Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[MartinGT]

I've seen so many

'Well he was leader and knew he was going to be tested, so why take so much' comments it does make me laugh. Then when you point out other potential factors you're hit with 'you hate Sky' comments. With those people there is no reasoning.

 

[VO2 Max]

So what's the time line now? How long can the clock tick on 'Prove to us you're innocent?' Do Sky own the timeline and try to arrange for any ban to start in August 2018, or is there a big Wada clock somewhere? Funnily enough the AAD was on 07/09/17 so exactly an Ulissi-style nine months before next year's TdF... I bet the real debates behind the scenes are over an admission of guilt at a suitable point so that he can race as normal perhaps even through the Dauphine then gets a back-dated ban that concludes on the evening before the Tour. Vuelta, World medal and all spring results wiped but otherwise all back to normal, innocent mistake, just some urgent medication but we accept that rules are rules etc, then look Tour win no.5, yay!

Edit, lolz I’m usually good at maths, but that’s ten months isn’t it! Doesn’t invalidate the general point though.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

I've seen so many

'Well he was leader and knew he was going to be tested, so why take so much' comments it does make me laugh. Then when you point out other potential factors you're hit with 'you hate Sky' comments. With those people there is no reasoning.

Goodness me, i can hardly breathe for the irony. Where did i put my inhaler :lol:

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

I've seen so many

'Well he was leader and knew he was going to be tested, so why take so much' comments it does make me laugh. Then when you point out other potential factors you're hit with 'you hate Sky' comments. With those people there is no reasoning.

While I wouldn't ascribe this to any long-time members or active members who simply take that view, this situation is 100% guaranteed to be generating bots from the Sky PR machine. Some folks are just here and moreso on the comments sections of the articles to lob talking points.

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

I've seen so many

'Well he was leader and knew he was going to be tested, so why take so much' comments it does make me laugh. Then when you point out other potential factors you're hit with 'you hate Sky' comments. With those people there is no reasoning.

Goodness me, i can hardly breathe for the irony. Where did i put my inhaler :lol:

Whilst I agree some of the people who are finger point at Sky, I would like to think a lot seriously know their stuff. They know their cycling history. But I would also like to think they're open for discussion. It's difficult with some though. But when you point to certain potential situations and get told you're saying those because you hate Sky, its like been back at school. Maybe they are, I dunno.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I've seen so many

'Well he was leader and knew he was going to be tested, so why take so much' comments it does make me laugh. Then when you point out other potential factors you're hit with 'you hate Sky' comments. With those people there is no reasoning.

Goodness me, i can hardly breathe for the irony. Where did i put my inhaler :lol:

Whilst I agree some of the people who are finger point at Sky, I would like to think a lot seriously know their stuff. They know their cycling history. But I would also like to think they're open for discussion. It's difficult with some though. But when you point to certain potential situations and get told you're saying those because you hate Sky, its like been back at school. Maybe they are, I dunno.

Oh come on, surely you've got to see that this goes on in both directions. People who put forward theories that potentially defend Sky are quickly labelled Skybots/Fanboys etc: How is that any different to people being labelled Sky Haters.

Hence my irony comment.

Come on, please, you gotta at least see that??

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Always remember, Froome has always used the following line:

"My results will stand the test of time"

Over and over and over.

And yet never, was he saying, "I dont mess with advanced research chemicals, unknown pharma products and procedures, and I dont game the TUE system for any reason"

Because really, that is what you would need to say, if in fact you were really trying to say, "Im not a doper of any stripe".

 

[veji11]

Marginal gains will bite you in the ass if something falls out of line... when you play the system to the max by staying within the rule but doing all you can within the rules, you are closer to the boundary should something go amiss. less margin of error. It's a bit like trying to go for 49,5% hematocrits when 50% was the limit.. if you have some unforeseen dehydration issue you might be at 50,5 and boom you blew it.

When you go for marginal gains, the margin of error is gone.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Don't worry, we have a new vanguard of clean cycling in the shape of Tony Martin and Marcel Kittel.

What is the case against Kittel and Tony Martin then?

Long time ago now, but as i recall Kittel used to think it was OK to have the blood removed from his body, passed through some kind of UV exposure, and then reinfused. All sounds perfectly normal to me :lol:

Perfectly legal at the time he did it, according to a CAS ruling.

It was legal (not banned) in 2008 because WADA didnt know about it. As soon as it came to light in 2012 it was banned immediately. If taking your own blood out of your body, passing it through a UV light and then reinfusing isn't blood doping then i don't know what is. WTF were they doing, trying to get his blood a nice healthy tan?

He got off on a technicality. If Froome beats this charge on a legal technicality the Clinic goes batshit crazy. Rightly so. If we insert Froome's name in place of Kittel in this report, then change the year to 2011 the Clinic goes batshit crazy.

My first response when i saw Tony Martins post this morning, name checking Kittel as the paragon of virtue was to presume it was a spoof.

It appears i was wrong.

You don't get off on a technicality if it was legal at the time - Getting off on a technicality is referring to things like a sample not correctly 'following the chain of custody' or something like WADA not correctly listing a substance as banned or in the Meldonium cases of 2017 in which WADA failed to release the substance could stayin the body for 6 months.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Long time ago now, but as i recall Kittel used to think it was OK to have the blood removed from his body, passed through some kind of UV exposure, and then reinfused. All sounds perfectly normal to me :lol:[/quote]
Perfectly legal at the time he did it, according to a CAS ruling.[/quote]

It was legal (not banned) in 2008 because WADA didnt know about it. As soon as it came to light in 2012 it was banned immediately. If taking your own blood out of your body, passing it through a UV light and then reinfusing isn't blood doping then i don't know what is. WTF were they doing, trying to get his blood a nice healthy tan?

He got off on a technicality. If Froome beats this charge on a legal technicality the Clinic goes batshit crazy. Rightly so. If we insert Froome's name in place of Kittel in this report, then change the year to 2011 the Clinic goes batshit crazy.

My first response when i saw Tony Martins post this morning, name checking Kittel as the paragon of virtue was to presume it was a spoof.

It appears i was wrong.[/quote]

You don't get off on a technicality if it was legal at the time - Getting off on a technicality is referring to things like a sample not correctly 'following the chain of custody' or something like WADA not correctly listing a substance as banned or in the Meldonium cases of 2017 in which WADA failed to release the substance could stayin the body for 6 months.[/quote]

The German doping authorities thought they had a good enough case to bring a prosecution. Kittel's lawyers defended this case successfully. That's getting away with it by means of a legal defence. I call it a legal technicality. The technicality being wether or not the process of withdrawing blood, passing it through UV light, then reinfusing, was blood doping. Blood doping is any process of manipulating the blood for performance benefits, wether by a specified process or not. If it wasn't blood doping, then WTF was it.

Blood doping, by any means, specified or not, is and was illegal at the time.

Details are scarce, but somehow Kittel's lawyers convinced the CAS that this wasn't blood doping. Froome should be tracking down these lawyers and paying them whatever they want.

There's no comparison with the Meldonium case.

 

[Gigs_98]

I'm actually starting to wonder whether Froome might maybe really be "innocent". Maybe he just tried to push the boundries and take as much Salbutamol as allowed but because of some unknown reasons it backfired and his body didn't process the substance fast enough. I've now already read a few articles claiming the too high portion of Salbutamol in his urine might be due to dehydration which sounds logical to someone like me who isn't exactly knowledgeable in this topic. I just don't get why you would purposely take too much of a substance like Salbutamol when you know you'll get tested the following day. Wouldn't that be unbelievably stupid? This just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

Don't worry, we have a new vanguard of clean cycling in the shape of Tony Martin and Marcel Kittel.

What is the case against Kittel and Tony Martin then?

Long time ago now, but as i recall Kittel used to think it was OK to have the blood removed from his body, passed through some kind of UV exposure, and then reinfused. All sounds perfectly normal to me :lol:

Perfectly legal at the time he did it, according to a CAS ruling.

It was legal (not banned) in 2008 because WADA didnt know about it. As soon as it came to light in 2012 it was banned immediately. If taking your own blood out of your body, passing it through a UV light and then reinfusing isn't blood doping then i don't know what is. WTF were they doing, trying to get his blood a nice healthy tan?

He got off on a technicality. If Froome beats this charge on a legal technicality the Clinic goes batshit crazy. Rightly so. If we insert Froome's name in place of Kittel in this report, then change the year to 2011 the Clinic goes batshit crazy.

My first response when i saw Tony Martins post this morning, name checking Kittel as the paragon of virtue was to presume it was a spoof.

It appears i was wrong.

As Froome and Sky are much higher profile than Kittel it only makes sense that the response to similar trangressions will not be the same. With all the great pr and attention that the media gives Froome and Sky it is equally coveted by them. With that comes an equal amount of a criticism and commentary from the fans of the sport. You can't have the fame without the scrutiny.

 

[veji11]

I'm actually starting to wonder whether Froome might maybe really be "innocent". Maybe he just tried to push the boundries and take as much Salbutamol as allowed but because of some unknown reasons it backfired and his body didn't process the substance fast enough. I've now already read a few articles claiming the too high portion of Salbutamol in his urine might be due to dehydration which sounds logical to someone like me who isn't exactly knowledgeable in this topic. I just don't get why you would purposely take too much of a substance like Salbutamol when you know you'll get tested the following day. Wouldn't that be unbelievably stupid? This just doesn't make sense to me.

I believe this might very much be the case : push the enveloppe as much as possible within the rules, but then when you mess up on one variable, you shouldn't expect any leniency. You played the "hey guys I was within the rules, I could do what I wanted" card, if you step outside of the line by mistake, too bad.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

As Froome and Sky are much higher profile than Kittel it only makes sense that the response to similar trangressions will not be the same. With all the great pr and attention that the media gives Froome and Sky it is equally coveted by them. With that comes an equal amount of a criticism and commentary from the fans of the sport. You can't have the fame without the scrutiny.[/quote]

I don't disagree at all....my only reason for bringing up the issue was Marcel Kittel being name checked by Tony Martin when talking about clean sportsmen. Stinks of hypocrisy.

And lets not pretend Kittel is some little known pack fodder. He's quite a big deal in cycling these days, wont surprise me to see him go on and beat the record for most TDF stage wins in history...

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

As Froome and Sky are much higher profile than Kittel it only makes sense that the response to similar trangressions will not be the same. With all the great pr and attention that the media gives Froome and Sky it is equally coveted by them. With that comes an equal amount of a criticism and commentary from the fans of the sport. You can't have the fame without the scrutiny.

I don't disagree at all....my only reason for bringing up the issue was Marcel Kittel being name checked by Tony Martin when talking about clean sportsmen. Stinks of hypocrisy.

And lets not pretend Kittel is some little known pack fodder. He's quite a big deal in cycling these days, wont surprise me to see him go on and beat the record for most TDF stage wins in history...[/quote]

You're speaking on what Kittel might do versus what Froome has done. There is no comparison in the context of this conversation which was based on the forum response to Kittel vs Froome. And where did I say or even imply that Kittel is little known? I'm sure you know exactly what is being discussed here but simply want to continue to play Froome as the victim.

Edit: And I agree Martin is playing favorites here.

 

[veji11]

Well honestly that Kittel thing was outrageous and still is. You pump your blood out and put it back in and you argue it's ok ??? really ? UCI at the time lacked guts. It should have if not punished at least massively shamed the culprit saying that "while not legally punishable because unknown at the time this action is viewed as having a clear intent of boosting one's blood efficiency artificially and therefore to reaping benefits akin to those of banned doping. This type of practice will not be tolerated and should not have been tolerated, the UCI regrets not being able to punish the rider for what should have been an offence.". Boom.

 

[Gigs_98]

It would be interested if there are any urine samples of Froome from stage 13 of the tour, the day after he was dropped like a stone on the last kilometer of Peyragudes. I think that stage was a lot like stage 18 in the vuelta since in both cases he had a really bad day the day before but then suddenly looked like the strongest climber of the race. He didn't gain any time on the Foix stage but if I remember correctly he was quite close to dropping all other gc contenders on the Mur de Peguere.
Since his vuelta case was only published due to a leak, maybe there have been similar cases earlier which never came to light.

Edit: I was writing about stage 13 of the tour, not the vuelta. Forgot to write that into the text

 

[Kretch]

It would be interested if there are any urine samples of Froome from stage 13, the day after he was dropped like a stone on the last kilometer of Peyragudes. I think that stage was a lot like stage 18 in the vuelta since in both cases he had a really bad day the day before but then suddenly looked like the strongest climber of the race. He didn't gain any time on the Foix stage but if I remember correctly he was quite close to dropping all other gc contenders on the Mur de Peguere.
Since his vuelta case was only published due to a leak, maybe there have been similar cases earlier which never came to light.

As I've asked before, would they have his salbutamol level from Stage 3 on? That data would be very instructive.

 

[jmdirt]

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381

 

[Escarabajo]

I'm actually starting to wonder whether Froome might maybe really be "innocent". Maybe he just tried to push the boundries and take as much Salbutamol as allowed but because of some unknown reasons it backfired and his body didn't process the substance fast enough. I've now already read a few articles claiming the too high portion of Salbutamol in his urine might be due to dehydration which sounds logical to someone like me who isn't exactly knowledgeable in this topic. I just don't get why you would purposely take too much of a substance like Salbutamol when you know you'll get tested the following day. Wouldn't that be unbelievably stupid? This just doesn't make sense to me.

And we still get doping offenses despite of knowing that you are going to be tested. He won't be the last person.
The risk / reward relation for this cyclist is low so that they keep doing it.

 

[MartinGT]

Re:

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381

Good read that

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

Don't worry, we have a new vanguard of clean cycling in the shape of Tony Martin and Marcel Kittel.

What is the case against Kittel and Tony Martin then?

Long time ago now, but as i recall Kittel used to think it was OK to have the blood removed from his body, passed through some kind of UV exposure, and then reinfused. All sounds perfectly normal to me :lol:

ozone not UV IIRC.


A process which would fall foul of WADA rules now, but did not at the time.


(its also complete bunk, but sells well to the ill informed alt-med types)

 

[nayr497]

How plausible is it that the single greatest stage racer on the planet also happens to have asthma? Seems odd.

 

[70kmph]

There's an interview with Alessandro Petacchi where he says he didn't drink enough water after the race and then went straight to the controls and cites this as the reason for his high levels of Salbutomol. If he'd only drank some water he would have beaten the testers... like the others.

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/petacchi-like-atomic-bomb-fell-cycling-froomes-positive_453271

 

[GraftPunk]

Eh, it's feeling more and more BB to me, almost akin to Contie's clen. What is the half-life of Sal in a BB, or does time elapsed not affect it? I know we have some people in the know...