red flag. Inhaler in a race, another huge red flag. Saying he had asthma since a child, but not telling Walsh for his biography, another huge red flag......

I mean come on FFS!!!! Serious concerns. Froome is a doper, end of.

 

[70kmph]

Tests are no big deal, Dave B just applies the TUE for when I test + on Mount Teide
Leinders on the speed-dial...no worries there
Best mates with Cookie in Switzerland
When I lose I'm from The Congo (see Barloworld) when winning I'm British, yeah
Bradley who... OK this interview has ended

 

[hrotha]

Just because Froome obviously dopes that doesn't mean absolutely every little incident in his life is about doping or shady.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Just because Froome obviously dopes that doesn't mean absolutely every little incident in his life is about doping or shady.

thanks Hrotha. that's the impression I have reading sometis here or on twitter.
he dopes, I know (before someone tells me I'm a blind fanboy)

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

Just because Froome obviously dopes that doesn't mean absolutely every little incident in his life is about doping or shady.

I agree, he just shouldnt be asking for doping controls via twitter on Teide while he has just jacked up for three weeks. Thats just not in the spirit of the game.

 

[neineinei]

Re: Re:

No, the tester dosn't need to confirm his story. The testers should absolutely not engage in any public discussion about it. They report to whichever anti-doping authority sent them to do the testing, and no one else.

He didn't get the whereabouts failure removed from record, End of story.

for you maybe, i on the other hand would like to know if the testers confirm his side of the story. if so then he gets a pass from me, if he is talking absolute bullsh1t then i have serious concerns.

Much like it isn't the anti-doping authorities job to prove Froome is clean, it's not their job to prove he is telling the truth either. It's his job.

 

[joe_papp]

Re: Re:

Two missed tests in five years. Meh.

Even I've missed one in the past four years.

And which squad are you going to be leading to win the TdF a second time?

Well, that's the beauty of the current anti-doping system: it's unbiased. Whether you're a TdF champ, or an inactive rider coming to end of his ban, the responsibilities and expectations are the same. But, likewise, so is the application of the rules.

Two missed tests in five years doesn't even come close to being an ADRV...

Even I've missed one in the past four years.

Yeah but you're dodgy as, mate.

Now this, above, is how to be funny.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Thanks for the insight Joe.

 

[Tonton]

To TheSpud, I would quote Contador: "no beef between us". Now LaFlo is going to go after me .

 

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

No, the tester dosn't need to confirm his story. The testers should absolutely not engage in any public discussion about it. They report to whichever anti-doping authority sent them to do the testing, and no one else.

He didn't get the whereabouts failure removed from record, End of story.

for you maybe, i on the other hand would like to know if the testers confirm his side of the story. if so then he gets a pass from me, if he is talking absolute bullsh1t then i have serious concerns.

Much like it isn't the anti-doping authorities job to prove Froome is clean, it's not their job to prove he is telling the truth either. It's his job.

how would he do that exactly, oh yes, he would get the testers to verify his account wouldn't he.

 

[veganrob]

I think the fact that the violation was upheld tells you the testers side of the story.

 

[TheSpud]

To TheSpud, I would quote Contador: "no beef between us". Now LaFlo is going to go after me .

Be careful where you buy that beef ...

 

[TheSpud]

I think the fact that the violation was upheld tells you the testers side of the story.

I'd be interested to know how many violations are overturned - I would imagine not many. Probably about as many successful doping appeals ...

They may have accepted it was a mistake but ultimately its a miss - a bit like the strict liability rule.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I'd be interested to know how many violations are overturned - I would imagine not many. Probably about as many successful doping appeals ...

They may have accepted it was a mistake but ultimately its a miss - a bit like the strict liability rule.

Agree with this. When you are giving riders three strikes, it is perfectly fair IMO to have a very low tolerance for excuses.

 

[rick james]

I think the fact that the violation was upheld tells you the testers side of the story.

Froome already said it was his fault, he took the blame...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think the fact that the violation was upheld tells you the testers side of the story.

Froome already said it was his fault, he took the blame...

Yeah he's a regular inhaler puffing, TUE backdating boy scout.

He'd dead to rights, at a guess, and anything else other than admitting fault would have blown up in his face. Cue Mo Farrah clips with ominous voice over.

 

[gooner]

I think the fact that the violation was upheld tells you the testers side of the story.

Froome already said it was his fault, he took the blame...

Yeah he's a regular inhaler puffing, TUE backdating boy scout.

He'd dead to rights, at a guess, and anything else other than admitting fault would have blown up in his face. Cue Mo Farrah clips with ominous voice over.

You see ghosts everywhere.

When asked, if he lied he would have got hammered and the same has happened when he has disclosed his past missed tests. You can't win either way.

You probably think Kelly Sotherton is a doper too after her admission.

Kind of backs up the doping only view.

Froome maybe doped to the gills but some of the logic on here in coming to that conclusion is preposterous.

I bet nobody behind their laptops and their perfectionist wisdom missed a deadline or were late for something in their life.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think the fact that the violation was upheld tells you the testers side of the story.

Froome already said it was his fault, he took the blame...

Yeah he's a regular inhaler puffing, TUE backdating boy scout.

He'd dead to rights, at a guess, and anything else other than admitting fault would have blown up in his face. Cue Mo Farrah clips with ominous voice over.

You see ghosts everywhere.

Personal insult this should be good. Usually indicative of a neanderthal, or someone personally offended by something said of someone else with whom they identify. Let's see.

When asked, if he lied he would have got hammered and the same has happened when he has disclosed his past missed tests. You can't win either way.

Oh poor baby. Basically agrees with what I just wrote, but adds the personal insult for good measure.

You probably think Kelly Sotherton is a doper too after her admission.

You probably still live with your Mum, but I don't introduce probablies about you because it's completely irrelevant.

Kelly Sotherton went on a twitter rage like some fricken anti-doping champion defending Mo only to later reveal she herself had missed two tests. "Professional" athletes should start acting that way.

Kind of backs up the doping only view.

Mate, if you don't like my view, ignore my posts. Stop being a crybaby about it. The dummy spitting is not an effective counter argument. So far I have about 100 years of cycling history on my side. I only care about the pointy end of the field who use the lamest excuses regarding performance to justify their unimaginable leaps of improvement.

You sound like a whinging crybaby.

Froome maybe doped to the gills but some of the logic on here in coming to that conclusion is preposterous.

You are an idiot if you quote my post as if it's the logic I am employing to prove Froome is doping. An embilic, hard of reading idiot.

I bet nobody behind their laptops and their perfectionist wisdom missed a deadline or were late for something in their life.

If it meant losing my job, you can bet your dribble catching bib I would be on time and consistently meeting the requirements of my million plus pound per year world-wide cycling holiday. What a facetious argument.