Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Libertine Seguros]

Unfortunately this is where a poster who is often informative makes a mistake by trying to legitimize their view. Froome has competed and passed all the UCI requirements to compete so by definition his TdF win is legitimate so you cannot have legitimate reasons to doubt him!!!

Legitimate reasons to have doubts and legitimate reasons to convict somebody of doping are different things.

Sky having a doctor who was known to be involved in doping is a legitimate reason to suspect that they may not be 100% clean. A rider changing his story several times and unable to keep his timeline consistent when referring to illnesses that stunted their development is a legitimate reason to suspect they are not telling the truth. A rider making enormous strides in their development, from "no contract offer on the table, a couple of minimum WT wage offers in the pipeline" to "GT podium and strongest rider in the race" in the course of three weeks is a legitimate reason to suspect that that development is not 100% natural.

None of them are reasons to hang Froome as a doper. But they are legitimate causes of doubt to the neutral observer.

And let's be clear, apart from a few hardcore fans and those with a personal connection to him, almost all of us WERE neutral at the time of that development, because he'd never been prominent enough for us to have the chance to build an opinion of him. Of course, since then it's a completely different matter, and neutrality is an increasingly untenable position with regards to Froome and Sky owing to their pre-eminent position in the sport. Same as how Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern München or Manchester United grow the biggest fanbases but also breed the biggest resentment.

 

[red_flanders]

Legitimate reasons to have doubts and legitimate reasons to convict somebody of doping are different things.

Sky having a doctor who was known to be involved in doping is a legitimate reason to suspect that they may not be 100% clean. A rider changing his story several times and unable to keep his timeline consistent when referring to illnesses that stunted their development is a legitimate reason to suspect they are not telling the truth. A rider making enormous strides in their development, from "no contract offer on the table, a couple of minimum WT wage offers in the pipeline" to "GT podium and strongest rider in the race" in the course of three weeks is a legitimate reason to suspect that that development is not 100% natural.


None of them are reasons to hang Froome as a doper. But they are legitimate causes of doubt to the neutral observer.


And let's be clear, apart from a few hardcore fans and those with a personal connection to him, almost all of us WERE neutral at the time of that development, because he'd never been prominent enough for us to have the chance to build an opinion of him. Of course, since then it's a completely different matter, and neutrality is an increasingly untenable position with regards to Froome and Sky owing to their pre-eminent position in the sport. Same as how Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern München or Manchester United grow the biggest fanbases but also breed the biggest resentment.

Articulate post. Saddens me that what you outline isn't just obvious to everyone. What a waste of time to have to break down such concepts. Appreciate that you do and how well you do it.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Froome has competed and passed all the UCI requirements to compete so by definition his TdF win is legitimate so you cannot have legitimate reasons to doubt him!!!

None of them are reasons to hang Froome as a doper. But they are legitimate causes of doubt to the neutral observer.

-Never tested positive
-Most tested athlete
-Lance Armstrong never, never, never doped.
-The UCI does not hide positives.

Again, this strategically strict demand for facts that won't appear at least until the SOL kicks in is ridiculous. Using the fact the UCI does not process positives is disingenuous at best.

His personal history of athletic performance resembles a number of dopers who denied, denied, denied, until they stopped denying.

Good game everyone!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Legitimate reasons to have doubts and legitimate reasons to convict somebody of doping are different things.

Sky having a doctor who was known to be involved in doping is a legitimate reason to suspect that they may not be 100% clean. A rider changing his story several times and unable to keep his timeline consistent when referring to illnesses that stunted their development is a legitimate reason to suspect they are not telling the truth. A rider making enormous strides in their development, from "no contract offer on the table, a couple of minimum WT wage offers in the pipeline" to "GT podium and strongest rider in the race" in the course of three weeks is a legitimate reason to suspect that that development is not 100% natural.

None of them are reasons to hang Froome as a doper. But they are legitimate causes of doubt to the neutral observer

And let's be clear, apart from a few hardcore fans and those with a personal connection to him, almost all of us WERE neutral at the time of that development, because he'd never been prominent enough for us to have the chance to build an opinion of him. Of course, since then it's a completely different matter, and neutrality is an increasingly untenable position with regards to Froome and Sky owing to their pre-eminent position in the sport. Same as how Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern München or Manchester United grow the biggest fanbases but also breed the biggest resentment.

Good post to put the whole issue of Froome in some reasonable context.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You cannot seriously be saying that calling Ms Cound - "***", "not the brightest candle", "lack of class", "ignorant", "self-deluded" teasing? Those comments by posters on the Clinic were clearly intended to be injurious harassment.

In fairness there were a lot of comments that were of a "teasing" nature, but not very many.

Which was it, "a lot" or "not very many"? Because even though I "rarely get the drift of any comment" I think that I can tell that those two measurements do not mean the same thing.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Edit: OK, I got it. **** is not allowed, but dicks. Didn´t know the filter was that easy to manipulate...

I was not trying to manipulate, my statement was "you guys are such dicks" it would hardly make sense to say "you guys are such ****". Apparently one **** is bad but lots of dicks is OK?

 

[Netserk]

I was not trying to manipulate, my statement was "you guys are such dicks" it would hardly make sense to say "you guys are such ****". Apparently one **** is bad but lots of dicks is OK?

The same with pussies Always better with more.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Good post to put the whole issue of Froome in some reasonable context.

No it's not. There's an implicit reliance on the idea the UCI is a fair-dealing anti-doping adjudicator. They are not.

In an even broader view, it is fair, and reasonable that there be a process for sanctioning. (WADA standards) But even then the UCI has craftily used that process to get sanctions and control other actors in the cycling business. (Landis, Verbruggen's "I can make anyone positive.")

Finally, we as viewers have no authority so discussions of sanctions vs. suspicions are moot.

It's not personal. I am a big believer in sorting out evidence. Agreeing to disagree is as good as it gets sometimes, and that's okay.

 

[thirteen]

The same with pussies Always better with more.

i'll drink to that!

(off to experiment with plurals now -- lol, merci!)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I was not trying to manipulate, my statement was "you guys are such dicks" it would hardly make sense to say "you guys are such ****". Apparently one **** is bad but lots of dicks is OK?

Look. It´s not a personal insult (other than to Mr Canuck). But you didn´t specify the other dicks.
If you had said "you dicks A, B, C" OTOH would be a personal insults in each case.
As long as you keep it general, it´s ok. But take care when you insult groups, the more you specify, it could be a personal insult. There is a fine line.
Example; "The small group of posters in the clinic who are uncertain about Froome, but clearly indicate that they think CH is doping are such dicks". It´s clear whom you would mean (RR, me, and then some). That would be personal insults.
At least such is the rule in Germany.
For me I don´t care about group offendings, because it just shows the lack of arguments.
I also can live with personal attacks since I don´t take the clinic that serious anymore. If I get offended, I can hit back the lowest style possible. It´s called implied insults. It´s allowed in german law, so I guess it´s the same logic here.
IOW, for example, if theSceptic comes around with more of his insulting tirads (but lack of arguments; I wonder if he ever came up with some facts that underline his posts*) I feel free to call him what I think he is.

* which I think he knows the reason for. There can´t be any sensical logical arguments to underline such sayings as Sky started the doping arms race anew, thus CH had to dope, or that CH had to dope in May 2011 b/c Sky will dominate tours in the future.
---
With manipulate I thought it was, b/c if **** doesn´t get trou, I assumed dicks won´t either. I learned different instantly...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

No it's not. There's an implicit reliance on the idea the UCI is a fair-dealing anti-doping adjudicator. They are not.

In an even broader view, it is fair, and reasonable that there be a process for sanctioning. (WADA standards) But even then the UCI has craftily used that process to get sanctions and control other actors in the cycling business. (Landis, Verbruggen's "I can make anyone positive.")

Finally, we as viewers have no authority so discussions of sanctions vs. suspicions are moot.

It's not personal. I am a big believer in sorting out evidence. Agreeing to disagree is as good as it gets sometimes, and that's okay.

What about the fact the UCI has created two new institutions independent of the UCI? I am thinking of the Legal Anti Doping Service (LADS) and the Cycling Anti Doping Foundation (CADF)

The CADF has ISO sanctioning. It is independent of the UCI. Part of its mandate includes,

(a) provide scientific and administrative support to the Legal Anti-Doping Service for case management,

(b) provide administrative support to the UCI Scientific Adviser on the management of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE)

It is not a testing authority per se. In Sept. 2013 it made a clean slate of its Board so there is no overlap with the UCI Board. In my view this is really important so both Boards can consider things independently.


The LADS is also independent of the UCI. According to the UCI website it's makeup is "Essentially composed of legal experts, this body intervenes when a case of an apparent breach of the anti-doping rules is reported to it, in particular by the CADF, and takes responsibility for the procedure that will result in the sanction – or not – of the rider (or other licence holder) in question." In addition the LADS is responsible for initiating and following up disciplinary procedures.

Now these developments occurred in Sept. and Oct. 2013 so it may be a bit early to see how well these institutions work, but it seems to me the UCI have gone a long way to dealing with your concerns about independence. In my view this new arrangement should eliminate the ability of the senior UCI management from engaging in corruption such as we all suspect occurred under Verbruggen and McQuaid.

Now you may have a legitimate concern there are too many "legal experts" in charge. I don't read this statement that it is just lawyers who will be making decisions but also persons with expertise in doping (scientific, medical etc.) that make up the staff at the LADS. I do feel lawyers have a better ability to understand the anti-doping legislation and how it is to be interpreted and to ensure the rider gets a fair hearing etc. but that is just a natural outcropping of the training and experience of lawyers.

I do disagree with you that the UCI are not committed to clean cycling and anti-doping. Your argument seems to be, and it is a good one - "where are the results." IMHO you may be equating lack off results with lack of commitment. I don't think that is the case because clearly it is in the best interests of cycling it be clean otherwise cycling will be thrown out of the Olympics and as fans we will endure further years of cynicism and many will just abandon the sport.

As a fan I think all we can do is see what happens, continue to advocate for better transparency from the CADF, the LADS, the UCI generally, WADA, all the NADAs and more importantly the teams and the riders themselves.

I think 2014 will be a testing period for this new organizational arrangement and I am hoping the UCI can show their new system works.

I also hope you continue to agitate and advocate for more responsibility within cycling generally and cycling organizations specifically because you have really identified a systemic problem (especially in the USA and at USAC) and I hope you continue to expose its shortcomings with your comments.

The one thing Clinicians do well, is they don't let these organizations get away with any bu!!$h!t. How, many of our Clinicians express these concerns in the Clinic is another matter.

Cheers.

 

[timmers]

Legitimate reasons to have doubts and legitimate reasons to convict somebody of doping are different things.

Sky having a doctor who was known to be involved in doping is a legitimate reason to suspect that they may not be 100% clean. A rider changing his story several times and unable to keep his timeline consistent when referring to illnesses that stunted their development is a legitimate reason to suspect they are not telling the truth. A rider making enormous strides in their development, from "no contract offer on the table, a couple of minimum WT wage offers in the pipeline" to "GT podium and strongest rider in the race" in the course of three weeks is a legitimate reason to suspect that that development is not 100% natural.

None of them are reasons to hang Froome as a doper. But they are legitimate causes of doubt to the neutral observer.

And let's be clear, apart from a few hardcore fans and those with a personal connection to him, almost all of us WERE neutral at the time of that development, because he'd never been prominent enough for us to have the chance to build an opinion of him. Of course, since then it's a completely different matter, and neutrality is an increasingly untenable position with regards to Froome and Sky owing to their pre-eminent position in the sport. Same as how Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern München or Manchester United grow the biggest fanbases but also breed the biggest resentment.

I don't disagree about Sky employing Leinders but I had had a quick check of GT results and it seems Menchov is Rabobanks only success with 2 Vueltas, a Giro and two TdF podiums. Rasmussen and Dekker were caught and I thought Menchov was linked to HumanPlasma. Why was Leinders able to achieve and maintain Froome's rapid ascent if it is due to doping in the biopassport era given he hadn't achieved that with a rider of similar level previously? Why are there no other Froome's?

For a team sponsored by a media company Sky and their riders communication skills are very poor and perhaps hindered by Brailsford's liking of management speak. But I am prepared to give Froome some leeway as I don't know how smart he is but people forget timelines and also exaggerate but one would have thought that their PR people would have had a consistent story. Perhaps there have been mistakes in the reporting as well. The difficulty now is there is a very much them and us because of some of the twits twittering and the like.
Maybe someone with a twitter account not blocked by Michelle Cound could tweet her in a nice way to get her to ask Froome a couple of questions or perhaps a cycling journalist might ask them to clear matters up or alternatively make them very murky.

To make clear my position I need better evidence before I will call Froome a cheat but if Sky has organised doping and/or Froome is doping then I want them out of the sport.

 

[Clausfarre]

Calling the victim of rape and death threats a liar. A misogynistic classic.

No clearer indication of just exactly what you are. Consider yourself blocked; I don't waste time on your ilk.

Whoa, whoa, simmer down. I had not heard about this twitter thing before now but asking for proof is not at all unreasonable. It is equally bad claiming somebody made threats if it isn't the case as both scenarios have innocent victims. Calling someone misogynistic (as if we aren't all responsible for backing up our claims regardless of who or what we are) is as counterproductive as can be.

 

[RetroActive]

What about the fact the UCI has created two new institutions independent of the UCI? I am thinking of the Legal Anti Doping Service (LADS) and the Cycling Anti Doping Foundation (CADF)

The CADF has ISO sanctioning. It is independent of the UCI. Part of its mandate includes,

(a) provide scientific and administrative support to the Legal Anti-Doping Service for case management,

(b) provide administrative support to the UCI Scientific Adviser on the management of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE)

It is not a testing authority per se. In Sept. 2013 it made a clean slate of its Board so there is no overlap with the UCI Board. In my view this is really important so both Boards can consider things independently.


The LADS is also independent of the UCI. According to the UCI website it's makeup is "Essentially composed of legal experts, this body intervenes when a case of an apparent breach of the anti-doping rules is reported to it, in particular by the CADF, and takes responsibility for the procedure that will result in the sanction – or not – of the rider (or other licence holder) in question." In addition the LADS is responsible for initiating and following up disciplinary procedures.

Now these developments occurred in Sept. and Oct. 2013 so it may be a bit early to see how well these institutions work, but it seems to me the UCI have gone a long way to dealing with your concerns about independence. In my view this new arrangement should eliminate the ability of the senior UCI management from engaging in corruption such as we all suspect occurred under Verbruggen and McQuaid.

Now you may have a legitimate concern there are too many "legal experts" in charge. I don't read this statement that it is just lawyers who will be making decisions but also persons with expertise in doping (scientific, medical etc.) that make up the staff at the LADS. I do feel lawyers have a better ability to understand the anti-doping legislation and how it is to be interpreted and to ensure the rider gets a fair hearing etc. but that is just a natural outcropping of the training and experience of lawyers.

I do disagree with you that the UCI are not committed to clean cycling and anti-doping. Your argument seems to be, and it is a good one - "where are the results." IMHO you may be equating lack off results with lack of commitment. I don't think that is the case because clearly it is in the best interests of cycling it be clean otherwise cycling will be thrown out of the Olympics and as fans we will endure further years of cynicism and many will just abandon the sport.

As a fan I think all we can do is see what happens, continue to advocate for better transparency from the CADF, the LADS, the UCI generally, WADA, all the NADAs and more importantly the teams and the riders themselves.

I think 2014 will be a testing period for this new organizational arrangement and I am hoping the UCI can show their new system works.

I also hope you continue to agitate and advocate for more responsibility within cycling generally and cycling organizations specifically because you have really identified a systemic problem (especially in the USA and at USAC) and I hope you continue to expose its shortcomings with your comments.

The one thing Clinicians do well, is they don't let these organizations get away with any bu!!$h!t. How, many of our Clinicians express these concerns in the Clinic is another matter.

Cheers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQEqLUtp9Bg

Froome is amazing and Dolly was a sheep.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't disagree about Sky employing Leinders but I had had a quick check of GT results and it seems Menchov is Rabobanks only success with 2 Vueltas, a Giro and two TdF podiums. Rasmussen and Dekker were caught and I thought Menchov was linked to HumanPlasma. Why was Leinders able to achieve and maintain Froome's rapid ascent if it is due to doping in the biopassport era given he hadn't achieved that with a rider of similar level previously? Why are there no other Froome's?

Rasmussen wasn't caught, he lied about his whereabouts. Michael Rasmussen has never tested positive. Leinders' role, so it has seemed from information that's come out since, was more about preventing the positive tests than about preparing the program. So possibly he's a red herring with relation to Sky, but if he is, why is there a red herring in the first place? Why were they so reluctant to discuss his employment there? Also, there's Freire, Flecha, Boogerd, the other Dekker, Wauters, Sven Nys, de Jongh, Leipheimer... there are plenty of connections to dubious behaviour in the past at Rabobank and plenty of Rabobank riders who achieved on a very high level. As for no Froomes, in which way, as the "very sudden increase in level to the point of contention for GTs unexpectedly" obviously would apply to pre-Sky Wiggins and to a lesser extent to Richie Porte too.

For a team sponsored by a media company Sky and their riders communication skills are very poor and perhaps hindered by Brailsford's liking of management speak. But I am prepared to give Froome some leeway as I don't know how smart he is but people forget timelines and also exaggerate but one would have thought that their PR people would have had a consistent story. Perhaps there have been mistakes in the reporting as well. The difficulty now is there is a very much them and us because of some of the twits twittering and the like.
Maybe someone with a twitter account not blocked by Michelle Cound could tweet her in a nice way to get her to ask Froome a couple of questions or perhaps a cycling journalist might ask them to clear matters up or alternatively make them very murky.

To make clear my position I need better evidence before I will call Froome a cheat but if Sky has organised doping and/or Froome is doping then I want them out of the sport.

But it's not about whether you call Froome a cheat at this point: you said there was no legitimate reason to doubt them.

There are legitimate reasons to doubt them, and if you don't disagree about Leinders then clearly you consider this reason a legitimate justification for having doubts about Sky. Which is what it is, all told. It's something that, if while watching them drop everybody like stones in the Tour, thinking "how impressive this guy is!", somebody tells you "you know they employed a doctor who was named in court documents in the Rasmussen case as involved in doping, and they tried to hide his involvement, and ran away from questions about his presence after saying they'd do an investigation into his past, right?", your thoughts may change from "how impressive this guy is!" to "how impressive this guy is! I hope he isn't dodgy". Even that is what we're talking about - the knowledge of Leinders' involvement puts doubt into the mind of the previously unquestioning viewer, and does so for an entirely legitimate reason, as no lies have been told.

 

[Nathan12]

I don't disagree about Sky employing Leinders but I had had a quick check of GT results and it seems Menchov is Rabobanks only success with 2 Vueltas, a Giro and two TdF podiums. Rasmussen and Dekker were caught and I thought Menchov was linked to HumanPlasma. Why was Leinders able to achieve and maintain Froome's rapid ascent if it is due to doping in the biopassport era given he hadn't achieved that with a rider of similar level previously? Why are there no other Froome's?

For a team sponsored by a media company Sky and their riders communication skills are very poor and perhaps hindered by Brailsford's liking of management speak. But I am prepared to give Froome some leeway as I don't know how smart he is but people forget timelines and also exaggerate but one would have thought that their PR people would have had a consistent story. Perhaps there have been mistakes in the reporting as well. The difficulty now is there is a very much them and us because of some of the twits twittering and the like.
Maybe someone with a twitter account not blocked by Michelle Cound could tweet her in a nice way to get her to ask Froome a couple of questions or perhaps a cycling journalist might ask them to clear matters up or alternatively make them very murky.

To make clear my position I need better evidence before I will call Froome a cheat but if Sky has organised doping and/or Froome is doping then I want them out of the sport.

Why are you just focusing on Leinders? Sky was riddled with ex-dopers from the start. I also think Kerrison's role needs more investigation.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Why are you just focusing on Leinders? Sky was riddled with ex-dopers from the start. I also think Kerrison's role needs more investigation.

Cycling is riddled with ex-dopers though. The fact is that Sky were not very good to begin with, then they underwent a sudden transformation in performance when Leinders was appointed. The work Leinders did continued to have an effect after his dismissal but his influence is fading now and it's showing in Sky's results.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't disagree about Sky employing Leinders but I had had a quick check of GT results and it seems Menchov is Rabobanks only success with 2 Vueltas, a Giro and two TdF podiums. Rasmussen and Dekker were caught and I thought Menchov was linked to HumanPlasma. Why was Leinders able to achieve and maintain Froome's rapid ascent if it is due to doping in the biopassport era given he hadn't achieved that with a rider of similar level previously? Why are there no other Froome's?

This is very confusing. You say no-one at rabo was as dominant as froome and Wiggins. Therefore you doubt he doped?

So you think it's easier to believe that froome achieved his current form with no doping whatsoever than it is to believe there is some doping involved?

Lets apply that logic to Ferrari. His best (client) on alpe is 37.30. If another Ferrari client came along and rode 34 mins would you day - oh but ferrari never doped someone that we'll before. Ergo Ferrari might not be doping him at all.

He would be more suspicious to you if he was going slower, in some kind of goldilocks zone not too slow not too fast than at his current speed?

 

[bigcog]

Why was Leinders able to achieve and maintain Froome's rapid ascent if it is due to doping in the biopassport era given he hadn't achieved that with a rider of similar level previously? Why are there no other Froome's?

Finishing 36th in giro 2009 whilst clueless and riding for barloworld show some potential and 2nd in ITT in 2010 UK champs. So to say he came from cat4 prior to 2011 or something similar is rubbish.

 

[EnacheV]

sorry guys but i won't be to active in Sky/Froome threads anymore, they are yesterday's news.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

36th in that Giro is well worse than Francis De Greef who is the same age ...

 

[bigcog]

36th in that Giro is well worse than Francis De Greef who is the same age ...

Well that's it settled then ... what a brilliant empirical argument.

 

[bigcog]

i agree… her wording on that tweet was not wise (and truly bad timing) but getting rape threats for it? come on!

on the other hand, kudos to her for having a sense of humour about it all… wanted Gerrie Nel as the prosecutor if she ends up murdered

Plus the one who said he hoped she contracted and died of cancer, lovely ...

 

[GJB123]

Finishing 36th in giro 2009 whilst clueless and riding for barloworld show some potential and 2nd in ITT in 2010 UK champs. So to say he came from cat4 prior to 2011 or something similar is rubbish.

Yep, he showed some potential (and I use that word loosely), but did it indicate GT-crushing potential? I think you kno the answer, but you are just nor ready to admit it.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Well that's it settled then ... what a brilliant empirical argument.

It helps put the achievement in perspective
If your best result is finishing right behind Andrey Zeits (more than a year younger) in a GT ...
You aren't exactly anywhere near the league of GT-winning riders