Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[rick james]

Re: Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

small quantities of weak drug.

Didn't seem to stop you from going after Contador

Hypocrite much?

yip gifted his final stage by the Dawg and Poels. good riddance to the dirty cheat and unrepentant doper

if only Bertie admitted to his sins....we would all sleep easier at night

 

[Alpe73]

Yeah the disproportionate focus on Froome, like on Armstrong before him, is pretty simple. Success + hubris + people being sick of being lied to and having the broader casual fanbase accept those lies uncritically. That is a recipe that is on a different scale of egregiousness than if, say, Aru or Quintana or Simon Yates (oh wait, that's not a hypothetical) tested positive and banned as an open-and-shut case. That would be just another doper, this is a crack in the dominant narrative in cycling, the gravitational pull of which the bulk of money and power in cycling has circled around for the last 5 years. It's just particularly galling that Team Sky came onto the scene with much pomp and $$$ and has preached transparency while practicing obfuscation, preached zero tolerance while practicing 'get away with every advantage in every grey area possible', has preached a new start to clean sport while backing the most suspicious performance transformation since the heyday of EPO, has preached diligence and attention to detail while losing crucial medical records and somehow not being able to tell Jonathan Tiernan-Locke was glowing red hot for an entire year they decided his magical performance was worthy of a contract.

So there's a bit more to it than not liking a rider.

Success and hubris vs doping. Which do you find more egregious, more repugnant?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

it's because people hoped for something bigger.
just salbutamol instead, oh fkuc! just 9 months off!

Caught with EPO or motors or caught bribing the UCI, that would have been the quick way out, the shot to the head.

When that happens you know the gig is up. Maybe go depressed for a year or so like Armstrong Floyd etc and then give up and learn to live a new life. And the fans can go on to believe in the next Armstrong/ Froome.

This way, when its "just salbutamol", he will keep fighting keep digging keep lying.

Keep hoping that "it was just salbutamol" will keep the lie alive.

It seems scarier, but its easier in the long run to just let it all go rather than fight for a career claiming like all the liars before, that in this case, it really really really was just an accident

asthma treatment.....Smoking gun indeed

weight loss treatment...remember

remembr his own 'proper' scientist - "he just lost the weight"

 

[rick james]

Aye he's going to take weight losing miracle drugs near the end of a grand tour

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Aye he's going to take weight losing miracle drugs near the end of a grand tour

BAU

 

[samhocking]

unless they can demonstrate that the UCI (as a corporate body) sanctioned the leak then they are currently following procedures...

[/quote]

They've already demonstrated it. WADA do not know the name of the rider, the name of the lab or the nature of the violation when handing the results back to UCI from the lab. Only UCI will know the name of the rider and if their was a violation and only UCI can publish their final decision. They have not yet done this, yet released the AAF to a newspaper. They leaked the AAF before they announced the sanction, it's simply really not how such matters should be handled. They are not handled like that in any other WADA governed sport other than cycling and road cycling specifically.

 

[gillan1969]

unless they can demonstrate that the UCI (as a corporate body) sanctioned the leak then they are currently following procedures...

They've already demonstrated it. WADA do not know the name of the rider, the name of the lab or the nature of the violation when handing the results back to UCI from the lab. Only UCI will know the name of the rider and the violation and only UCI can publish their final decision. They leaked the AAF before they announced the sanction, it's simply really not how such matters should be handled. They are not handled like that in any other WADA governed sport other than cycling and road cycling specifically.[/quote]

so we know that it was sanctioned then and not just an individual acting on their own? Damian Greene acted inappropriately and downloaded p*rn, then lied about it on his own...the "Government" didn't

 

[telencefalus]

to rick James , your drug abuser CHEAT froome will lose la vuelta , so the double is over for him and will also have a ban , team sky knows that .

 

[samhocking]

so we know that it was sanctioned then and not just an individual acting on their own? Damian Greene acted inappropriately and downloaded p*rn, then lied about it on his own...the "Government" didn't

Only the UCI will know the name of the rider and the AAF results. Not even WADA will know that. The information is coded. i.e. rider code against lab code and then UCI cross-reference to get the name of the rider, the lab and the results of the A+B.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

so we know that it was sanctioned then and not just an individual acting on their own? Damian Greene acted inappropriately and downloaded p*rn, then lied about it on his own...the "Government" didn't

Only the UCI will know the name of the rider and the AAF results. Not even WADA will know that. The information is coded. i.e. rider code against lab code and then UCI cross-reference to get the name of the rider, the lab and the results of the A+B.

yup...I know that....but for the UCI to have acted incorrectly Froome will need to demonstrate it was UCI policy or misapplication of policy and not a random employee who had access to that information acting alone in the way a whistle blower would...

from what's in the public domain it sounds like the latter and not the former

 

[Merckx index]

I'm going for this approach from Froome...turn an AAF into an attack on the UCI itself for not following their own policies and procedures...aim for a technicality.

Petacchi tried that; it didn’t work:

It is regrettable that the UCI did not follow the notification procedure which it should have done in relation to UPA-CONI. It failed to attach the decision to the email which it sent WADA on 16 August 2007 notifying it of the decision, and failed ever to send the full case file to WADA. The Panel is of the view, however, that, in the circumstances, these failings should not be held against UPA-CONI and/or WADA and, in any event, for the reasons stated above, they have not resulted in any breach of Mr. Petacchi’s procedural rights: see CAS 2006/A/1153.

He also had a technical complaint against the way the testing was carried out, and again, the Panel verified that he was basically correct, but again, said it didn’t matter.

Only the UCI will know the name of the rider and the AAF results. Not even WADA will know that. The information is coded. i.e. rider code against lab code and then UCI cross-reference to get the name of the rider, the lab and the results of the A+B.

Damien Ressiot might know.

 

[rick james]

to rick James , your drug abuser CHEAT froome will lose la vuelta , so the double is over for him and will also have a ban , team sky knows that .

Well, you've managed to spell his name correctly this time, so that's an improvement form a month ago

 

[samhocking]

Pettachi's case is a little different and of course there is now the whole medical study process you can go through first, which we assume is still ongoing. That didn't exist for Pettachi, he had a TUE for salbutomol as it was banned outright back then. There was no legal threshold without a TUE anyway. Not attaching something to an email is nothing like leaking the A+B results to a newspaper before the medical review process is complete and your final decision on a sanction made based on that review.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Everybody calm the f*ck down, its only a wee drop Asthma treatment.....Christ on a bike The Dawg would have been better off being caught injecting EPO the way some have carried on.

small quantities of weak drug.

Didn't seem to stop you from going after Contador

Hypocrite much?

yip gifted his final stage by the Dawg and Poels. good riddance to the dirty cheat and unrepentant doper

Lol! Bots will be bots.

For the record:

Contador's urine had 50 picograms per millilitre of Clenbuterol. Froome's had 2000 nanograms per millilitre of Salbutamol, which is 2 million picograms - 40,000 x as much :surprised:

 

[deviant]

The fact that Contador had any clen in his sample shows that he is a cheat with the rest of them...nothing left to argue about, he took an outright banned substance and got the appropriate sanction...whether it was a small amount or not just means he either got it as residue from one of his blood bags or mistimed the half life of clen (which is notoriously long)...either way, he cheated, got sanctioned and was never quite the same...i'm sure the same will be true for Froome.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

unless they can demonstrate that the UCI (as a corporate body) sanctioned the leak then they are currently following procedures...

They've already demonstrated it. WADA do not know the name of the rider, the name of the lab or the nature of the violation when handing the results back to UCI from the lab. Only UCI will know the name of the rider and if their was a violation and only UCI can publish their final decision. They have not yet done this, yet released the AAF to a newspaper. They leaked the AAF before they announced the sanction, it's simply really not how such matters should be handled. They are not handled like that in any other WADA governed sport other than cycling and road cycling specifically.

For all anyone knows the leak could have come from Sky themselves. Not like they haven't had an issue with this over the past year or two. Or maybe they misplaced a laptop eh.

Once it's in the public domain... "If the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding is made public by another party before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal renders its decision, the UCI issues a short statement confirming the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding, the substance that was found and clarifying that the rider is not provisionally suspended." http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

 

[red_flanders]

The fact that Contador had any clen in his sample shows that he is a cheat with the rest of them...nothing left to argue about, he took an outright banned substance and got the appropriate sanction...whether it was a small amount or not just means he either got it as residue from one of his blood bags or mistimed the half life of clen (which is notoriously long)...either way, he cheated, got sanctioned and was never quite the same...i'm sure the same will be true for Froome.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. Same applies to Froome.

The point is that there are Froome fans willing to attack Contador and defend Froome, and it's hypocritical at the least. Good thing the forum has a long memory. The fact that Froome had 40,000 times more dope in his gullet just makes it more enjoyable to watch the antics.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

unless they can demonstrate that the UCI (as a corporate body) sanctioned the leak then they are currently following procedures...

They've already demonstrated it. WADA do not know the name of the rider, the name of the lab or the nature of the violation when handing the results back to UCI from the lab. Only UCI will know the name of the rider and if their was a violation and only UCI can publish their final decision. They have not yet done this, yet released the AAF to a newspaper. They leaked the AAF before they announced the sanction, it's simply really not how such matters should be handled. They are not handled like that in any other WADA governed sport other than cycling and road cycling specifically.

For all anyone knows the leak could have come from Sky themselves. Not like they haven't had an issue with this over the past year or two. Or maybe they misplaced a laptop eh.

Once it's in the public domain... "If the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding is made public by another party before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal renders its decision, the UCI issues a short statement confirming the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding, the substance that was found and clarifying that the rider is not provisionally suspended." http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

A double-bluff from Cookson/Sky, back to screw Lappartient is pretty far-fetched lol!

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re: Re:

unless they can demonstrate that the UCI (as a corporate body) sanctioned the leak then they are currently following procedures...

They've already demonstrated it. WADA do not know the name of the rider, the name of the lab or the nature of the violation when handing the results back to UCI from the lab. Only UCI will know the name of the rider and if their was a violation and only UCI can publish their final decision. They have not yet done this, yet released the AAF to a newspaper. They leaked the AAF before they announced the sanction, it's simply really not how such matters should be handled. They are not handled like that in any other WADA governed sport other than cycling and road cycling specifically.

For all anyone knows the leak could have come from Sky themselves. Not like they haven't had an issue with this over the past year or two. Or maybe they misplaced a laptop eh.

Once it's in the public domain... "If the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding is made public by another party before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal renders its decision, the UCI issues a short statement confirming the existence of the Adverse Analytical Finding, the substance that was found and clarifying that the rider is not provisionally suspended." http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

A double-bluff from Cookson/Sky, back to screw Lappartient is pretty far-fetched lol!

You're claiming a misplaced laptop would be far-fetched ? Surely not

 

[samhocking]

The fact that Contador had any clen in his sample shows that he is a cheat with the rest of them...nothing left to argue about, he took an outright banned substance and got the appropriate sanction...whether it was a small amount or not just means he either got it as residue from one of his blood bags or mistimed the half life of clen (which is notoriously long)...either way, he cheated, got sanctioned and was never quite the same...i'm sure the same will be true for Froome.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. Same applies to Froome.

The point is that there are Froome fans willing to attack Contador and defend Froome, and it's hypocritical at the least. Good thing the forum has a long memory. The fact that Froome had 40,000 times more dope in his gullet just makes it more enjoyable to watch the antics.

Pointless comparing. There is no threshold under which Clenbutorol is not prohibited. For Salbutomol there is and also a medical process you can carry out if it is.

 

[brownbobby]

The fact that Contador had any clen in his sample shows that he is a cheat with the rest of them...nothing left to argue about, he took an outright banned substance and got the appropriate sanction...whether it was a small amount or not just means he either got it as residue from one of his blood bags or mistimed the half life of clen (which is notoriously long)...either way, he cheated, got sanctioned and was never quite the same...i'm sure the same will be true for Froome.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. Same applies to Froome.

The point is that there are Froome fans willing to attack Contador and defend Froome, and it's hypocritical at the least. Good thing the forum has a long memory. The fact that Froome had 40,000 times more dope in his gullet just makes it more enjoyable to watch the antics.

Oooh i love a bit of statistical manipulation.

Here's one...Froome was 2 times the legal limt. For Contador, we cannot express as a number. The limit for Clen is zero. Any multiplier of zero is always zero. Therefore the levels in Contador's sample when expressed as a multiplier of the legal limit are innumerably large.

But both are still just as guilty and now i'm just being pedantic

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Aye he's going to take weight losing miracle drugs near the end of a grand tour

Well, why he did it then?

I want to understand. It is not up to us but up to him to explain because we are all confused.

 

[gillan1969]

The fact that Contador had any clen in his sample shows that he is a cheat with the rest of them...nothing left to argue about, he took an outright banned substance and got the appropriate sanction...whether it was a small amount or not just means he either got it as residue from one of his blood bags or mistimed the half life of clen (which is notoriously long)...either way, he cheated, got sanctioned and was never quite the same...i'm sure the same will be true for Froome.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. Same applies to Froome.

The point is that there are Froome fans willing to attack Contador and defend Froome, and it's hypocritical at the least. Good thing the forum has a long memory. The fact that Froome had 40,000 times more dope in his gullet just makes it more enjoyable to watch the antics.

Oooh i love a bit of statistical manipulation.

Here's one...Froome was 2 times the legal limt. For Contador, we cannot express as a number. The limit for Clen is zero. Any multiplier of zero is always zero. Therefore the levels in Contador's sample when expressed as a multiplier of the legal limit are innumerably large.

But both are still just as guilty and now i'm just being pedantic

unless it was taken orally or injected of course...

 

[yaco]

unless they can demonstrate that the UCI (as a corporate body) sanctioned the leak then they are currently following procedures...

They've already demonstrated it. WADA do not know the name of the rider, the name of the lab or the nature of the violation when handing the results back to UCI from the lab. Only UCI will know the name of the rider and if their was a violation and only UCI can publish their final decision. They have not yet done this, yet released the AAF to a newspaper. They leaked the AAF before they announced the sanction, it's simply really not how such matters should be handled. They are not handled like that in any other WADA governed sport other than cycling and road cycling specifically.[/quote]

Don't forget the riders National Federation is also notified so in this case British Cycling - Anyway wasn't it British cycling which leaked S.Yates AAF to divert attention from their issues with Wiggins and co.

 

[brownbobby]

The fact that Contador had any clen in his sample shows that he is a cheat with the rest of them...nothing left to argue about, he took an outright banned substance and got the appropriate sanction...whether it was a small amount or not just means he either got it as residue from one of his blood bags or mistimed the half life of clen (which is notoriously long)...either way, he cheated, got sanctioned and was never quite the same...i'm sure the same will be true for Froome.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. Same applies to Froome.

The point is that there are Froome fans willing to attack Contador and defend Froome, and it's hypocritical at the least. Good thing the forum has a long memory. The fact that Froome had 40,000 times more dope in his gullet just makes it more enjoyable to watch the antics.

Oooh i love a bit of statistical manipulation.

Here's one...Froome was 2 times the legal limt. For Contador, we cannot express as a number. The limit for Clen is zero. Any multiplier of zero is always zero. Therefore the levels in Contador's sample when expressed as a multiplier of the legal limit are innumerably large.

But both are still just as guilty and now i'm just being pedantic

unless it was taken orally or injected of course...

Indeed, this would make the respective test failures both equally innumerable, although again in this instance Contador comes out as the least worst doper if we revert to judgement again on quantity alone :lol: