Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 201 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
ebandit said:
The TUE remains....it hasn't been revoked by WADA even though they investigated it

...it's valid......sorry. ;)

Mark L
as was Armstrong's after UCI bent the rules for him.

i don't think L'Equipe would have felt a need to run a story on it if it didn't stink from head to toe.
 
thehog said:
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.
You haven't thought this through hog.......by your logic ALL uses of TUES can be compared with Armstrong's back-dated TUE :rolleyes:

Mark L
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
So... You guys think what happened exactly? He has been on this stuff since 2011 and it's been covered up except this one time when he got a Tue?

Or it was just this one course? Which would set him up for the tour?

How does this one case fit into what I think you assume to be an Armstrong level conspiracy? And why would the Tue get leaked but none of the juicier stuff behind it?

I just don't see any logic here at all. Yes TUE's are something that could and have been abused, but they also have a place in a clean sport. Maybe riders shouldn't be allowed to compete on this stuff and wada should review it, but that's a separate issue.
 
ebandit said:
You haven't thought this through hog.......by your logic ALL uses of TUES can be compared with Armstrong's back-dated TUE :rolleyes:

Mark L
No, only the ones whereby the UCI bent the rules for the athlete.

Froome and Armstrong. It's very straightforward even if you don't want to see it :rolleyes:
 
thehog said:
No, only the ones whereby the UCI bent the rules for the athlete.

Froome and Armstrong. It's very straightforward even if you don't want to see it :rolleyes:
There was no TUE committee for Froome's TUE....which is what you call "bending the rules"

.....there was no TUE committee at all for any TUE so again, despite your increasingly desperate genuflexions, by your logic all TUEs can be compared to Armstrongs :rolleyes:

Besides WADA didn't deem it an issue and didn't revoke Froome's TUE



Mark L
 
daveyt said:
So... You guys think what happened exactly? He has been on this stuff since 2011 and it's been covered up except this one time when he got a Tue?

Or it was just this one course? Which would set him up for the tour?

How does this one case fit into what I think you assume to be an Armstrong level conspiracy? And why would the Tue get leaked but none of the juicier stuff behind it?

I just don't see any logic here at all. Yes TUE's are something that could and have been abused, but they also have a place in a clean sport. Maybe riders shouldn't be allowed to compete on this stuff and wada should review it, but that's a separate issue.
But cycling is most certainly not a clean sport.

We can agree on that?
 
ebandit said:
There was no TUE committee for Froome's TUE....which is what you call "bending the rules"

.....there was no TUE committee at all for any TUE so again, despite your increasingly desperate genuflexions, by your logic all TUEs can be compared to Armstrongs :rolleyes:

Besides WADA didn't deem it an issue and didn't revoke Froome's TUE



Mark L
Armsrong's TUE / trace amounts were verified by the French Ministry. Wasn't only the UCI.

One backdated, the other one got a express emergency TUE the morning before killing a mountain stage then taking the world ITT champion to the edge.... all while sick (apprently).

Sorry but Armstrong & Froome are very alike, with the exception of about 39.5mg's in Froome's favour :rolleyes:
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
veganrob said:
But cycling is most certainly not a clean sport.

We can agree on that?
It hasn't been. I do think it is better than most now.

And now you can lol and say something about 10 years ago or mention a recent bust of an astana rider. But I would be gutted if any of the top 10 riders were still at it. Time will tell. And I hope we can agree that time WILL tell, and the riders must know this too.
 
daveyt said:
It hasn't been. I do think it is better than most now.

And now you can lol and say something about 10 years ago or mention a recent bust of an astana rider. But I would be gutted if any of the top 10 riders were still at it. Time will tell. And I hope we can agree that time WILL tell, and the riders must know this too.
No, Im not going to LOL. However, I think that it is the top 10 or a few more, that are really the most guilty of abusing the PED's
 
ebandit said:
Froome's TUE was verified by WADA

Mark L
It was? How did WADA verify Froome's TUE the morning of the race?

What you meant to say WADA backed the UCI on the process but not the substance. They were then caught with their trousers down over the one man show committee which the UCI are still yet to demonstrate is in place.

If you're happy with the process to give Froome a pass then your standards must be very low. Many haven't given Armstrong the same pass :cool:
 
thehog said:
It was? How did they verify Froome's TUE the morning of the race?

What you meant to say WADA backed the UCI on the process but not the substance. They were then caught with their trousers down over the one man show committee which the UCI are still yet to demonstrate is in place.

If you're happy with that process to give Froome a pass then your standards must be very low. Many haven't given Armstrong the same pass :cool:
No revoke of Froome's TUE...procedural issue or not......you cant make that go away Hog....however hard you try

But.....let's leave this as is......we aren't going to agree and it is getting a little boring for me and everybody else

Mark L
 
ebandit said:
No revoke of Froome's TUE...procedural issue or not......you cant make that go away Hog....however hard you try

But.....let's leave this as is......we aren't going to agree and it is getting a little boring for me and everybody else

Mark L
How do you revoke a TUE that has already been given? WADA can't do that especially when Sky get it the morning of the race.

No that can't happen. WADA are not a TUE checking body. That's not their job. That would have been the job of a "committee". If it was in place.

Is it in place? We still don't know :rolleyes:
 
It's a pity you didn't leave it, hog, and had to put in one more fib.....

thehog said:
How do you revoke a TUE that has already been given? WADA can't do that especially when Sky get it the morning of the race.

No that can't happen. WADA are not a TUE checking body. That's not their job. That would have been the job of a "committee". If it was in place.
From the WADA policy on TUES

10.0 Review of TUE Decisions by WADA
10.1 The WADA TUEC may, at any time, review the grant of a TUE to an
Athlete in the International Federation Registered Testing Pool, entered in an
International Event as described in 7.1(b), or a National Anti-Doping
Organization Registered Testing Pool. In addition to the information to be
provided as set forth in Articles 7.1 and 7.2, the WADA TUEC may also seek
additional information from the Athlete, including further studies as described in
Article 8.10. If a decision granting a TUE is reversed by WADA upon review,the reversal shall not apply retroactively and shall not disqualify the Athlete’s
results during the period for which the TUE had been granted and shall take
effect no later than fourteen (14) days following notification of the decision to
the Athlete.
You were saying?

thehog said:
How do you revoke a TUE that has already been given? WADA can't do that ...

No that can't happen. WADA are not a TUE checking body. That's not their job.
Can't happen, indeed :rolleyes:
 
bobbins said:
The UCI have form backdating Sky TUEs. I imagine after doing it once, it becomes tougher to refuse.
Agreed. And its not WADAs job to act as the committee the UCI should have had in place.

Sounds like Farrell had the process down and knew who to call to get it "arranged". Lucky it was leaked so we know what was going on.
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
daveyt said:
So... You guys think what happened exactly? He has been on this stuff since 2011 and it's been covered up except this one time when he got a Tue?

Or it was just this one course? Which would set him up for the tour?

How does this one case fit into what I think you assume to be an Armstrong level conspiracy? And why would the Tue get leaked but none of the juicier stuff behind it?

I just don't see any logic here at all. Yes TUE's are something that could and have been abused, but they also have a place in a clean sport. Maybe riders shouldn't be allowed to compete on this stuff and wada should review it, but that's a separate issue.
Any takers on the logic?
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
bobbins said:
The UCI have form backdating Sky TUEs. I imagine after doing it once, it becomes tougher to refuse.
This has been posted /suggested before but I don't recall any further details.
Can you enlighten me?
 
ebandit said:
It's a pity you didn't leave it, hog, and had to put in one more fib.....



From the WADA policy on TUES



You were saying?



Can't happen, indeed :rolleyes:
I think you need to provide a link for that.... :rolleyes:

Again, WADA can't revoke an emergency TUE. Not possible.

This is second time you've failed to provide links. Its becoming common practice :cool:
 
thehog said:
I think you need to provide a link for that.... :rolleyes:

Again, WADA can't revoke an emergency TUE. Not possible.

This is second time you've failed to provide links. Its becoming common practice :cool:
No, they cant. But they can overrule it after the fact and (AFAIK) sanction both rider and federation. IIRC they ok'd the TUE after reviewing the facts about the illness and medication required, but were unhappy about the fact the 'committee' was only one person but lets not let the facts get in the way shall we.

And as ebandit pointed out - if Froome's TUE was 'illegal' so were any others (if any) that were issued, its just that those ones weren't leaked...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS