Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Parker]

Re:

Zzzz came in here to read the latest froome bashing !
Just a question because I don’t know ?
How long did it take for Ulissi and Petacchi to get their ban ?

From the time of the test, Ulissi's took eight months. Petacchi was initially cleared after three months, but then convicted on appeal another nine months later.

 

[gillan1969]

Seems like this whole sub-discussion about coughing is based on a false premise

The 'tells' were there all along..

stage 15 5th and puts time into GC rivals
Stage 16 1st - wins the TT
Stage 17 14th (dropped in last 2kms)
Stage 18 23rd (but 4th of GC contenders)
Stage 19 bunch with GC riders
Stage 20 3rd (CN say he 'flew' up the mountain)
Stage 21 bunch

if that doesn't reek of someone whose ill I'm not sure what does............

Sounds to me like someone who had a bad day and then got better all of a sudden for some reason. Illness is one possibility, normal wear and tear of a GT being another.

The idea that some coughing after a mountain stage exertion is indicative of asthma or illness would mean half the peloton is ill on every stage, historically. It's ridiculous.

indeed....I mean what is the general medical profession playing at....most proscribe rest and tell you to take time of work (whilst also being able to prescribe drugs and not have to worry about any PED testing of patients....

meanwhile at Sky, when you're ill...you fly

 

[aphronesis]

Seems like this whole sub-discussion about coughing is based on a false premise

The 'tells' were there all along..

stage 15 5th and puts time into GC rivals
Stage 16 1st - wins the TT
Stage 17 14th (dropped in last 2kms)
Stage 18 23rd (but 4th of GC contenders)
Stage 19 bunch with GC riders
Stage 20 3rd (CN say he 'flew' up the mountain)
Stage 21 bunch

if that doesn't reek of someone whose ill I'm not sure what does............

Sounds to me like someone who had a bad day and then got better all of a sudden for some reason. Illness is one possibility, normal wear and tear of a GT being another.

The idea that some coughing after a mountain stage exertion is indicative of asthma or illness would mean half the peloton is ill on every stage, historically. It's ridiculous.

indeed....I mean what is the general medical profession playing at....most proscribe rest and tell you to take time of work (whilst also being able to prescribe drugs and not have to worry about any PED testing of patients....

meanwhile at Sky, when you're ill...you fly

This also may not be a useful line to go down. If you’re a modest civilian of means, your GP will tell you one thing when ill or injured. Sports medicine will tell you other things.

 

[fmk_RoI]

he was coughing last week too, after the stage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcLwh2nGbGI

No coughing shown there

FFS ... you're all bringing coughing into feckin disrepute, lads. Who can ever cough again and be taken feckin seriously? :lol: :lol:

One cough, two coffs, did cough, didn't coff, they said he coughed ...

Clinic sleuths.

"The genius of that."

Now it's coughing or not coughling proves salbutamol abuse, crashing proves tramadol abuse, going fast means a motor, winning equals doping. Oh yeah, as does having a big jaw. And feet. Heart trouble? Doping. Death? Dope!

There's a bit of a pattern developing here...

I miss the days when Bartali would send someone up to see if Coppi's eyes were dilated...

 

[Alpe73]

Seems like this whole sub-discussion about coughing is based on a false premise

The 'tells' were there all along..

stage 15 5th and puts time into GC rivals
Stage 16 1st - wins the TT
Stage 17 14th (dropped in last 2kms)
Stage 18 23rd (but 4th of GC contenders)
Stage 19 bunch with GC riders
Stage 20 3rd (CN say he 'flew' up the mountain)
Stage 21 bunch

if that doesn't reek of someone whose ill I'm not sure what does............

Sounds to me like someone who had a bad day and then got better all of a sudden for some reason. Illness is one possibility, normal wear and tear of a GT being another.

The idea that some coughing after a mountain stage exertion is indicative of asthma or illness would mean half the peloton is ill on every stage, historically. It's ridiculous.

indeed....I mean what is the general medical profession playing at....most proscribe rest and tell you to take time of work (whilst also being able to prescribe drugs and not have to worry about any PED testing of patients....

meanwhile at Sky, when you're ill...you fly

This also may not be a useful line to go down. If you’re a modest civilian of means, your GP will tell you one thing when ill or injured. Sports medicine will tell you other things.

Dr. Finlay: "Da, Chris ... there'll be noo climbin fer yoooooooo t'day, lad. Have wee Janet gi ya a hot compress 'n poultice,lad." :surprised:

 

[Alpe73]

he was coughing last week too, after the stage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcLwh2nGbGI

No coughing shown there

FFS ... you're all bringing coughing into feckin disrepute, lads. Who can ever cough again and be taken feckin seriously? :lol: :lol:

One cough, two coffs, did cough, didn't coff, they said he coughed ...

Clinic sleuths.

"The genius of that."

Now it's coughing or not coughling proves salbutamol abuse, crashing proves tramadol abuse, going fast means a motor, winning equals doping. Oh yeah, as does having a big jaw. And feet. Heart trouble? Doping. Death? Dope!

There's a bit of a pattern developing here...

I miss the days when Bartali would send someone up to see if Coppi's eyes were dilated...

In all seriousness ... that ... is fecking ... beautiful, man. :geek:

 

[gillan1969]

Seems like this whole sub-discussion about coughing is based on a false premise

The 'tells' were there all along..

stage 15 5th and puts time into GC rivals
Stage 16 1st - wins the TT
Stage 17 14th (dropped in last 2kms)
Stage 18 23rd (but 4th of GC contenders)
Stage 19 bunch with GC riders
Stage 20 3rd (CN say he 'flew' up the mountain)
Stage 21 bunch

if that doesn't reek of someone whose ill I'm not sure what does............

Sounds to me like someone who had a bad day and then got better all of a sudden for some reason. Illness is one possibility, normal wear and tear of a GT being another.

The idea that some coughing after a mountain stage exertion is indicative of asthma or illness would mean half the peloton is ill on every stage, historically. It's ridiculous.

indeed....I mean what is the general medical profession playing at....most proscribe rest and tell you to take time of work (whilst also being able to prescribe drugs and not have to worry about any PED testing of patients....

meanwhile at Sky, when you're ill...you fly

This also may not be a useful line to go down. If you’re a modest civilian of means, your GP will tell you one thing when ill or injured. Sports medicine will tell you other things.

Dr. Finlay: "Da, Chris ... there'll be noo climbin fer yoooooooo t'day, lad. Have wee Janet gi ya a hot compress 'n poultice,lad." :surprised:

that's closer to home than you can imagine

 

[Alpe73]

Sounds to me like someone who had a bad day and then got better all of a sudden for some reason. Illness is one possibility, normal wear and tear of a GT being another.

The idea that some coughing after a mountain stage exertion is indicative of asthma or illness would mean half the peloton is ill on every stage, historically. It's ridiculous.

indeed....I mean what is the general medical profession playing at....most proscribe rest and tell you to take time of work (whilst also being able to prescribe drugs and not have to worry about any PED testing of patients....

meanwhile at Sky, when you're ill...you fly

This also may not be a useful line to go down. If you’re a modest civilian of means, your GP will tell you one thing when ill or injured. Sports medicine will tell you other things.

Dr. Finlay: "Da, Chris ... there'll be noo climbin fer yoooooooo t'day, lad. Have wee Janet gi ya a hot compress 'n poultice,lad." :surprised:

that's closer to home than you can imagine

Stick around. Goin to “Hancock’s Half” at the top of the hour ... on most stations.

 

[zalacain]

[/quote] Stick around. Goin to “Hancock’s Half” at the top of the hour ... on most stations.[/quote]
That 2000mg is an armful after all

 

[Alpe73]

Stick around. Goin to “Hancock’s Half” at the top of the hour ... on most stations.[/quote]
That 2000mg is an armful after all[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------

Knew that one would bring you in, Bourne. :lol:

 

[fmk_RoI]

Something I had forgotten: Alejandro Valverde is not the only rider Pat McQuaid tried and failed to sideline using catch-all clauses. In 2009 he went after Tom Boonen, who in April of that year had tripped his third AAF for cocaine in as many years but, because the test was OOC, the AAF didn't become an ADRV. According to a UCI announcement, the Disciplinary Committee were to be asked to suspend the Belgian for between one and six months:

“The behaviour of Tom Boonen, even though it does not constitute a violation of the anti-doping rules, can be considered unacceptable (Art.1.2.079) and liable to harm the image, reputation or interests of cycling or the UCI (Art. 12.1.005)."

The relevant clause read then as it does now:

12.1.005 Anyone subject to UCI Regulations shall be suspended for a minimum of one and a maximum of six months, who:

1. behaves in a violent manner or uses defamatory or abusive language to or about a commissaire, a UCI body or its members or, in general, anyone performing a function provided for in the UCI Constitution or Regulations, or

2. behaves in such a way as to blemish the image, the reputation or the interests of cycling or the UCI, or

3. without valid reason, fails to respond when convened or summoned by a UCI authority or disciplinary body.

The Disciplinary Committee had not banned Boonen by the time the Tour de France came around, and - this being before the UCI-ASO ProTour Wars had fully ended and ASO agreed to accept all Pro-Tour (World Tour) teams without question - ASO, in order to "preserve its reputation", decided for itself to refuse Boonen's participation, claiming "the image and the behaviour of Tom Boonen are incompatible with the image of the Tour de France and that which an exceptional champion like him has to convey." Boonen appealed to the Chambre and they laughed ASO off the stage, granting the Belgian permission to start the race. At which point the Gods intervened and Tommeke came down with a dose of the *** and had to skip the start.

Boonen was suspended, briefly, by his team (Pat Lefevere's Quick Step, who benched him in May but had him back again in time for the Dauphiné Libéré). Whether the Disciplinary Committee ever rendered judgement in the matter I don't know (they would have had to, one way or the other, but good luck trying to find firm evidence of it). It would appear, however, that they quickly said no ban was warranted/permitted, and communicated this fact to ASO.

(Boonen's 2008 AAF – again OOC and so not producing an ADRV – also saw ASO block his appearance at the Tour, but on that occasion the team agreed to pull him from their line up.)

(That wasn't the only time the Gods had to intervene to do something the rules wouldn't permit: in 2006 ASO had tried to ban the whole of the Astana team, in the immediate wake of Puerto, claiming "an organiser has the right to refuse a team or a member of a team whose presence is susceptible of blemishing the image of cycling, of the organiser or of the race" (aka the disrepute clause). Again they failed. Again the Gods intervened.)

 

[spetsa]

Re:

Something I had forgotten: Alejandro Valverde is not the only rider Pat McQuaid tried and failed to sideline using catch-all clauses. In 2009 he went after Tom Boonen, who in April of that year had tripped his third AAF for cocaine in as many years but, because the test was OOC, the AAF didn't become an ADRV. According to a UCI announcement, the Disciplinary Committee were to be asked to suspend the Belgian for between one and six months:

“The behaviour of Tom Boonen, even though it does not constitute a violation of the anti-doping rules, can be considered unacceptable (Art.1.2.079) and liable to harm the image, reputation or interests of cycling or the UCI (Art. 12.1.005)."

The relevant clause read then as it does now:

12.1.005 Anyone subject to UCI Regulations shall be suspended for a minimum of one and a maximum of six months, who:

1. behaves in a violent manner or uses defamatory or abusive language to or about a commissaire, a UCI body or its members or, in general, anyone performing a function provided for in the UCI Constitution or Regulations, or

2. behaves in such a way as to blemish the image, the reputation or the interests of cycling or the UCI, or

3. without valid reason, fails to respond when convened or summoned by a UCI authority or disciplinary body.

The Disciplinary Committee had not banned Boonen by the time the Tour de France came around, and - this being before the UCI-ASO ProTour Wars had fully ended and ASO agreed to accept all Pro-Tour (World Tour) teams without question - ASO, in order to "preserve its reputation", decided for itself to refuse Boonen's participation, claiming "the image and the behaviour of Tom Boonen are incompatible with the image of the Tour de France and that which an exceptional champion like him has to convey." Boonen appealed to the Chambre and they laughed ASO off the stage, granting the Belgian permission to start the race. At which point the Gods intervened and Tommeke came down with a dose of the *** and had to skip the start.

Boonen was suspended, briefly, by his team (Pat Lefevere's Quick Step, who benched him in May but had him back again in time for the Dauphiné Libéré). Whether the Disciplinary Committee ever rendered judgement in the matter I don't know (they would have had to, one way or the other, but good luck trying to find firm evidence of it). It would appear, however, that they quickly said no ban was warranted/permitted, and communicated this fact to ASO.

(Boonen's 2008 AAF – again OOC and so not producing an ADRV – also saw ASO block his appearance at the Tour, but on that occasion the team agreed to pull him from their line up.)

(That wasn't the only time the Gods had to intervene to do something the rules wouldn't permit: in 2006 ASO had tried to ban the whole of the Astana team, in the immediate wake of Puerto, claiming "an organiser has the right to refuse a team or a member of a team whose presence is susceptible of blemishing the image of cycling, of the organiser or of the race" (aka the disrepute clause). Again they failed. Again the Gods intervened.)

Maybe Froome will come down with a bad case of asthma on the eve of the Giro that Sky will claim could have been cured by injection or nebulizer, but since they no longer use TUE's or operate in the grey area, they are keeping him out for the safety of his health.

 

[Poursuivant]

What was that talk about the new salbutamol rules coming into effect in March? I am sure I read about it on here somewhere.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

What was that talk about the new salbutamol rules coming into effect in March? I am sure I read about it on here somewhere.

Yes, a correction of the decision limit for urine specific gravity (USG) is allowed. If Froome's sample had a very high USG, 1.034 or greater, he would get off, immediately. I assume that's not the case, but maybe on March 1, he will proclaim, April Fool! (one month early), there was never a problem, I was just pretending that the case wasn't resolved to watch everyone's reaction. Hahaha, joke's on you, Lappartient, Vegni, Martin, Wellens, Clinic, etc., etc., I knew I was going to skate all the time.

If that actually happened, I wonder how the case would be classified. It wouldn't be a TUE or NCA or NS, AFAIK. Technically, it wouldn't be an AAF, so would they reverse the original decision? This is not academic, because if Froome did have a USG that high, the sample originally would have been classified as an AAF, not only because the new rule was not in effect at the time, but the technician analyzing the sample most likely wouldn't have even been aware of the rule.

 

[Parker]

Re:

What was that talk about the new salbutamol rules coming into effect in March? I am sure I read about it on here somewhere.

It's something to do with adjusting the test reading to compensate for dehydration. So whatever test result Froome had will be readjusted down (safe to assume any cyclist is dehydrated after a race), but it probably won't be enough on it's own.

 

[Poursuivant]

Ok thanks for replies.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

What was that talk about the new salbutamol rules coming into effect in March? I am sure I read about it on here somewhere.

It's something to do with adjusting the test reading to compensate for dehydration. So whatever test result Froome had will be readjusted down (safe to assume any cyclist is dehydrated after a race), but it probably won't be enough on it's own.

Since when are rules applied retroactively?

That would make this sport the biggest joke in the history of sports.

 

[70kmph]

Re: Re:

What was that talk about the new salbutamol rules coming into effect in March? I am sure I read about it on here somewhere.

It's something to do with adjusting the test reading to compensate for dehydration. So whatever test result Froome had will be readjusted down (safe to assume any cyclist is dehydrated after a race), but it probably won't be enough on it's own.

Since when are rules applied retroactively?

That would make this sport the biggest joke in the history of sports.

WADAC Article 25.2 The "Lex mitior” principal where a person benefits from a lighter penalty where there has been a change in the law

"the case shall be governed by the substantive anti-doping rules in effect at the time the alleged anti-doping rule violation occurred, unless the panel hearing the case determines the principle of "lex mitior” appropriately applies under the circumstances of the case.”

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

What was that talk about the new salbutamol rules coming into effect in March? I am sure I read about it on here somewhere.

It's something to do with adjusting the test reading to compensate for dehydration. So whatever test result Froome had will be readjusted down (safe to assume any cyclist is dehydrated after a race), but it probably won't be enough on it's own.

Since when are rules applied retroactively?

That would make this sport the biggest joke in the history of sports.

Will you keep watching our sport when it becomes the "biggest joke in the history of sports"?

 

[Robert5091]

Re: Re:

What was that talk about the new salbutamol rules coming into effect in March? I am sure I read about it on here somewhere.

It's something to do with adjusting the test reading to compensate for dehydration. So whatever test result Froome had will be readjusted down (safe to assume any cyclist is dehydrated after a race), but it probably won't be enough on it's own.

Since when are rules applied retroactively?

That would make this sport the biggest joke in the history of sports.

Will you keep watching our sport when it becomes the "biggest joke in the history of sports"?

It's the only reason to watch!

 

[macbindle]

That guardian bodyguard story sounds so similar to how Cathy Newman and channel 4 news tried to manufacture sympathy last month by claiming they contacted the police and were thinking of hiring protection.
This was after she performed one of the most disgraceful "interviews" imaginable, cosing up to former harvard professor Jordan peterson, then heel turning on him during the interview and attempting to twist every word he said to provoke him and to misportray him as some sort of irrational nazi.

After he remained calm and respectfully corrected her on every attempted mischaractarization the interview went viral exposing her reprehensible behaviour to millions as one of the best examples out there of a calm individual triumphing over a bully.

To save face c4 released the police story, even though no evidence has been shown that there were any actual threats and there has been no further story in the month since then. The analysis suggests peterson actually got significantly more hate than she did. It was clearly a cry for sympathy and an attempt to change the narrative.

Of course the very next day the very same guardian newspaper as above printed a (very similar) article about how a "controversial" professor's fans had been abusing poor Cathy, placing her as the victim, saving media face.

Seems to be the same thing Db is doing. And has been for years. From the genesis of the "throw piss" story for which there was no evidence, to his very similar claim in 2015 that sky's files were hacked, in a pathetic attempt to distract from how they proved tucker and Co right. Fran Millar claiming she was contacting police during a tdf mountain stage to protect frooomie from loony fans.

Scumbags certainly know how to use this trick.

Here is Stephen Roche talking about being spat on:

Stephen Roche: I had people spitting rice and wine in my face

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jun/04/tour-de-france-stephen-roche?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

It happens.

There are plenty of examples of aggression towards cyclists in races from spectators, usually nationality-driven.

If you know your Tour history, which you may, you'll know of the incident of a gun being fired to scare off a lynch mob.

 

[fmk_RoI]

If you know your Tour history, which you may, you'll know of the incident of a gun being fired to scare off a lynch mob.

A lynch mob? A lynch mob? That's a new and unnecessary embellishment. It was a mob, that tried to delay Fauré's rivals. There was no "lynching."

And that was 1904. Nobody's been shot at the Tour since 2009.

 

[macbindle]

Ok maybe not lynch them but the mob were beating up Garin and another rider...not just delaying them

The point stands. There is a long history of aggression towards riders from fans.

 

[red_flanders]

That guardian bodyguard story sounds so similar to how Cathy Newman and channel 4 news tried to manufacture sympathy last month by claiming they contacted the police and were thinking of hiring protection.
This was after she performed one of the most disgraceful "interviews" imaginable, cosing up to former harvard professor Jordan peterson, then heel turning on him during the interview and attempting to twist every word he said to provoke him and to misportray him as some sort of irrational nazi.

After he remained calm and respectfully corrected her on every attempted mischaractarization the interview went viral exposing her reprehensible behaviour to millions as one of the best examples out there of a calm individual triumphing over a bully.

To save face c4 released the police story, even though no evidence has been shown that there were any actual threats and there has been no further story in the month since then. The analysis suggests peterson actually got significantly more hate than she did. It was clearly a cry for sympathy and an attempt to change the narrative.

Of course the very next day the very same guardian newspaper as above printed a (very similar) article about how a "controversial" professor's fans had been abusing poor Cathy, placing her as the victim, saving media face.

Seems to be the same thing Db is doing. And has been for years. From the genesis of the "throw piss" story for which there was no evidence, to his very similar claim in 2015 that sky's files were hacked, in a pathetic attempt to distract from how they proved tucker and Co right. Fran Millar claiming she was contacting police during a tdf mountain stage to protect frooomie from loony fans.

Scumbags certainly know how to use this trick.

Here is Stephen Roche talking about being spat on:

Stephen Roche: I had people spitting rice and wine in my face

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jun/04/tour-de-france-stephen-roche?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

It happens.

There are plenty of examples of aggression towards cyclists in races from spectators, usually nationality-driven.

If you know your Tour history, which you may, you'll know of the incident of a gun being fired to scare off a lynch mob.

It's true. It also doesn't make the Froome story true or even believable. Sky have lied so many times, put up so many later-to-be-found-as-total-bs stories, that no one paying serious attention can believe a word from DB's mouth. If it comes from DB and is meant to garner sympathy, to deflect from suspicion, to claim knowledge others don't have, I consider it false until proven otherwise at this point.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Ok maybe not lynch them but the mob were beating up Garin and another rider...not just delaying them

The point stands. There is a long history of aggression towards riders from fans.

Exactly how much use is a bodyguard going to be in such a scenario? Is he travelling in front of the race or behind? Just how long do you think it would take him to get from whichever end of the race he's at to the scene of an attack on a rider?

He's there, as he was there when LA used one, as he was there when Cuddles used one, for the stuff at either end of the stage. Cause it looks good. And helps the rider feel good.