Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 203 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
the sceptic said:
The TUE should never have been handed out in the first place. Dawg was not sick and there was no emergency. the UCI went against WADAs rules when they handed it out despite not passing through a committee. Those are facts Martin. Sky took advantage of this loophole to dope up the Dawg on horse steroids.

But please, do continue with your pointless vortexing Martin.
Ball, not man (or should I say horse, or elephant, or mammoth??)
 
TheSpud said:
Elephant steroids now - heavens, whatever next? Woolly Mammoth steroids?

So what if they are used on horses - strangely most mammals have the same underlying biology & chemical make up, so the following probably puts it in to perspective.

The usual horse dosage is between 0.25-1mg per Kg of horse. Typical horse is probably 1000lbs = 454Kg, therefore the dose would be between
113mg and 454mg.


I believe Froome was prescribed 40mg of Pred (per day probably) which is nearer the upper end of the usual dosage for a human (based on easily researchable information). So, about 0.66mg per Kg (based on Froome being 66Kg) - not exactly out of range for body size.
At the time someone on Twitter said they used it for COPD or prescribed it, I don't remember exactly, but the person said it was 20 mg or so

And obviously COPD is much worse than whatever Froome had
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
thehog said:
I would agree, smoke and mirrors. The TUE was approved by one person and wasn’t referred thus WADA could not investigate the individuals need for the TUE. Froome dodges a bullet, again.

Just to think if the story was never leaked... we never would have known.
yes, then we would have been mad for suggesting Froome might have been doping when he was dropping Nibali and beating Tony Martin in the TT.

Either way, hopefully the TUE loophole is closed now and sky will no longer gain an unfair advantage that way.
 
LaFlorecita said:
At the time someone on Twitter said they used it for COPD or prescribed it, I don't remember exactly, but the person said it was 20 mg or so

And obviously COPD is much worse than whatever Froome had
I stand corrected, I found this:

http://www.drugs.com/dosage/prednisolone.html#Usual_Adult_Dose_for_Bronchopulmonary_Dysplasia

seems Froome could have had far more - 200mg initial + 80mg every other day. Assuming this is what he was suffering - everything else is not lung / chest related by the looks of it.
 
the sceptic said:
yes, then we would have been mad for suggesting Froome might have been doping when he was dropping Nibali and beating Tony Martin in the TT.

Either way, hopefully the TUE loophole is closed now and sky will no longer gain an unfair advantage that way.
It’s a huge stretch to say it was reviewed but I get how some want to pretend that it was. The WADA TUEC per the documentation provided did not look over the individual TUE.

Agreed the context is very important. The fact that he was able to drop the Tour de France champion, so easily and then beating Tony Martin shows that he really wasn’t sick and gaining an unfair advantage over his competitors.

The next problem is, that the UCI hasn’t come back to show if they now have a TUEC, thus the “Sky loophole” probably still exists. And perhaps it only exists for them.
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
the sceptic said:
The TUE should never have been handed out in the first place. Dawg was not sick and there was no emergency. the UCI went against WADAs rules when they handed it out despite not passing through a committee. Those are facts Martin. Sky took advantage of this loophole to dope up the Dawg on horse steroids.

But please, do continue with your pointless vortexing Martin.
You have solid evidence that Froome was not sick?

Why just that one time or do you think Froome was lying when he said there was only one other TUE previously?

Do you think the result would have been different if there had been 3 doctors?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
daveyt said:
You have solid evidence that Froome was not sick?

Why just that one time or do you think Froome was lying when he said there was only one other TUE previously?

Do you think the result would have been different if there had been 3 doctors?
Yes. The evidence is in watching the race.

No sick person could ride like that. He was toying with everyone. Even waiting for Spilak just for fun.
 
thehog said:
Multiple Sclerosis and Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia and still win Romandie?

:eek:

Cool!
An irrelevant post since he clearly doesn't have MS.

Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia is the nearest on that list to what he was suffering from - I'm not a doctor but I do know that Broncho is more chest related than MS. Why not stick to the facts?
 
For better or worse in professional sport there has to be a line drawn.....which side of that line you stands determines whether you are cheating or not....if all dope were legalised within sport it would no longer be cheating.......you don't like the fact that Froome took cough medicine.....but that is the fault of where the line is drawn (tue) and not Froome's.

That the drawer of the line (WADA) cleared Froome of all wrongdoing is all there is to it......Scep and Hog may not like it but in reality their opinion is not relevant for the reasons stated above

Try as hard as you like, boys, but your opinion is not the rules. Sorry.

Mark L
 
"It’s a huge stretch to say it was reviewed"

Can you explain to me the logic behind how you get to that conclusion based on the fact that WADA commented on the TUE?

Quote: “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.


Thus the “Sky loophole” probably still exists. And perhaps it only exists for them.

On what basis do you make that claim? Do you know about TUEs for other teams that were not granted? If so please share.
 
the sceptic said:
Yes. The evidence is in watching the race.

No sick person could ride like that. He was toying with everyone. Even waiting for Spilak just for fun.
So, that's no evidence, then. Just your usual trolling.
Quelle surprise.
Time for anyone with sense to bail this......................debate.
 
TheSpud said:
An irrelevant post since he clearly doesn't have MS.

Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia is the nearest on that list to what he was suffering from - I'm not a doctor but I do know that Broncho is more chest related than MS. Why not stick to the facts?
Facts, sure.

Froome is an infant now? :rolleyes:

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia

Consult a doctor if you have a medical concern.


Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a chronic lung condition that affects newborn babies who were either put on a breathing machine after birth or were born very early (prematurely).
 
TheSpud said:
"It’s a huge stretch to say it was reviewed"

Can you explain to me the logic behind how you get to that conclusion based on the fact that WADA commented on the TUE?

Quote: “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.

.
8.10 WADA shall communicate the reasoned decision of the WADA TUEC promptly to the Athlete and to his/her National Anti-Doping Organization and
International Federation (and, if applicable, the Major Event Organization).
WADA's reasoned decision on Froome's TUE, you have a link to this?
 
thehog said:
Facts, sure.

Froome is an infant now? :rolleyes:
Well indeed infants do suffer from it. BUT I never said Froome had it - I said it was the nearest on that list to what he was suffering from. I said it not Froome. Also, if you look carefully the dosage I quoted was an adult dose.

So, yet again - a deflection / irrelevant post.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Mellow Velo said:
So, that's no evidence, then. Just your usual trolling.
Quelle surprise.
Time for anyone with sense to bail this......................debate.
Trolling? Maybe you should go back to the velorooms safe haven if you can't deal with people calling Froome a doper.

Look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ht-Ua6T_5uE#t=606

Tour champion Nibali fighting for dear life for almost exactly 1 minute before getting dropped like a stone by the sick Dawg.
 
TheSpud said:
Well indeed infants do suffer from it. BUT I never said Froome had it - I said it was the nearest on that list to what he was suffering from. I said it not Froome. Also, if you look carefully the dosage I quoted was an adult dose.

So, yet again - a deflection / irrelevant post.
So Froome is near an infants age? Got it :cool: but hasn't got it.

ummm ok, relevancy? :rolleyes:
 
thehog said:
WADA's reasoned decision on Froome's TUE, you have a link to this?
No I don't, mainly because, no doubt, you have quoted out of context since a 'reasoned decision' would be something that would go against the riders position (if they were in agreement why would they issue a 'reasoned decision'). And, as you have quoted above, it would be communicated to the rider in question.

So, again, another deflection / irrelevant post - since if there was one we would never see it, unless of course it was leaked.

Why not just answer the question I asked - how did you come to the conclusion it wasn't reviewed. Its quite simple - just tell me how. What facts / information did you consider?
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
the sceptic said:
Trolling? Maybe you should go back to the velorooms safe haven if you can't deal with people calling Froome a doper.

Look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ht-Ua6T_5uE#t=606

Tour champion Nibali fighting for dear life for almost exactly 1 minute before getting dropped like a stone by the sick Dawg.
I understand the medicine is supposed to be that effective. And that result is what you would expect with them both healthy.
 
TheSpud said:
No I don't, mainly because, no doubt, you have quoted out of context since a 'reasoned decision' would be something that would go against the riders position (if they were in agreement why would they issue a 'reasoned decision'). And, as you have quoted above, it would be communicated to the rider in question.
Mark L said it was reviewed, did he not? I've not seen the reasoned decision. I'd like to see it, wouldn't you?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts