• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 200 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I feel like I'm in a groundhog day situation. I swear this is the same TUE conversation people were having in 2000. "It's legal", "no violations", etc.

Could be. I doubt it given the circumstances, but it's possible it was all above board. I certainly don't believe that's what happened.
 
Oct 23, 2014
104
0
0
the sceptic said:
It was not a valid TUE as it did not pass through the required committee. This means Froome was cheating with the help of the UCI.
I can see how the UCI's system was open to critisism. But can you agree that no blame can be placed at the door of Sky or Froome for that?

And how much of an advantage do you think it gave him vs if he were healthy?

I do wonder if Sky would have applied for it if Froome hadn't missed so many of the Tour warm up races.
 
red_flanders said:
My point in posting the definition was for clarity. As far as "no evidence of the TUE system being abused" I would only agree that all parties claim there was no problem.

Having watched the UCI lie to gloss over TUE problems in the past, I don't trust them. That said, not my point in posting the definition.

It's not a cold medicine, it's a strong steroid which clearly has beneficial properties for the racing cyclist.
I think the context is important. Because Froome just like Armstrong in 1999 killed the field it makes you wonder why he even needed the drug? If he really was sick then wouldn’t he be better resting or rolling along in the pack?

Why he would use such a strong and powerful steroid to obliterate the field and clam that it was all very normal and legal is beyond me. And when you add this situation in with all the contradictions on Badzhilla it’s hard not to sit back and laugh at Froome. He is a doper just like Armstrong if not bigger. It’s like we’ve learnt nothing.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
daveyt said:
I can see how the UCI's system was open to critisism. But can you agree that no blame can be placed at the door of Sky or Froome for that?

And how much of an advantage do you think it gave him vs if he were healthy?

I do wonder if Sky would have applied for it if Froome hadn't missed so many of the Tour warm up races.
Yes, who can blame Froome for getting his medicine while on his death bed.

Thank god Zorzoli picked up the phone to deliver the emergency steroids.
 
thehog said:
I think the context is important. Because Froome just like Armstrong in 1999 killed the field it makes you wonder why he even needed the drug? If he really was sick then wouldn’t he be better resting or rolling along in the pack?

Why he would use such a strong and powerful steroid to obliterate the field and clam that it was all very normal and legal is beyond me. And when you add this situation in with all the contradictions on Badzhilla it’s hard not to sit back and laugh at Froome. He is a doper just like Armstrong if not bigger. It’s like we’ve learnt nothing.
I'm with you. It was absurd.
 
daveyt said:
I can see how the UCI's system was open to critisism. But can you agree that no blame can be placed at the door of Sky or Froome for that?

And how much of an advantage do you think it gave him vs if he were healthy?

I do wonder if Sky would have applied for it if Froome hadn't missed so many of the Tour warm up races.
You can blame Sky and Froome if you think they colluded with the UCI and Zorzoli to cheat.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
Armstrong failed a dope test.....after a race....he got a backdated TUE to say that he was ill BECAUSE he failed a test.......Froome applied for a TUE before the race.

This is why the comparison is nonsense.

The controversial aspect is that the UCI weren't following the WADA approved TUE policy to the letter.....they left the decision to one doctor not three.

Interestingly it is not so controversial that WADA revoked Froome's TUE......which they could have done.....but instead asked the UCI to rectify the committee situation

You see, Davey, the actual facts arent quite what our friends here purport them to be

Mark L
 
ebandit said:
Armstrong failed a dope test.....after a race....he got a backdated TUE to say that he was ill BECAUSE he failed a test.......Froome applied for a TUE before the race.
Armstrong did not fail a dope test. That is incorrect. And it was not after the race. The situation is very much the same as Froome's case..
 
ebandit said:
Armstrong failed a dope test.....after a race....he got a backdated TUE to say that he was ill BECAUSE he failed a test.......Froome applied for a TUE before the race.

This is why the comparison is nonsense.

The controversial aspect is that the UCI weren't following the WADA approved TUE policy to the letter.....they left the decision to one doctor not three.

Interestingly it is not so controversial that WADA revoked Froome's TUE......which they could have done.....but instead asked the UCI to rectify the committee situation

You see, Davey, the actual facts arent quite what our friends here purport them to be

Mark L
Agreed. Reading the meme that Froome cheated by taking horse steroids gets a little tiresome when it is in every thread.

And the worst part for me is that it deflects from the real endemic problem of the UCI and how they police the sport for PEDs. On topic for this thread, the lack of investigative reporting by the likes of Walsh and Company do the image of the sport no favors.
 
Oct 23, 2014
104
0
0
ebandit said:
Armstrong failed a dope test.....after a race....he got a backdated TUE to say that he was ill BECAUSE he failed a test.......Froome applied for a TUE before the race.

This is why the comparison is nonsense.
This is how I have always seen it.

In isolation it is very hard to understand how someone can draw conclusions from this case. The fact that Froome also revealed his previous TUE was telling, if there were other cases and they leak it will be pretty damning, why would he take that risk unless he were telling the truth?
 
daveyt said:
Yep.

But obviously you would need a decent reason the think that.
Here is a decent reason:

Doctor Leinders and doctor Mario Zorzoli, chief of the UCI's medical department, had a meeting and talked about the situation. When it had finished, I was allowed to continue. No reason to be worried. Afterwards, doctor Leinders told me what had happened. He used a Dutch phrase "We have butter on our heads." Rabobank had a good relationship with the UCI]

http://cyclingquotes.net/news/rasmussen_accuses_uci_of_cover-up/?urlPath=news/rasmussen_accuses_uci_of_cover-up/?acceptCookie=1
 
Oct 23, 2014
104
0
0
thehog said:
I think the context is important. Because Froome just like Armstrong in 1999 killed the field it makes you wonder why he even needed the drug? If he really was sick then wouldn’t he be better resting or rolling along in the pack?
Usually... unless it was his only chance to compete in a proper TDF warm up, I think they were desperate having missed so much.

thehog said:
Why he would use such a strong and powerful steroid to obliterate the field and clam that it was all very normal and legal is beyond me. And when you add this situation in with all the contradictions on Badzhilla it’s hard not to sit back and laugh at Froome. He is a doper just like Armstrong if not bigger. It’s like we’ve learnt nothing.
So... you think the medice he took this summer was so good it made him good in 2011? That is strong stuff.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
thehog said:
Armstrong did not fail a dope test. That is incorrect. And it was not after the race. The situation is very much the same as Froome's case..

My bad....you are right....he didn't fail a dope test....he failed FOUR dope tests

In 1999 Lance Armstrong underwent several anti-doping controls and it emerged that he tested positive for cortisone four times
http://inrng.com/2013/01/armstrong-1999-positive/

You see Davey....you have to watch them at every step ;)......but they'll try to scream that you are "trolling" if you do....:rolleyes:

Mark L
 
ebandit said:
My bad....you are right....he didn't fail a dope test....he failed FOUR dope tests



http://inrng.com/2013/01/armstrong-1999-positive/

You see Davey....you have to watch them at every step ;)......but they'll try to scream that you are "trolling" if you do....:rolleyes:

Mark L
I checked the anti-dooing register. I don't see a positive? Where did he test positive? :cool:

The samples taken during the 1999 Tour de France were analyzed by the French National Anti-Doping Laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry… The French Ministry came to the conclusion that there had been no anti-doping rule violation. In a conversation with the UCI’s Dr. Schattenberg at the time, the French Ministry doctor confirmed that the presence of traces of corticosteroids found in samples taken from Armstrong was compatible with the use of a skin cream; that the use of a skin cream was accepted as proven by the French Ministry; and that there was therefore no anti-doping rule violation.


http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/11/news/verbruggen-releases-facts-regarding-armstrong-1999-positives_309665#dhWtPrrsDUobyXlM.99
Traces vs 40mg's of steroids? Yikes! Worse than Armstrong! ;)
 
the sceptic said:
It was not a valid TUE as it did not pass through the required committee. This means Froome was cheating with the help of the UCI.
Yes it was:

“WADA is satisfied that the UCI’s decision to grant a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) to Chris Froome was conducted according to the rules of the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE), and therefore will not be reviewing this case any further,” WADA said in a statement emailed to Cyclingnews.
 
daveyt said:
Yep.

But obviously you would need a decent reason the think that.
Another good reason:

According to Vrij Nederland confidential documents show leading professional riders and managers of professional cycling teams were invited to meetings in the Aigle, Switzerland-based UCI headquarters. At these meetings the UCI chief doctor Mario Zorzoli presented the riders and managers with Powerpoint presentations detailing the International Cycling Union's anti-doping strategy and informing them of any suspicious values found in anti-doping tests.
http://www.roadcycling.com/news-results/wada-questions-ucis-impartiality-and-integrity-after-verbruggen-claim#.VHS6b9KUfnh
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
thehog said:
I checked the anti-dooing register. I don't see a positive? Where did he test positive? :cool:
You see, Davey, what hog did here is to claim to have checked 'the anti-doping register'....and followed it with this quote:

“The samples taken during the 1999 Tour de France were analyzed by the French National Anti-Doping Laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry… The French Ministry came to the conclusion that there had been no anti-doping rule violation. In a conversation with the UCI’s Dr. Schattenberg at the time, the French Ministry doctor confirmed that the presence of traces of corticosteroids found in samples taken from Armstrong was compatible with the use of a skin cream; that the use of a skin cream was accepted as proven by the French Ministry; and that there was therefore no anti-doping rule violation.”
Just a shame he didn't quote his source in full:

The file from Verbruggen reads: “The samples taken during the 1999 Tour de France were analyzed by the French National Anti-Doping Laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry… The French Ministry came to the conclusion that there had been no anti-doping rule violation. In a conversation with the UCI’s Dr. Schattenberg at the time, the French Ministry doctor confirmed that the presence of traces of corticosteroids found in samples taken from Armstrong was compatible with the use of a skin cream; that the use of a skin cream was accepted as proven by the French Ministry; and that there was therefore no anti-doping rule violation.”
He's quoting Verbruggens story....Verbruggen is the man accused of covering up Armstrong's positive :rolleyes: The French Ministry were duped by the Verbruggen-enabled TUE......maybe hog beliebes Verbruggen now :cool:

Mark L
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
ebandit said:
The TUE remains....it hasn't been revoked by WADA even though they investigated it

...it's valid ;)

Mark L
Perhaps Cookson called up his old friend Reedie?:rolleyes:

I know it's hard to take Mark, but Froome broke the rules. In my world that is cheating and he should be removed from the list.
 
ebandit said:
You see, Davey, what hog did here is to claim to have checked 'the anti-doping register'....and followed it with this quote:



Just a shame he didn't quote his source in full:



He's quoting Verbruggens story....Verbruggen is the man accused of covering up Armstrong's positive :rolleyes:

Mark L
Either it was a positive test or it wasn't? You claim it was. There's no evidence of a positive test being lodged. The UCI accepted Armstrong's "excuse" just like they accepted Froome's "excuse" for a TUE.

One exception; Armstrong had "traces", Froome 40mg's.

Froome & Armstrong are very similar. I can't help if that makes you feel uncomfortable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS