• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1058 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
samhocking said:
danielovichdk2 said:
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.

has it been established
a) the leak came from the UCI?
b) if it did come from the UCI, was it the corporate body or an individual whistleblower?
 
I'm assuming WADA rules are followed obviously.
So Lab sends coded AAF to WADA. WADA forward to UCI. UCI cross-references rider code to establish who the AAF belongs to.
WADA & the Lab do not know the athletes name against the sample. It too is anonymous.

No matter who leaked it to the press, it was originally leaked to them by the UCI, because nobody else receives AAF notification from WADA and WADA don't know who the AAF belongs to according to their own rules. Only Cookson/UCI & Froome know the AAF of the A Sample 24 hours before UCI election.

If I was betting i'd say Lappartient used Froomes AAF as the political tool he needed to switch delegates vote to guarantee himself victory.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I'm assuming WADA rules are followed obviously.
So Lab sends coded AAF to WADA. WADA forward to UCI. UCI cross-references rider code to establish who the AAF belongs to.
WADA & the Lab do not know the athletes sample. It too is anonymous.

No matter who leaked it, it was originally leaked by UCI to them because nobody else received notification from WADA and WADA don't know who the AAF belongs to according to their own rules.

If I was betting i'd say Lappartient used Froomes AAF as the political tool he needed to switch delegates vote to guarantee victory.

potential scenario, granted.........a trail that leaves a lot of loose ends though...

alternatively a disgruntled pro-wiggo sky employee leaked...remember, Froome is a slithering reptile.....
 
Could have been leaked by a Sky employee if Froome had told Sky of course? I'm not sure what the overall advantage is though, leaking the AAF before the UCI's sanction? I guess Sky & UCI could theoretically have swept it under the carpet to make it disappear and leaking the AAF once the B sample came back prevents that being possible, but whoever leaked it, knew Cookson was no longer part of the UCI and walking his dogs in England by then, so that would suggest Lappartient & Sky also wanting to sweep it away?
 
brownbobby said:
Teddy Boom said:
brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
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…

How convenient now that when your boy is found out its time to go all philosophical and restort to bad allegories after having since 2011 chased down every non-GB rider with the slightiest doping accusations hanging over them, whilst posing as the cleanlinest of the cleans. You didnt want to go the "philosophical route" then so we sure wont do that now.

Witch hunt continues.
 
brownbobby said:
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.

"His name is Rio and he watches from the stands"
 
buckle said:
brownbobby said:
Teddy Boom said:
brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
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 ***.

To remain efficacious in one’s life, one must, from time to time, reinvent one’s self. You, me, Kimmage, Lance, The Clinic. If not ... it’s like you’ve pulled over, into a siding ... and all the other trains are sailing on by.
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
bigcog said:
El Pistolero said:
rick james said:
Benotti69 said:
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.

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Doesn't matter. Froome is not an asthmatic. If he was there would be a long paper trail to prove it.
 
Probably important to keep in the back of your mind that asthma is not a constant throuh your life from day one to day end. Like hayfever, you might not suffer any symptoms until later in life. I suffered really badly with hayfever throughout my childhood constantly taking anti-histamines. Now 43, I haven't had a single hayfever attack for over 10 years now no matter where i've been in the World. Lack of a paper trail doesn't always mean it doesn't exist now is all i'm saying.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Could have been leaked by a Sky employee if Froome had told Sky of course? I'm not sure what the overall advantage is though, leaking the AAF before the UCI's sanction? I guess Sky & UCI could theoretically have swept it under the carpet to make it disappear and leaking the AAF once the B sample came back prevents that being possible, but whoever leaked it, knew Cookson was no longer part of the UCI and walking his dogs in England by then, so that would suggest Lappartient & Sky also wanting to sweep it away?

Maybe it was leaked by the UCI because an agreement to determine Froome's punishment could not be brokered or the UCI thought Froome/Sky were being unreasonable in their demands or Froome/Sky reneged on a deal.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
bigcog said:
As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Doesn't matter. Froome is not an asthmatic. If he was there would be a long paper trail to prove it.

The doctor said Froome suffers EIA which is a world of difference from normal asthma.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Benotti69 said:
bigcog said:
As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Doesn't matter. Froome is not an asthmatic. If he was there would be a long paper trail to prove it.

The doctor said Froome suffers EIA which is a world of difference from normal asthma.

world of difference, requiring doping........
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
Ditto about the self serving nature of the long musing by bb.

Also the story was very dull. At least if you are interested in actual racing for entertainment instead of nationalist identification and gloryhunting.

I kinda enjoyed it. Still am truth be told, waiting to see if there's a final and unexpected twist in the plot ;)
 
Re: Re:

"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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?[/quote]

Of course he is/would. There are only two scenarios in this whole debate. You either confirm the fact that Sky and Froome are lieing. Or you yourself are lying. There is no other truth.

Come on man. I've only been here a couple of months and I've got that straight already. Keep up :lol:
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Probably important to keep in the back of your mind that asthma is not a constant throuh your life from day one to day end. Like hayfever, you might not suffer any symptoms until later in life. I suffered really badly with hayfever throughout my childhood constantly taking anti-histamines. Now 43, I haven't had a single hayfever attack for over 10 years now no matter where i've been in the World. Lack of a paper trail doesn't always mean it doesn't exist now is all i'm saying.

No, not always. However if one combines it with the dozen different stories on bilharzia he's told which don't add up, combine it with all the lies Sky has told, and add in the fact that it was never mentioned until he was caught out puffing on an inhaler at the bottom of a climb, despite hundreds of interviews, dozens of post race appearances, a book which detailed his many afflictions, and the massive, non-clinical dose he obviously took, then a rational observer would rightly doubt or simply dismiss the notion that he had the disease at all.

But something tells me you already get all that.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Benotti69 said:
bigcog said:
As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Doesn't matter. Froome is not an asthmatic. If he was there would be a long paper trail to prove it.

The doctor said Froome suffers EIA which is a world of difference from normal asthma.

Anyone else find it odd that a doctor would reveal a patient's diagnosis but cite confidentiality in describing the extent of the symptoms?
 
Jul 21, 2015
30
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Anyone else find it odd that a doctor would reveal a patient's diagnosis but cite confidentiality in describing the extent of the symptoms?
I assume it means he's been allowed, and perhaps encouraged, to say exactly that and no more by the patient. So it''s probably the most patient-serving subset of whatever the doctor could be willing to say with the right permission.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
yaco said:
Benotti69 said:
bigcog said:
As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Doesn't matter. Froome is not an asthmatic. If he was there would be a long paper trail to prove it.

The doctor said Froome suffers EIA which is a world of difference from normal asthma.

Anyone else find it odd that a doctor would reveal a patient's diagnosis but cite confidentiality in describing the extent of the symptoms?

It's probably not strange seeing that Froome has publically admitted he suffers from EIA - The bigger issue is how EIA is diagnosed by the medical profession - I suspect the medicos have been generous in how they measure EIA - The ruling that a 10% reduction in breathing impairment seems to be on the low side.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
yaco said:
Benotti69 said:
bigcog said:
As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Doesn't matter. Froome is not an asthmatic. If he was there would be a long paper trail to prove it.

The doctor said Froome suffers EIA which is a world of difference from normal asthma.

Anyone else find it odd that a doctor would reveal a patient's diagnosis but cite confidentiality in describing the extent of the symptoms?

Authorized by Froome to reveal one, not authorized by Froome to reveal the other.

Not strange for a doper to do that...
 
No_Balls said:
brownbobby said:
Teddy Boom said:
[quote="

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…


How convenient now that when your boy is found out its time to go all philosophical and restort to bad allegories after having since 2011 chased down every non-GB rider with the slightiest doping accusations hanging over them, whilst posing as the cleanlinest of the cleans. You didnt want to go the "philosophical route" then so we sure wont do that now.

Witch hunt continues.
http:// I agree with almost every ... all know you can't have it both ways.[/quote
[/quote]

I think you're confusing me with somebody else. But eh, no problemo. I see you. At least we agree upon what this is.
 
Funny thing is that whenever I heard the term 'witch hunt' used in relation to an individual or group targeted by an investigation, allegations or the similar, my immediate reaction is that the person using the term 'witch hunt' is trying to shut down conversation as part of a PR strategy. not saying that people are doing that for that purpose here, but after Lance and Trump and others using the term, it is clear that it originates from the lawyers and PR consultants and others repeating it is part of the strategy.

For me, it simply leads to increased suspicion about their clients, not less.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?
Lance had never told to his doctors and surgeons that he used drugs, have we been told by them. Do you believe them too?
 

TRENDING THREADS