Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[macbindle]

Re:

Tony Martin was one of the few riders in the peloton who spoke out on the Froome case:


I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?

“These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.”


Compare this with the wishy washy language of practically the entire pelotonand then you question why it is omerta at play?

Is that the Tony Martin who scored a 7 on the UCI Biopassport suspicion list?

Same score as Michael Rogers...

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

Tony Martin was one of the few riders in the peloton who spoke out on the Froome case:


I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?

“These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.”


Compare this with the wishy washy language of practically the entire pelotonand then you question why it is omerta at play?

Is that the Tony Martin who scored a 7 on the UCI Biopassport suspicion list?

Same score as Michael Rogers...

Bit isnt contesting a doping violation like the Dawg. Yes, thats the Tony Martin.

 

[macbindle]

I know it is. It was a rhetorical question posed for dramatic effect.

What is worse, being at the top end of the UCI suspicion list, with a score so high it was considered as indicative of almost certain doping...or having had too many puffs on an asthma inhaler with no evidence of any clear performance enhancing effects???

Tony Martin is butt-hurt because Froome has beaten him st his own games (TT and doping)

 

[ontheroad]

Re:

I know it is. It was a rhetorical question posed for dramatic effect.

What is worse, being at the top end of the UCI suspicion list, with a score so high it was considered as indicative of almost certain doping...or having had too many puffs on an asthma inhaler with no evidence of any clear performance enhancing effects???

Tony Martin is butt-hurt because Froome has beaten him st his own games (TT and doping)

You are probably correct, however I raised Tony Martin's comments not to suggest that he was some sort of lone anti doping crusader from within the peloton but merely to highlight the omerta that prevails within it when it comes to the relative silence and shrugging of the shoulders elsewhere.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

Yes, Hinault is a complete hypocrite calling for a strike. He states that the peloton are 'too nice' in not calling Froome out. That's just a joke, it's just omerta pure and simple.

Hinault has no right to take a moral stance in this case and I think he is simply more worried about his own achievement of winning 5 tours being threatened.

I agree with you about the motor use in your post above. We don't know the extent of it.

But please tell me, why is it omerta? (not challenging you, just that I thought it was all the contrary)

And IMHO he has the right to say anything he wants to. It is not illegal. He probably is too late to speak about this topic, but he can say whatever he wants to. In fact I prefer him talking like this than being quiet.

Apart from Tony Martin, Bardet and some initial comments from Dumoulin and Nibali (both of those later watered down their original comments) the rest of the peloton have either said nothing or uttered banalaties such as 'it is what it is' or 'we trust in the process'.

If you're a genuinely clean athlete with nothing to hide then it is extremely curious as to why this silence has prevailed, I thought it would be fairly easy to join the dots. It has rarely ever been any different.

I think Dumoulin has said he's stayed out of it after his initial comments because he gets hassle of journalists and basically can't be bothered with it.

Not everyone wants or needs to go on the record about things that don't directly affect them. It would perhaps be nice if they would but I can understand why many don't want to get involved.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

I know it is. It was a rhetorical question posed for dramatic effect.

What is worse, being at the top end of the UCI suspicion list, with a score so high it was considered as indicative of almost certain doping...or having had too many puffs on an asthma inhaler with no evidence of any clear performance enhancing effects???

Tony Martin is butt-hurt because Froome has beaten him st his own games (TT and doping)

You are probably correct, however I raised Tony Martin's comments not to suggest that he was some sort of lone anti doping crusader from within the peloton but merely to highlight the omerta that prevails within it when it comes to the relative silence and shrugging of the shoulders elsewhere.

Omerta ... aka ... STFU ... what's so difficult to understand about that? Seriously?

One of the best learned skills to have guided men and women through wars, marriages and team work. You (no, not you, OTR ) don't like it? ... then don't expect to gain trust when you might need it

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Tony Martin was one of the few riders in the peloton who spoke out on the Froome case:


I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?

“These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.”


Compare this with the wishy washy language of practically the entire pelotonand then you question why it is omerta at play?

We should also remember Martin's follow up. where he acknowledged he knew *** all about the rules he said were not being applied properly:

I received a lot of feedback about my comment of yesterday. I even got a phone call from a UCI’s representative who took the time to clarify how the process had been handled. I now understand that the UCI is managing this case in accordance with the rules and that Chris Froome did not get any special treatment. According to the rules, in a case involving a specified substance, every athlete shall have the chance to explain whether the numbers can be due to natural causes.

That said, I am always very angry when another case in relation to antidoping happened in our sport. I will, as I always did, continue to take a strong position regarding the fight against doping and I will always remain an outspoken advocate for a 100% clean sport.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

Tony Martin was one of the few riders in the peloton who spoke out on the Froome case:


I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?

“These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.”


Compare this with the wishy washy language of practically the entire pelotonand then you question why it is omerta at play?

Is that the Tony Martin who scored a 7 on the UCI Biopassport suspicion list?

Same score as Michael Rogers...

Surely that expert status qualifies
rather than disqualifies his opinion

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

I know it is. It was a rhetorical question posed for dramatic effect.

What is worse, being at the top end of the UCI suspicion list, with a score so high it was considered as indicative of almost certain doping...or having had too many puffs on an asthma inhaler with no evidence of any clear performance enhancing effects???

Tony Martin is butt-hurt because Froome has beaten him st his own games (TT and doping)

You are probably correct, however I raised Tony Martin's comments not to suggest that he was some sort of lone anti doping crusader from within the peloton but merely to highlight the omerta that prevails within it when it comes to the relative silence and shrugging of the shoulders elsewhere.

Omerta ... aka ... STFU ... what's so difficult to understand about that? Seriously?

One of the best learned skills to have guided men and women through wars, marriages and team work. You (no, not you, OTR ) don't like it? ... then don't expect to gain trust when you might need it

So let's say you are Nibali/Dumoulin or whoever and you are riding clean but the rider who finished one step ahead of you in a Grand Tour has fallen foul of a doping infraction (thus cheating you out of a GT victory) you are seriously suggesting that you should just remain silent and accept it. If you genuinely feel as though you have been cheated out of something then surely the natural reaction is to see justice restored I would have thought.

Or maybe as you suggest everyone should just ditch entirely the justice system and do as you suggest and 'shut the fcuk up' and let the world be a happier place!!

''The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Edmund Burke

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

Tony Martin was one of the few riders in the peloton who spoke out on the Froome case:


I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?

“These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.”


Compare this with the wishy washy language of practically the entire pelotonand then you question why it is omerta at play?

We should also remember Martin's follow up. where he acknowledged he knew **** all about the rules he said were not being applied properly:

I received a lot of feedback about my comment of yesterday. I even got a phone call from a UCI’s representative who took the time to clarify how the process had been handled. I now understand that the UCI is managing this case in accordance with the rules and that Chris Froome did not get any special treatment. According to the rules, in a case involving a specified substance, every athlete shall have the chance to explain whether the numbers can be due to natural causes.

That said, I am always very angry when another case in relation to antidoping happened in our sport. I will, as I always did, continue to take a strong position regarding the fight against doping and I will always remain an outspoken advocate for a 100% clean sport.

Indeed, the UCI only became concerned when Martin criticised their own procedures and made accusations of favouritism. Prabably a thinly veiled warning to other riders to zip it.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Tony Martin was one of the few riders in the peloton who spoke out on the Froome case:


I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?

“These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.”


Compare this with the wishy washy language of practically the entire pelotonand then you question why it is omerta at play?

Is that the Tony Martin who scored a 7 on the UCI Biopassport suspicion list?

Same score as Michael Rogers...

What on earth does that have to do with it? His complaint is a lack of transparency and apparent favoritism, not "Froome is the only one doping". One can disagree with his points for various reasons but saying "he's a doper, don't listen to him" is utterly irrelevant.

 

[macbindle]

His complaint is underpinned by his own, later acknowledged, lack of understanding of the system.

So that makes him an ignoramus and a hypocrite.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

I know it is. It was a rhetorical question posed for dramatic effect.

What is worse, being at the top end of the UCI suspicion list, with a score so high it was considered as indicative of almost certain doping...or having had too many puffs on an asthma inhaler with no evidence of any clear performance enhancing effects???

Tony Martin is butt-hurt because Froome has beaten him st his own games (TT and doping)

You are probably correct, however I raised Tony Martin's comments not to suggest that he was some sort of lone anti doping crusader from within the peloton but merely to highlight the omerta that prevails within it when it comes to the relative silence and shrugging of the shoulders elsewhere.

Omerta ... aka ... STFU ... what's so difficult to understand about that? Seriously?

One of the best learned skills to have guided men and women through wars, marriages and team work. You (no, not you, OTR ) don't like it? ... then don't expect to gain trust when you might need it

So let's say you are Nibali/Dumoulin or whoever and you are riding clean but the rider who finished one step ahead of you in a Grand Tour has fallen foul of a doping infraction (thus cheating you out of a GT victory) you are seriously suggesting that you should just remain silent and accept it. If you genuinely feel as though you have been cheated out of something then surely the natural reaction is to see justice restored I would have thought.

Or maybe as you suggest everyone should just ditch entirely the justice system and do as you suggest and 'shut the fcuk up' and let the world be a happier place!!

''The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Edmund Burke

They are a fraternity of athletes, a fraternity of workers, a fraternity of employees ... to name a few characteristics of established bonds. Job security, income security is weak ... for a host of reasons. Earning potential ends at a very young age in comparison to the rest of the population. As pro athletes, most are low on the ladder of gross incomes. Not an easy life. Brutally tough sport ... the grand tour idea created as a gag to push riders to the brink of collapse. Within that milieu, some may ask for secrecy, strict confidence.You decide if you'll give it ... you consider that someday you will need it. It is clearly a different system from where you sit. Is it justice? You decide.

As a fan you have a right to think whatever way you want about that. You choose your way and I my way. I can live with that.

The hypothetical scenario you create ... totally clean athlete being robbed by a totally cheating dirty athlete. Of course, I don't condone that hypothetical. Is it happening ... I dunno. There's a lot of dynamics we don't understand from this end of the keyboard ... but we talk tough ... like we know. Good luck on that.

Or maybe as you suggest everyone should just ditch entirely the justice system and do as you suggest and 'shut the fcuk up' and let the world be a happier place!!

Funny. You just made that up. Why would you do that?

On this thread, I'm one of a handful who have advocated (to the jeers of 'fanboi' and more) to reserve judgement until justice has run its course.

Go figger.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

His complaint is underpinned by his own, later acknowledged, lack of understanding of the system.

So that makes him an ignoramus and a hypocrite.

Yes, that argument makes some sense. Hypocrisy? No.

]On this thread, I'm one of a handful who have advocated (to the jeers of 'fanboi' and more) to reserve judgement until justice has run its course.

Do you really not get the difference between a personal judgement and wanting an official investigation to run its course? That one can believe or even be 100% sure that Froome is guilty and also want the system to play out and come what may?

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

Tony Martin was one of the few riders in the peloton who spoke out on the Froome case:


I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?

“These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.”


Compare this with the wishy washy language of practically the entire pelotonand then you question why it is omerta at play?

Is that the Tony Martin who scored a 7 on the UCI Biopassport suspicion list?

Same score as Michael Rogers...

What on earth does that have to do with it? His complaint is a lack of transparency and apparent favoritism, not "Froome is the only one doping". One can disagree with his points for various reasons but saying "he's a doper, don't listen to him" is utterly irrelevant.

What if he is a doper who is attempting to change the perception of himself?

I mean "leading a serious anti-doping struggle"? Who the *** believes that twaddle anyway?

 

[macbindle]

Tony Martin=7

He probably is leading a serious anti-doping struggle

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I mean "leading a serious anti-doping struggle"? Who the **** believes that twaddle anyway?

Jens Voigt's fans.

 

[hfer07]

Re:

Tony Martin was one of the few riders in the peloton who spoke out on the Froome case:


I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?

“These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.”


Compare this with the wishy washy language of practically the entire pelotonand then you question why it is omerta at play?

Greetings to Tony Martin for that brave statement

If we only had a hundred of those coming out of the entire Peloton......

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Tony Martin was one of the few riders in the peloton who spoke out on the Froome case:


I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status?

“These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.”


Compare this with the wishy washy language of practically the entire pelotonand then you question why it is omerta at play?

Greetings to Tony Martin for that brave statement

If we only had a hundred of those coming out of the entire Peloton......

The green highlighting really adds something...do you use green ink when writing to the newspapers?

 

[Merckx index]

Pot Sky calling kettle Hinault black:

It is disappointing that Bernard Hinault has, once again, repeated factually incorrect comments about a case he clearly does not understand," read a statement released on Thursday.

"His comments are irresponsible and ill-informed. Chris has not had a positive test, rather an adverse analytical finding for a prescribed asthma medication.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/team-sky-hit-back-at-bernard-hinault-over-irresponsible-and-uneducated-comments-against-chris-froome-37035838.html

An AAF is a positive. Either Sky is misinformed about something pretty basic that every team ought to be aware of, or is intentionally providing misinformation to make itself and Froome look better.

 

[macbindle]

Kind of splitting hairs a bit. The difference is the AAF offers the opportunity for explanation. This is what Hinault didn't get.

But, essentially, yes...it is the Sky PR machine in full swing.

I'm ambivalent. Deep down I don't want to see Froome at the Tour (or indeed anywhere), but I can't decide if Im more offended by the rampant hypocrisy on display by Hinault and others, or by Froome.

 

[Benotti69]

Pot Sky calling kettle Hinault black:

It is disappointing that Bernard Hinault has, once again, repeated factually incorrect comments about a case he clearly does not understand," read a statement released on Thursday.

"His comments are irresponsible and ill-informed. Chris has not had a positive test, rather an adverse analytical finding for a prescribed asthma medication.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/team-sky-hit-back-at-bernard-hinault-over-irresponsible-and-uneducated-comments-against-chris-froome-37035838.html

An AAF is a positive. Either Sky is misinformed about something pretty basic that every team ought to be aware of, or is intentionally providing misinformation to make itself and Froome look better.

Sky have no problem blatantly lying, again and again and again and people think their riders are clean. :lol:

 

[thehog]

Pot Sky calling kettle Hinault black:

It is disappointing that Bernard Hinault has, once again, repeated factually incorrect comments about a case he clearly does not understand," read a statement released on Thursday.

"His comments are irresponsible and ill-informed. Chris has not had a positive test, rather an adverse analytical finding for a prescribed asthma medication.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/team-sky-hit-back-at-bernard-hinault-over-irresponsible-and-uneducated-comments-against-chris-froome-37035838.html

An AAF is a positive. Either Sky is misinformed about something pretty basic that every team ought to be aware of, or is intentionally providing misinformation to make itself and Froome look better.

Correct, Section 5 of the WADA code, what is doping? A positive test, AAF.

 

[Cookster15]

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:-

Congrats to Tony Martin for speaking out. As for Hinault I agree 100% and I really don't care whether he doped during his time or not - irrelevant to his point. Froome should withdraw on ethical grounds regardless if the rules say he can ride. Froome does not need the money and the Sport is bigger than Froome , Sky or British cycling. By withdrawing it also puts Froome and Sky on the same side as the rest of us - demand these AAF cases are sped up. Valverde (Peurto), Contador and now Froome. No, the other two were not AAFs but they did drag on for years. Rasmussen's team pulled him out of the Tour for less. The complexity excuse for the Froome delays is just BS. More lawyers making lots of money the longer the case drags on. I am glad the earth isn't threatened by an asteroid whilst we wait for lawyers to decide the complex ethical grounds for lunching a nuke to blow it out of the sky.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Well I don't have time to scroll through the history of this thread but here's my 2 cents worth:

This is exactly how Haas should handle the case: "Guys, you know what, I just can't be arsed reading the fifteen hundred pages of claim and counter claim you've produced between you. I skimmed the last couple of pages and found a few quotes that fit my prejudices, so let's just go with that, my ill informed opinion. Chris - you don't mind me calling you Chris, do you? - you look like a nice guy. So I can't believe you would cheat. But. Rules is rules. I have to take the Vuelta off of you. You can keep everything else. And I'm not sending you to the naughty step cause, like I said, I can't believe a nice boy like you would cheat. Face of an angel, you have. Face of an angel."