Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[kwikki]

Indeed. His leak to the press looks like it was entirely worthwhile. He might not have got the ban reduction he wanted, but he got his revenge on UKAD threefold...which is most likely what he hoped for from his leak. The inquiry into UKAD pretty much wiped the floor with it. It was all over the media, and he got to live the dream by appearing in front of the parliamentary select committee on TV.

Let's face it, what do we believe he really hoped for by his whistleblowing on Boner? It wasn't to clean up the sport, it was to get a ban reduction. He wasn't repentant at all. He was just hoping to play the system for his own benefit. The end result though, was worthwhile IF his aim was to help clean up anti-doping.

I can't speak for anybody else but I severely doubt that. Large financial cost for a start.

One would consider the libel laws in the UK; hence why the Sunday Times had to gather their own evidence to back up Steven’s claim of being supplied PEDs. It would be hard for a whistleblower without representation to do this on their own (or the funds for representation).

That is true.

Of course, potential Sky whistleblowers aren't limited to using British newspapers or TV as their conduit.

Libel encompasses all written media not just Newspapers and TV as you state, McAlpine v Bercow showed that social media is part of defamation law. Thus a Sky whistleblower would not have an available avenue for telling their story as you imply.

Of course the ultimate defense against a defamation suit is the "truth" but that requires evidence and if the alleger is not represented then they would have a very hard time in defending their claims.

Not easy to do without funds, time and strong representation.

Actually I didn't state that at all. I gave foreign print and broadcast media as two examples of media free from the grip of English libel law.


English libel laws can only cover words published in England and Wales. So for example, The Washington Post has to be a little careful as a handful of copies are sold in the UK. As you say 'the truth' is a very solid defence against libel. Boner did not attempt to sue for libel.

British libel.laws laws are very effectively undermined by Twitter, as was demonstrated in the recent celebrity threesome injunction. English readers were treated to redacted news reports, whilst the Scottish Herald named the celebs. Twitter did the rest.

 

[thehog]

If foreign print media prints the words of the a UK resident (whistleblower from Sky) then the person who made the statements is libel not the foreign publication. Twitter's servers are based in California (with mirrors around the world) yet the law still applies to the residency of the alleger. Plain and simple.

The Scottish Herald in the case you speak were not printing statements from an alleger but rather the names of the individual involved avoiding a mainland injunction case which had nothing to do with libel at all.

Not sure why you would mix up a court injunction with libel law, they are two very different things. One is a remedy the other is a tort.

 

[Night Rider]

Re: Re:

Does anyone remember and have access to the screenshots from the message board / forum Cound used to post on during the Lance era? They surfaced sometime around the Wiggins / Froome (first) wins.

I'm pretty sure they were posted here at the time or could have been velorooms. Basically Cound talking her usual potty mouth stuff about anyone saying Lance was a doper. Got exposed then she went and changed the username and deleted the posts. Someone screen grabbed the originals though.

Here's one - https://twitter.com/vamosalberto/status/511546584061181952.

Thanks, that's the one.

 

[kwikki]

If foreign print media prints the words of the a UK resident (whistleblower from Sky) then the person who made the statements is libel not the foreign publication. Twitter's servers are based in California (with mirrors around the world) yet the law still applies to the residency of the alleger. Plain and simple.

The Scottish Herald in the case you speak were not printing statements from an alleger but rather the names of the individual involved avoiding a mainland injunction case which had nothing to do with libel at all.

Not sure why you would mix up a court injunction with libel law, they are two very different things. One is a remedy the other is a tort.

Yes, you are correct, it was an injunction rather than a libel case, however the point remains that social media platforms are incredibly difficult to police.

Actually, hey, here we are in The Clinic, full of accusations against all sorts of riders and staff from all sorts of teams and governing bodies, and yet nobody seems fussed enough to sue.

 

[thehog]

If foreign print media prints the words of the a UK resident (whistleblower from Sky) then the person who made the statements is libel not the foreign publication. Twitter's servers are based in California (with mirrors around the world) yet the law still applies to the residency of the alleger. Plain and simple.

The Scottish Herald in the case you speak were not printing statements from an alleger but rather the names of the individual involved avoiding a mainland injunction case which had nothing to do with libel at all.

Not sure why you would mix up a court injunction with libel law, they are two very different things. One is a remedy the other is a tort.

Yes, you are correct, it was an injunction rather than a libel case, however the point remains that social media platforms are incredibly difficult to police.

Actually, hey, here we are in The Clinic, full of accusations against all sorts of riders and staff from all sorts of teams and governing bodies, and yet nobody seems fussed enough to sue.

I think with that, you'll agree it would be substantially difficult for a Sky whistleblower without funding & representation to release a doping story on Sky.

To the point of Social Media and policing, it is no different than regular media, it encompasses the same common law on libel. Libel is not a law only for the media it is for the 'written word' regardless of the medium. Therefore it's not difficult in the slightest. Twitter or the platform can be issued a subpoena (summons) in the local jurisdiction to supply the IP address & location of the author, just like this forum can do the same if approached - it is stated in the forum rules.

 

[justifieddoubter]

Re: Re:

"Pre-vuelta there was weight loss. Also significant and not entirely unconnected was a visit to his Doctor in Kenya (covered earlier in this thread) to be treated for Badzilla. Part of that treatment was to also take Prednisolone. This also happened to coincide with his desperation to earn a new contract. ..Check out the list of side effects that accompany pred use and then look at Froome at the Vuelta...skin, coughing etc.

Have a look at what Salazar has been up to. There seems to be a high incidence of hypothyroidism amongst NOP athletes. Galen Rupp being one.

Well yes - I understand the thyroid 'issue', etc. (Salazar and others) but I couldnt find anything that was banned or subject to TUE based on the earlier posts."

think you're on to something. Hypothyroid drugs are not on WADA's banned list and there is a definite benefit of losing weight without losing strength. Decreases fatigue and aids recovery which would explain why Froome never has a bad day. Also, considered by proponents as merely restoring an athlete to normal levels so its not doping - fits in with Sky's PR

 

[justifieddoubter]

regarding whistle-blowing, UKAD simply doesn't care and has its own agenda. Just google Mark Bonar and doping

 

[thehog]

Where did all that top end power go? Even the bike swap and illegal drafting behind a car didn't help.

 

[TheSpud]

And there we have it - the worlds most protected (British) rider who is allowed to dope and win at will has just claimed the Olympic Gold, oh wait ...

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

And there we have it - the worlds most protected (British) rider who is allowed to dope and win at will has just claimed the Olympic Gold, oh wait ...

He forgot the Vino envelope......lots to learn.

 

[noddy69]

Re:

And there we have it - the worlds most protected (British) rider who is allowed to dope and win at will has just claimed the Olympic Gold, oh wait ...

Not sure I even get the sarcasm here...doesnt really make sense. Froome was never going to try for the road race he was there as the red herring for Geraint- you might have been better placed waiting till after the TT.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

And there we have it - the worlds most protected (British) rider who is allowed to dope and win at will has just claimed the Olympic Gold, oh wait ...

Not sure I even get the sarcasm here...doesnt really make sense. Froome was never going to try for the road race he was there as the red herring for Geraint- you might have been better placed waiting till after the TT.

Well it was either Froome or Thomas, but clearly Thomas didn't pay his protection fees this month (hence the crash). I guess Froomey didn't either, or maybe he didn't pay as much as the others ...

 

[burning]

Oh, so if Froome loses a race, this means that he is not protected and clean. In reality, this race was his best ever performance in a one day race and according to brit logic, this proves that he is a saint, LOL

 

[ontheroad]

One of the greatest cyclists of all time dropped by Rui Costa going up the last climb, this guy really is a conundrum.

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

And there we have it - the worlds most protected (British) rider who is allowed to dope and win at will has just claimed the Olympic Gold, oh wait ...

Not sure I even get the sarcasm here...doesnt really make sense. Froome was never going to try for the road race he was there as the red herring for Geraint- you might have been better placed waiting till after the TT.

Well it was either Froome or Thomas, but clearly Thomas didn't pay his protection fees this month (hence the crash). I guess Froomey didn't either, or maybe he didn't pay as much as the others ...

Or maybe he has but toning it down involves not winning the Tour and two Olympic golds...One is just enough that Sky can keep the machine rolling along nicely.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

Oh, so if Froome loses a race, this means that he is not protected and clean. In reality, this race was his best ever performance in a one day race and according to brit logic, this proves that he is a saint, LOL

I'm just surprised he didn't do so well given that clearly he is the UCI (and therefore the IOC) rider who is protected from a protected country ...

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

Oh, so if Froome loses a race, this means that he is not protected and clean. In reality, this race was his best ever performance in a one day race and according to brit logic, this proves that he is a saint, LOL

I'm just surprised he didn't do so well given that clearly he is the UCI (and therefore the IOC) rider who is protected from a protected country ...

On the other hand, I am very surprised that he did really well compared to his record in one day races. I guess you need to figure out that acing in one day races is very different compared to stage races. But if you claim that he is a saint, just keep on dreaming in your imaginationland.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

One of the greatest cyclists of all time dropped by Rui Costa going up the last climb, this guy really is a conundrum.

Maybe he is knackered from The Tour? I mean, if he's was doping (at will as he is protected) he would just dial it up and keep the same level????

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

One of the greatest cyclists of all time dropped by Rui Costa going up the last climb, this guy really is a conundrum.

Maybe he is knackered from The Tour? I mean, if he's was doping (at will as he is protected) he would just dial it up and keep the same level????

This post should be archived for "Hall of Fame: Brits make no sense as usual", LMAO

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Oh, so if Froome loses a race, this means that he is not protected and clean. In reality, this race was his best ever performance in a one day race and according to brit logic, this proves that he is a saint, LOL

I'm just surprised he didn't do so well given that clearly he is the UCI (and therefore the IOC) rider who is protected from a protected country ...

On the other hand, I am very surprised that he did really well compared to his record in one day races. I guess you need to figure out that acing in one day races is very different compared to stage races. But if you claim that he is a saint, just keep on dreaming in your imaginationland.

In fairness - a race like this (ie country based, like the worlds) is so random anyone can win. After all, riders are riding as countries and not teams (officially) and aren't necessarily used to riding together. You can't really compare this to Paris Nice, etc. and actually I think it was only really the Brit press who bigged up Froome for this. I would have said Thomas was a more likely bet.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

One of the greatest cyclists of all time dropped by Rui Costa going up the last climb, this guy really is a conundrum.

Maybe he is knackered from The Tour? I mean, if he's was doping (at will as he is protected) he would just dial it up and keep the same level????

This post should be archived for "Hall of Fame: Brits make no sense as usual", LMAO

Not really - its the narrative that a lot of posters on here spout : protected and can dope at will.

 

[burning]

You know, guys like Lance, Riis, Pantani had bad days as well. According to your logic, they were clean riders. And yes, Froome is charging all out like no tomorrow.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

You know, guys like Lance, Riis, Pantani had bad days as well. According to your logic, they were clean riders.

And according to your logic they (Brits / Sky) are protected ...

 

[burning]

What? You are just doing strawman, have fun with your hilarious logic.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

What? You are just doing strawman, have fun with your hilarious logic.

Ah clinic 101 - invoke the Strawman ...