Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[poupou]

Some are dreaming with open eyes here. If a leak was used to get off the hook, a lot of leaks would append... by the athletes themself!

 

[samhocking]

Yates' violation wasn't leaked, it was the final decision the same as Contador really. An AAF for Terbutaline without a TUE is a substance that has no legal threshold and no medical review with it, so is simply sanctioned. Team announced it before BC anyway I think.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

Some are dreaming with open eyes here. If a leak was used to get off the hook, a lot of leaks would append... by the athletes themself!

Not off the hook. Clearly the damage is already done for Froome even if not sanctioned by UCI. The problem is there is now a running commentary of his case in the public domain and therefore if this goes to CAS, it has implications for UCI because Froome can claim his rights were not protected and so his appeal might be successful.
Who knows, there's way more going on here than basic AAF if you ask me. A lot of politics playing out it seems.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Some are dreaming with open eyes here. If a leak was used to get off the hook, a lot of leaks would append... by the athletes themself!

Not off the hook. Clearly the damage is already done for Froome even if not sanctioned by UCI. The problem is there is now a running commentary of his case in the public domain and therefore if this goes to CAS, it has implications for UCI because Froome can claim his rights were not protected and so his appeal might be successful.
Who knows, there's way more going on here than basic AAF if you ask me. A lot of politics playing out it seems.

Definetely. But the AAF came first, the politicians as always look for an angle on the situation to suit their own agenda after the event.

 

[zlev11]

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 not a weak drug, not in the quantities that he tested positive for. it's very likely it was the difference between Froome winning and losing the Vuelta. one day he gets dropped, the next day he's the strongest rider in the race and it just so happens he tested positive on that exact day. it's illegal, it's doping, and he should get a full 2 years.

 

[Netserk]

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.

Can I get an amen?

_AMEN_

 

[samhocking]

Some are dreaming with open eyes here. If a leak was used to get off the hook, a lot of leaks would append... by the athletes themself!

Not off the hook. Clearly the damage is already done for Froome even if not sanctioned by UCI. The problem is there is now a running commentary of his case in the public domain and therefore if this goes to CAS, it has implications for UCI because Froome can claim his rights were not protected and so his appeal might be successful.
Who knows, there's way more going on here than basic AAF if you ask me. A lot of politics playing out it seems.

Definetely. But the AAF came first, the politicians as always look for an angle on the situation to suit their own agenda after the event.

Yes, but the AAF alone is not what decides his sanction. We assume this will go to CAS like Contador and that leak will be taken into account when CAS decide it now.

 

[MartinGT]

Calm down everyone! Its only cheating via Sal, come on FFS sort yourselves out. Thats Ok you know!

 

[TheSpud]

we should perhaps move to a system where we see whats in a sample rather than what is not

I'm unsure what you mean?

I think what Gillan's saying here is that instead of just testing for EPO, steroids, etc. maybe the samples should show a full read out of what is there and at what level : ego salbutamol at 600ng, the T/E ration, etc. etc. thereby giving more transparency to what might be going on.

Sounds a good idea to me.

 

[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.

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

On the bolded we can agree.

 

[rick james]

Re: 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.

yip, its up to him to explain himself and I doubt we will ever know about it

 

[rick james]

Calm down everyone! Its only cheating via Sal, come on FFS sort yourselves out. Thats Ok you know!

Something we agree on

 

[brownbobby]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-chris-froomes-reputation-is-tarnished-forever/

I agree with almost every word he has to say here, not just the stuff on Froome, that's obvious, but cycling in general....

 

[Benotti69]

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

Yeah, but he doesn't have asthma..............smoking....... :lol:

 

[Blanco]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-chris-froomes-reputation-is-tarnished-forever/

I agree with almost every word he has to say here, not just the stuff on Froome, that's obvious, but cycling in general....

The guy is talking *** left and right, and he takes every opportunity to talk bad about UCI, WADA, whoever he thinks is responsible for his downfall, and generally about cycling.

 

[rsergio007]

Re: Re:

it's not a weak drug, not in the quantities that he tested positive for. it's very likely it was the difference between Froome winning and losing the Vuelta. one day he gets dropped, the next day he's the strongest rider in the race and it just so happens he tested positive on that exact day. it's illegal, it's doping, and he should get a full 2 years.

That's basically it.

 

[brownbobby]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-chris-froomes-reputation-is-tarnished-forever/

I agree with almost every word he has to say here, not just the stuff on Froome, that's obvious, but cycling in general....

The guy is talking *** left and right, and he takes every opportunity to talk bad about UCI, WADA, whoever he thinks is responsible for his downfall, and generally about cycling.

Maybe, sometimes. But use your own filter to separate what he says from what he did, the vendetta and self justification. He still has stuff worth hearing occasionally, for me anyway. In this piece his views on how cycling fuels its own problems resonates with me.

 

[yaco]

Re:

Yates' violation wasn't leaked, it was the final decision the same as Contador really. An AAF for Terbutaline without a TUE is a substance that has no legal threshold and no medical review with it, so is simply sanctioned. Team announced it before BC anyway I think.

Yates AAF was leaked to the media - We can assume it wasn't leaked by the UCI or Orica, and BC wanted to divert attention from the Wiggin's affair - And your response has answered my question - That the National Federations are advised if an athlete has an AAF.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Some are dreaming with open eyes here. If a leak was used to get off the hook, a lot of leaks would append... by the athletes themself!

Not off the hook. Clearly the damage is already done for Froome even if not sanctioned by UCI. The problem is there is now a running commentary of his case in the public domain and therefore if this goes to CAS, it has implications for UCI because Froome can claim his rights were not protected and so his appeal might be successful.
Who knows, there's way more going on here than basic AAF if you ask me. A lot of politics playing out it seems.

What - Many a case that has come before CAS has been publically played out in the media - It will have no effect on CAS - In saying that I am suspicious about the neutrality of CAS.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Some are dreaming with open eyes here. If a leak was used to get off the hook, a lot of leaks would append... by the athletes themself!

Not off the hook. Clearly the damage is already done for Froome even if not sanctioned by UCI. The problem is there is now a running commentary of his case in the public domain and therefore if this goes to CAS, it has implications for UCI because Froome can claim his rights were not protected and so his appeal might be successful.
Who knows, there's way more going on here than basic AAF if you ask me. A lot of politics playing out it seems.

What - Many a case that has come before CAS has been publically played out in the media - It will have no effect on CAS - In saying that I am suspicious about the neutrality of CAS.

Richard Ings former CEO of Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority also confirmed Froome being transparent with information would not affect his CAS case.

So lets see those doctors reports of his asthma from an early age..........don't hold your breath.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Why was the Froome case leaked?

Well, the leak happened a few days after Cookson, who knew about the Froome case, said Team Sky's reputation should be restored

Not difficult to imagine that someone in the new regime at the UCI might have taken exception to that...

It got leaked 3 months after Lappartient's victory.[/quote]

Irrelevant to the point I was making. Deflection tactic fail

The Froome leak happened a few days after Cookson (who knew about the Froome AAF) said Sky's reputation should be restored

Cookson brazen's BS was the motive for someone in Lappartient's new regime to leak the Froome story. Those few days the timeline for the journos to line their stories up. Simples

I wonder if Dave is sending Brian a Christmas card this year...[/quote]

Cookson knew about the A sample. The B sample results he did not, because they came back after Lappartient's victory. Then Lappartient sat on it for 3 months, we assume because Froome provided medical documents etc, but someone at UCI leaked the AAF before UCI has made a decision based on those documents etc, which is not how these things are usually dealt with today. They are meant to be complying with anti-doping protocol, not going back to how things were leaked traditionally before CADF.
A big part of Froomes defence is now going to be UCI leaked AAF results before they made a final decision I would imagine. UCI are not even adhering to the very protocol they said they would adhere to in such cases playing Cookson politics or not, they've screwed up from a legal defence that's for sure.[/quote]

You're in tinfoil hat territory now, Sam. Welcome to the Clinic

Seriously though if Froome's defence amounts to trying to strike the AAF because of the leak then he's even more stuffed than we already figured out

Or to put it another way, Froome's lawyer would have to prove, with hard evidence, that the leak came from the UCI, to even float that defence, which probably wouldn't work (it's not as if there's a lay jury that could be prejudiced after all). And where is that evidence going to come from? Journos ain't gonna betray their sources. You think the leaker used their UCI email address to contact the journos...? If even clumsy old Team Sky can magic away incriminating evidence when the heat is on it can' be that difficult eh...

And of course Sky are hanging Froome out to dry and making him fund his own defence. Even with his tax free Monaco millions the Dawg is gonna be having difficult conversations with his lawyers. Imagine how much the no stone unturned service from the best sports lawyer in the business costs! If that's a bit steep, sir, which corners shall we cut? I respectfully suggest we drop the UCI conspiracy approach, bad optics there old bean...

 

[42x16ss]

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

TBF, Rick can’t go around jeopardising his retainer

 

[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

TBF, Rick can’t go around jeopardising his retainer

Shocking, I'll see you in court

 

[Teddy Boom]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-chris-froomes-reputation-is-tarnished-forever/

I agree with almost every word he has to say here, not just the stuff on Froome, that's obvious, but cycling in general....

The guy is talking *** left and right, and he takes every opportunity to talk bad about UCI, WADA, whoever he thinks is responsible for his downfall, and generally about cycling.

Maybe, sometimes. But use your own filter to separate what he says from what he did, the vendetta and self justification. He still has stuff worth hearing occasionally, for me anyway. In this piece his views on how cycling fuels its own problems resonates with me.

It really comes down to how you feel about doping in sport. If you actually want it eliminated, well cycling is about the only sport that even cares to try. If you think doping control is just about harm reduction, and you just want a big healthy sports-marketing machine, then Lance is dead on the money. We're in the Clinic here, and we all know you can't have it both ways.

 

[samhocking]

I must admit, next years Forward Podcasts focusing on cycling is going to be interesting. I'm in agreement with brownbobby, he has a lot to say and always add something not already said. He's not the sharpest tool in the box, but at least he was in the box unlike most commentators on cycling.