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.

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:

yes he does

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

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

yes he does

He never mentioned it in his crappy book.

 

[sittingbison]

Re:

....
Kind of sucks to be a footnote to someone else's doping case.
That's the impression that Ulissi will be remembered for until this whole Froome thing fades away (which is to say, for a long time)

The amusing thing about comparing Ulissi and Dawg is....who is Ulissi? The most famous and decorated cyclist in the world? Winner of FIVE grand tours? Leader of the world's biggest and most successful team? Olympic medallist? Paid mi!!ions$ in appearance money? 7th most popular sports personality? Winner of the Anatomic Jock Strap race?

Nope....and he couldn't even beat Dawg in the dope level.

So why should their bans be the same?

 

[sittingbison]

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

Wiggo is the "gun" of smoking

 

[sittingbison]

Re: Re:

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

yes he does

He never mentioned it in his crappy book.

Yup, as others have asked, let's see his TUEs for asthmatic drugs from the day he went pro (you know, when the drugs weren't legit). And his childhood medical diagnosis.

2014 Dauphine caught on camera with an inhaler...."I take a puff before a big effort"

 

[Tonton]

With the rapidly expanding Team Sky thread, many different issues were being discussed.
- Do Sky have a team wide doping regime? (best kept in the Sky thread)
- Is Bradley Wiggins' improvement through blood sweat and tears or cheating? (Wiggins a man in love thread?)
- Chris Froome - where did that come from?

This thread is for the latter if you think it would be easier reading if the different issues were split up. For example, some believe Froome is likely doping, but that there isn't much to suggest the rest of the team are.

Froome rose to prominence in the 2011 Vuelta where his ability to singlehandedly guide Bradley Wiggins through numerous steep hills and mountains initially raised eyebrows. Later in the race a mightily impressive ITT followed despite Froome continuing his energy sapping shepherding of Bradley Wiggins. In the final moments of the Vuelta, Froome was released from the shackles of Wiggins, first on the Angliru and finally on a decisive stage that saw Froome and Cobo gain 20 seconds+ on every other person on the stage in the last kilometre with a sprint up 20% gradients. Froome had announced his presence to the world and finished second overall.

Taken at face value, his performance in terms of balancing pacesetting and domestique duties for Wiggins, aceing an ITT and managing to rival the dubious Juan Jose Cobo on the steepest of gradients was arguably one of the most impressive and hard fought in recent years.

Explanations for that performance and his subsequent assault on the podium of the 2012 TdF remain, as yet, unclear.

The link below is to previous discussion on Froome that isn't in the Clinic but touches on much of the relevant historic debate from the 2011 Vuelta.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=15116

The OP: how far we have come.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

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

yes he does

He never mentioned it in his crappy book.

"VeloNews reached out to Dr. John Dickinson, a leading expert on asthma in sport and head of the respiratory clinic at the University of Kent’s School of Sport and Exercise Science for help in understanding the science of exercise-induced asthma (EIA). In 2014, Dickinson led a study that revealed more than 70 percent of Britain’s top swimmers and nearly one-third of Team Sky riders were afflicted by EIA. Furthermore, the British physician has objectively tested Froome and confirms the four-time Tour de France champion has asthma. Due to doctor/patient confidentiality, he is not able to divulge how severe Froome’s asthma is."

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/new...-asthma-and-what-comes-next-for-froome_453676

Don't know about earlier than that but presumably he had before too.

 

[Tonton]

Excellent post. The link is missing the explanation that puffs can get you to this type of reading vs. the pills. Big difference. But there was the entitlement explanation...

There was a post a year or so ago and a member stating that he/she had the right to compete at the highest level although he/she had asthma. Excuse doping, like it levels the playing field. BS.

Deal with the conditions or go home. You are sick? Go home and get a (good) doctor. The best rider is the one who can put up with heat, pollution, distance, adversity. Don't call your mom or a doctor to bail you out.

Eugene Christophe, Rene Vietto must be rolling around in their graves. They are the Champions. Froome is not.

Amen.

 

[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.

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.

Exactly my point.

But for me, the notion of clean sport has become pure fantasy. I’m resigned to history repeating itself, maybe I’m a pessimist. The question is what is cycling. Is it sport? Is it entertainment? If it’s the former, then doping will be the death of cycling, however very few sports remain pure sports. If it’s the latter, or more realistically a combination of the two, then we don’t need to mourn for the death of our beloved sport just yet.

Doping isn’t the only problem. Our reaction to the doping keeps that problem constant. Like a constant vicious circle. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Take football/soccer in the UK. One of the biggest stars in the game at the time, ex England Captain and stalwart of the biggest club team in the world was handed a lengthy ban for missing a drugs test. It was a bit of a story at the time, but soon faded away. Very little focus and interrogation of the issues surrounding the missed test ever saw the light of day. Why? Because drugs in football are not the main story. He served his ban, picked up where he left off, hero status not even slightly dented.

I dare say this pattern repeats itself across all popular national sports.

When presented with the facts, most sane people will acknowledge that most of the major sports in the world, the ones that demand superhuman abilities to compete at the top level, are fuelled by doping. It’s obvious. But people don’t care, or perhaps more to the point they choose not to think about it. They don’t want to see how the show was made, they just want to enjoy the show.

The sponsors, big name sponsors like Nike, Adidas, continue to queue up to pay our heroes to be seen in their product. They don’t care about their morals. They care about how often their faces are going to appear on the TV.

And that’s the difference with cycling. Doping is the main story. Not because it’s any more or less prevalent than other sports, but because we, the fans, every bit as much as the actors (teams/cyclists) keep it that way.
Nothing demonstrated this better than Operacion Puerto. One by one, most/all of the cyclists were hunted down. Exposed. Shamed. But what about the others. Rumours of world famous soccer players, tennis players at the very highest level. But never pursued. Nobody cares. It was all about those dirty cyclists. Don’t blame the media, they will only ever follow public opinion, public interest. That’s how they continue to be relevant.

See we’re different. Cycling is different. We’re obsessed with what goes on behind the scenes. That’s every bit as much a part of the show as what goes on out on the road.

But here’s my view…..It’s not such a bad thing. The whole LA story and eventual scandal bought lots of new people to the sport. Most of them stayed. Sky, with the classic good versus bad story bought new people to the sport. I think most of them will stick around to see the next instalment. Yeah, we see lots of comments like ‘im done with cycling’, ‘I can’t trust it anymore, I’m not interested’. These commenters, so disinterested, they keep subscribing to the news, keep registering on forums, keep reading the articles, just so they can tell everyone how much they hate cycling and how disinterested they are in it all. But they’re still here, they just don’t want to admit it.

Do any of you really see a scenario in ten, twenty years time where there’s a real belief in cycling as a clean sport?

Don’t try to change what can’t be changed. Influence what can be influenced, and embrace what you’re left with.

I don’t believe that for cycling redemption lies in cleaning up the sport. Even if it was ever possible to convince people that this had happened, does this see a sudden flock of new fans? I don’t think so. The problem for cycling is in its business model, not its image. Any business needs consumption to survive, consumption needs interest in the product. Like it or not, doping drives interest in cycling.

We made it so. By making doping the main topic, not just the sub plot we made it so. By refusing to believe in miracles, by questioning every performance that is exceptional. With good reason. Our non-cycling friends, they all think cycling is a dirty sport and everyone cheats. I wonder where they get that impression from? It doesn’t mean they won’t be interested if the entertainment on offer is good enough.

Look to other sports, the adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity rings true. The challenge for cycling is to turn interest into consumption.

See, good stories never start with the good guys prevailing and then continue with them living happily ever after. That’s how the story ends, that’s when people lose interest, when the credits roll. We don’t want the story to end, we want another chapter to be written to hold our interest. The Lance chapter was fascinating whilst it lasted, then we started another; a new set of good guys here to save the sport until they were flushed out, that chapter is ending, we can all see the end is nigh. But we need a new chapter, we need a new set of characters.

Good versus bad. The oldest story ever told. The basis of most every good story ever told. Cycling needs its bad guys, needs its drama and suspense like every other story. We just don’t like to admit it. Chris Froome may be done. Sky may be done. But there’s another chapter to be written. There’s a queue of people waiting to play the next set of villains. Without them the story ends, or at least it gets a hell of a lot less interesting….

I know I arouse suspicion in this forum, some struggle to believe that you can stay neutral on a thing like Sky. But for me it’s a bit like any bad guy in the movies. You know he’s the bad guy eventually, you know he’s got to get his comeuppance eventually and you’ll probably cheer when it happens, but it doesn’t stop you enjoying and appreciating the part he plays, the drama he brings to the show while it lasts…

 

[buckle]

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.

Exactly my point.

But for me, the notion of clean sport has become pure fantasy. I’m resigned to history repeating itself, maybe I’m a pessimist. The question is what is cycling. Is it sport? Is it entertainment? If it’s the former, then doping will be the death of cycling, however very few sports remain pure sports. If it’s the latter, or more realistically a combination of the two, then we don’t need to mourn for the death of our beloved sport just yet.

Doping isn’t the only problem. Our reaction to the doping keeps that problem constant. Like a constant vicious circle. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Take football/soccer in the UK. One of the biggest stars in the game at the time, ex England Captain and stalwart of the biggest club team in the world was handed a lengthy ban for missing a drugs test. It was a bit of a story at the time, but soon faded away. Very little focus and interrogation of the issues surrounding the missed test ever saw the light of day. Why? Because drugs in football are not the main story. He served his ban, picked up where he left off, hero status not even slightly dented.

I dare say this pattern repeats itself across all popular national sports.

When presented with the facts, most sane people will acknowledge that most of the major sports in the world, the ones that demand superhuman abilities to compete at the top level, are fuelled by doping. It’s obvious. But people don’t care, or perhaps more to the point they choose not to think about it. They don’t want to see how the show was made, they just want to enjoy the show.

The sponsors, big name sponsors like Nike, Adidas, continue to queue up to pay our heroes to be seen in their product. They don’t care about their morals. They care about how often their faces are going to appear on the TV.

And that’s the difference with cycling. Doping is the main story. Not because it’s any more or less prevalent than other sports, but because we, the fans, every bit as much as the actors (teams/cyclists) keep it that way.
Nothing demonstrated this better than Operacion Puerto. One by one, most/all of the cyclists were hunted down. Exposed. Shamed. But what about the others. Rumours of world famous soccer players, tennis players at the very highest level. But never pursued. Nobody cares. It was all about those dirty cyclists. Don’t blame the media, they will only ever follow public opinion, public interest. That’s how they continue to be relevant.

See we’re different. Cycling is different. We’re obsessed with what goes on behind the scenes. That’s every bit as much a part of the show as what goes on out on the road.

But here’s my view…..It’s not such a bad thing. The whole LA story and eventual scandal bought lots of new people to the sport. Most of them stayed. Sky, with the classic good versus bad story bought new people to the sport. I think most of them will stick around to see the next instalment. Yeah, we see lots of comments like ‘im done with cycling’, ‘I can’t trust it anymore, I’m not interested’. These commenters, so disinterested, they keep subscribing to the news, keep registering on forums, keep reading the articles, just so they can tell everyone how much they hate cycling and how disinterested they are in it all. But they’re still here, they just don’t want to admit it.

Do any of you really see a scenario in ten, twenty years time where there’s a real belief in cycling as a clean sport?

Don’t try to change what can’t be changed. Influence what can be influenced, and embrace what you’re left with.

I don’t believe that for cycling redemption lies in cleaning up the sport. Even if it was ever possible to convince people that this had happened, does this see a sudden flock of new fans? I don’t think so. The problem for cycling is in its business model, not its image. Any business needs consumption to survive, consumption needs interest in the product. Like it or not, doping drives interest in cycling.

We made it so. By making doping the main topic, not just the sub plot we made it so. By refusing to believe in miracles, by questioning every performance that is exceptional. With good reason. Our non-cycling friends, they all think cycling is a dirty sport and everyone cheats. I wonder where they get that impression from? It doesn’t mean they won’t be interested if the entertainment on offer is good enough.

Look to other sports, the adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity rings true. The challenge for cycling is to turn interest into consumption.

See, good stories never start with the good guys prevailing and then continue with them living happily ever after. That’s how the story ends, that’s when people lose interest, when the credits roll. We don’t want the story to end, we want another chapter to be written to hold our interest. The Lance chapter was fascinating whilst it lasted, then we started another; a new set of good guys here to save the sport until they were flushed out, that chapter is ending, we can all see the end is nigh. But we need a new chapter, we need a new set of characters.

Good versus bad. The oldest story ever told. The basis of most every good story ever told. Cycling needs its bad guys, needs its drama and suspense like every other story. We just don’t like to admit it. Chris Froome may be done. Sky may be done. But there’s another chapter to be written. There’s a queue of people waiting to play the next set of villains. Without them the story ends, or at least it gets a hell of a lot less interesting….

I know I arouse suspicion in this forum, some struggle to believe that you can stay neutral on a thing like Sky. But for me it’s a bit like any bad guy in the movies. You know he’s the bad guy eventually, you know he’s got to get his comeuppance eventually and you’ll probably cheer when it happens, but it doesn’t stop you enjoying and appreciating the part he plays, the drama he brings to the show while it lasts…

You've hit the Clinic's limitation which is that it is not a philosophy school. OK so the sports industry is a way in which the oligarchs maintain their control over us - agreed. Paul Kimmage, for all his lack of intellect, reads like St Augustine in "The Confessions" where he admits he couldn't resist live Roman sports despite knowing it was all ***.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

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

yes he does

He never mentioned it in his crappy book.

"VeloNews reached out to Dr. John Dickinson, a leading expert on asthma in sport and head of the respiratory clinic at the University of Kent’s School of Sport and Exercise Science for help in understanding the science of exercise-induced asthma (EIA). In 2014, Dickinson led a study that revealed more than 70 percent of Britain’s top swimmers and nearly one-third of Team Sky riders were afflicted by EIA. Furthermore, the British physician has objectively tested Froome and confirms the four-time Tour de France champion has asthma. Due to doctor/patient confidentiality, he is not able to divulge how severe Froome’s asthma is."

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/new...-asthma-and-what-comes-next-for-froome_453676

Don't know about earlier than that but presumably he had before too.

That certainly was one objective testing! :lol:

I don't believe a word to Sky doctors anymore (or their associates). And I would love to see as one poster stated medical record of Froome TUE's for asthma from day one of his professional career (I bet there was none pre-2010, when salbutamol was banned), and if possible his childhood medical record for asthma.

 

[brownbobby]

"You've hit the Clinic's limitation which is that it is not a philosophy school. OK so the sports industry is a way in which the oligarchs maintain their control over us - agreed. Paul Kimmage, for all his lack of intellect, reads like St Augustine in "The Confessions" where he admits he couldn't resist live Roman sports despite knowing it was all ***".[/quote]

Sorry, i get your point. Wasn't intending to philosophise....just got 2 hours to kill before i shut the office and escape for Xmas :lol:

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

....
Kind of sucks to be a footnote to someone else's doping case.
That's the impression that Ulissi will be remembered for until this whole Froome thing fades away (which is to say, for a long time)

The amusing thing about comparing Ulissi and Dawg is....who is Ulissi? The most famous and decorated cyclist in the world? Winner of FIVE grand tours? Leader of the world's biggest and most successful team? Olympic medallist? Paid mi!!ions$ in appearance money? 7th most popular sports personality? Winner of the Anatomic Jock Strap race?

Nope....and he couldn't even beat Dawg in the dope level.

So why should their bans be the same?

Ulissi 1920 ng
Froome 2000 ng

Ulissi got 9 months. I say give 10 months to Froome.

 

[webvan]

So Prudhomme just weighed in and said the UCI had to get this sorted ASAP, well said !

Is it me or has no one asked the UCI what the friggin' deadline was for Froome to provide his full response? Or maybe he already has and they're just sitting in it? But the Froome camp would probably have said so. What a mess...

 

[danielovichdk2]

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.


And you this how ? Where are these dates published ? My guess is that you are guessing, like 95% of the clinic.

When was UCI handed the results for the B sample ? Why did Froome announce the "double" if he knew there was a positive test ? Why did Cookson want Skys rep' to be considered "clean" if he knew of a positive ? Why would Froome consult an attorney 3 months after a first positive and not right away ? And what about CADF, they are supposedly an independent agency but clearly their finding stopped from entering the public when they addressed the UCI with a positive test.

This is beyond doping of a rider, it's a dead clear show of how corrupt UCI is.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

....
Kind of sucks to be a footnote to someone else's doping case.
That's the impression that Ulissi will be remembered for until this whole Froome thing fades away (which is to say, for a long time)

The amusing thing about comparing Ulissi and Dawg is....who is Ulissi? The most famous and decorated cyclist in the world? Winner of FIVE grand tours? Leader of the world's biggest and most successful team? Olympic medallist? Paid mi!!ions$ in appearance money? 7th most popular sports personality? Winner of the Anatomic Jock Strap race?

Nope....and he couldn't even beat Dawg in the dope level.

So why should their bans be the same?

Ulissi 1920 ng
Froome 2000 ng

Ulissi got 9 months. I say give 10 months to Froome.

AleJet 1320 ng/ml = 1 year
Froome 2000 ng/ml = 20 months?

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

AleJet 1320 ng/ml = 1 year
Froome 2000 ng/ml = 20 months?

let´s hope it´s more similar to Ulissi´s
sperém!

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

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

yes he does

He never mentioned it in his crappy book.

So what?

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

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

yes he does

He never mentioned it in his crappy book.

So what?

If he had asthma since his childhood, I'd definitely expect him to brag about his amazing fight vs asthma and badzilla since he was 7 with some dumbass language, but that book only covers badzilla for some reason.

Actually, they stopped mentioning badzilla for a while, I am pretty sure that badzilla had an effect on his struggle to Machucos, they should have used it.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

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.

I’m with Sam and BrownB on this one. Armstrong has shown, over the last year, that he has an extensive pro cycling audience. He has alluded to smaller ‘think tanks’ ... merging into larger ones. These players have experience, influence, vision, motivation and money.

The “let’s fix pro cycling by burning at the stake two high profile dopers” is such a feeble, pale, flaccid agenda perpetrated by an evangelical cohort ... devoid of a Scene ii. If another group, other than UCI, can effectively wed the world’s best cyclists with a professional business model that appropriately compensates and protects riders, proliferates pro cycling ... and provides top notch sports entertainment, let them have a go.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

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

yes he does

He never mentioned it in his crappy book.

So what?

If he had asthma since his childhood, I'd definitely expect him to brag about his amazing fight vs asthma and badzilla since he was 7 with some dumbass language, but that book only covers badzilla for some reason.

Actually, they stopped mentioning badzilla for a while, I am pretty sure that badzilla had an effect on his struggle to Machucos, they should have used it.

really...he didn't write about it in a book so he must be hung by the baws

 

[glassmoon]

Conspiracy tinfoil hat on
Seems to me, the only entity who benefits from this is Disney. They surely wanted cut the pro-cycling out of their portfolio (after LA, USPS) and this gives them golden opportunity to do that right away. No obligations till 2020 - provided the "doping clauses" in the Sky contract exist (would be surprise if they don't). The leak benefits them vastly.
Always follow the money.
Conspiracy tinfoil hat off
:Question:

 

[buckle]

Re:

Conspiracy tinfoil hat on
Seems to me, the only entity who benefits from this is Disney. They surely wanted cut the pro-cycling out of their portfolio (after LA, USPS) and this gives them golden opportunity to do that right away. No obligations till 2020 - provided the "doping clauses" in the Sky contract exist (would be surprise if they don't). The leak benefits them vastly.
Always follow the money.
Conspiracy tinfoil hat off
:Question:

Lance has pumped the same theory. It wouldn't cost Disney a cent plus the ASO will throw in a start from Euro Disney as a thank you.

 

[Alpe73]

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.

Exactly my point.

But for me, the notion of clean sport has become pure fantasy. I’m resigned to history repeating itself, maybe I’m a pessimist. The question is what is cycling. Is it sport? Is it entertainment? If it’s the former, then doping will be the death of cycling, however very few sports remain pure sports. If it’s the latter, or more realistically a combination of the two, then we don’t need to mourn for the death of our beloved sport just yet.

Doping isn’t the only problem. Our reaction to the doping keeps that problem constant. Like a constant vicious circle. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Take football/soccer in the UK. One of the biggest stars in the game at the time, ex England Captain and stalwart of the biggest club team in the world was handed a lengthy ban for missing a drugs test. It was a bit of a story at the time, but soon faded away. Very little focus and interrogation of the issues surrounding the missed test ever saw the light of day. Why? Because drugs in football are not the main story. He served his ban, picked up where he left off, hero status not even slightly dented.

I dare say this pattern repeats itself across all popular national sports.

When presented with the facts, most sane people will acknowledge that most of the major sports in the world, the ones that demand superhuman abilities to compete at the top level, are fuelled by doping. It’s obvious. But people don’t care, or perhaps more to the point they choose not to think about it. They don’t want to see how the show was made, they just want to enjoy the show.

The sponsors, big name sponsors like Nike, Adidas, continue to queue up to pay our heroes to be seen in their product. They don’t care about their morals. They care about how often their faces are going to appear on the TV.

And that’s the difference with cycling. Doping is the main story. Not because it’s any more or less prevalent than other sports, but because we, the fans, every bit as much as the actors (teams/cyclists) keep it that way.
Nothing demonstrated this better than Operacion Puerto. One by one, most/all of the cyclists were hunted down. Exposed. Shamed. But what about the others. Rumours of world famous soccer players, tennis players at the very highest level. But never pursued. Nobody cares. It was all about those dirty cyclists. Don’t blame the media, they will only ever follow public opinion, public interest. That’s how they continue to be relevant.

See we’re different. Cycling is different. We’re obsessed with what goes on behind the scenes. That’s every bit as much a part of the show as what goes on out on the road.

But here’s my view…..It’s not such a bad thing. The whole LA story and eventual scandal bought lots of new people to the sport. Most of them stayed. Sky, with the classic good versus bad story bought new people to the sport. I think most of them will stick around to see the next instalment. Yeah, we see lots of comments like ‘im done with cycling’, ‘I can’t trust it anymore, I’m not interested’. These commenters, so disinterested, they keep subscribing to the news, keep registering on forums, keep reading the articles, just so they can tell everyone how much they hate cycling and how disinterested they are in it all. But they’re still here, they just don’t want to admit it.

Do any of you really see a scenario in ten, twenty years time where there’s a real belief in cycling as a clean sport?

Don’t try to change what can’t be changed. Influence what can be influenced, and embrace what you’re left with.

I don’t believe that for cycling redemption lies in cleaning up the sport. Even if it was ever possible to convince people that this had happened, does this see a sudden flock of new fans? I don’t think so. The problem for cycling is in its business model, not its image. Any business needs consumption to survive, consumption needs interest in the product. Like it or not, doping drives interest in cycling.

We made it so. By making doping the main topic, not just the sub plot we made it so. By refusing to believe in miracles, by questioning every performance that is exceptional. With good reason. Our non-cycling friends, they all think cycling is a dirty sport and everyone cheats. I wonder where they get that impression from? It doesn’t mean they won’t be interested if the entertainment on offer is good enough.

Look to other sports, the adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity rings true. The challenge for cycling is to turn interest into consumption.

See, good stories never start with the good guys prevailing and then continue with them living happily ever after. That’s how the story ends, that’s when people lose interest, when the credits roll. We don’t want the story to end, we want another chapter to be written to hold our interest. The Lance chapter was fascinating whilst it lasted, then we started another; a new set of good guys here to save the sport until they were flushed out, that chapter is ending, we can all see the end is nigh. But we need a new chapter, we need a new set of characters.

Good versus bad. The oldest story ever told. The basis of most every good story ever told. Cycling needs its bad guys, needs its drama and suspense like every other story. We just don’t like to admit it. Chris Froome may be done. Sky may be done. But there’s another chapter to be written. There’s a queue of people waiting to play the next set of villains. Without them the story ends, or at least it gets a hell of a lot less interesting….

I know I arouse suspicion in this forum, some struggle to believe that you can stay neutral on a thing like Sky. But for me it’s a bit like any bad guy in the movies. You know he’s the bad guy eventually, you know he’s got to get his comeuppance eventually and you’ll probably cheer when it happens, but it doesn’t stop you enjoying and appreciating the part he plays, the drama he brings to the show while it lasts…

One of the best posts ..... ever! Chapeau ... BB ... chapeau!

“Then all the women down in the “Amen” section commenced a sayin ... what’d he say!?!

 

[samhocking]

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.


And you this how ? Where are these dates published ? My guess is that you are guessing, like 95% of the clinic.

When was UCI handed the results for the B sample ? Why did Froome announce the "double" if he knew there was a positive test ? Why did Cookson want Skys rep' to be considered "clean" if he knew of a positive ? Why would Froome consult an attorney 3 months after a first positive and not right away ? And what about CADF, they are supposedly an independent agency but clearly their finding stopped from entering the public when they addressed the UCI with a positive test.

This is beyond doping of a rider, it's a dead clear show of how corrupt UCI is.

I'm going by what McQuaid said to CN:

McQuaid pointed out that Froome's AAF came under Cookson's presidency - Froome was notified of the finding one day before David Lappartient won the election - and says Cookson would have been informed about the case.

7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.

Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.

On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe?

Under WADA Code, IF Froome is not appealing the final decision (there is not a final decision yet we know about) and with lawyers now, Froome is clearly going to be appealing the decision / going down the pharmacokinetic study route. After 20 days the UCI must 'then' publish the AAF publically to stay within WADA Code 7 & 8 rules.

Clearly rule 7 & 8 has been broken by UCI.
It would appear that Froome's result, probably was used as a political tool by Lappartient. Remember Cookson saying just days before he believed he had really good support, yet in the final 24 hours before UCI election he had none? This is politics and this is why things are not entirely adding up.